Talk:Philosophy/Archive 10

message: Why does this section include virtually nothing from the 2000 years of western philosophy before Descartes?  For instance, what about the metaphysical discussions of Aristotle, the post-Aristotelians, the Neo-Platonists, the Arabic and Jewish philosophers, and the Scholastics.  
This article has a bias I see often in the study of philosophy today (and I say this as a PhD candidate in philosophy) because it only mentions the 20 centuries of philosophy before Descartes as though they were not philosophy but only the history of philosophy.  That's a strong bias and should not be present in an encyclopedia article.
:Well actually, the structure of the article used to be a lot better, but then all of these topics were treated under the heading "History" (you may have noticed the awkward gap in the historical overview of Western philosophy between Francis Bacon and the Analytic Continental distinction; you may have noticed too that what falls under the heading "philosophical topics" is more or less in chronological order). Anyway, the heading "History of philosophy" apparently offended someone. So they changed it this way and, in my humble opinion, ruined the good structure of the article. 
:Now I see no reason why the topics dealt with in the article can't be arranged chronologically the way they used to be and put under the heading "history of philosophy". When I pointed this out (see here) I was told that "The history of philosophy as such can be understood the placement of key publications and events within the greater social and biographical context. The 'topics' section doesn't try to do that. True, it does list movements chronologically, but this is nothing but a stylistic choice." Of course this is completely false. This is not what the history of philosophy is about (I know, I am a Ph.D. candidate working on Ancient Philosophy. And anyway, anyone who doesn't believe me can check out journals like, say, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Phronesis or Ancient Philosophy.)
:One can write about the history of philosophy as history and one can write about the history of philosophy as philosophy. Virtually all "historians" of philosophy do the latter and are not concerned primarily with placement of key publications and biographical context (although they may be sensitive to the dangers of anachronisms). An example of the latter -- i.e. writing about the history of philosophy as philosophy -- would be to go through the history of philosophy explaining along the way the concerns, problems and arguments of philosophers in history and sheding light on their influence on one another.
:Now, the section from Descartes to Wittgenstein -- currently under the heading of "Topics" -- reads like a blend of the two - and, in fact, a little bit more like the history of philosophy as history than as the history of philosophy as philosophy due to it's conciseness (summarizing theories and ideas extremely briefly and mentioning quite a few key writings in the history of philosophy and the reasons why they were written, but placing little emphasis on e.g. arguments and counterarguments). So "history of philosophy" as I understand it would actually be even more philosophical in nature than most of the "Topics" section is anyway. And that's all the more reason to put most of the "Topics" section back where it belongs.
:The bottom line is that the section on the history of philosophy once read nicely through from the ancients to Wittgenstein, but doesn't anymore. And, as you point out, the "Topics" section lacks many topics from before Descartes. Now I don't think it was right to fix the problem of the lack of discussion about the major areas of philosophy by ruining an already succeful section by way of transplanting material from the historical section into the topical section. Rather, the article should have just been expanded to meet the need. I suggest that what was taken from the history section be put back there and the topics section be re-written if necessary. --D. Webb 08:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, it would be good to have some discussion about Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics. Now, I think the article would be structurally better for having the section dealing with Descartes to Wittgenstein and some of the stuff under the heading "ethics" put back in the history section (and, anyway, most of it reads more or less like history as history) but Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics could certainly be viewed as philosophical topics of contemporary interest no less than the other topics. --D. Webb 08:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Topics 

message: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."
Kant strikes me as the silliest of philosophers, and I recommend a little book called "The Critique of Impure Reason".  In particular, the categorical imperative leaves no room for human diversity.  But, sigh, this is original research. Rick Norwood 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research?  "What if everbody did that?"

message: Hey people, I thought that the list of philosophy subjects needed to be a bit expanded, so I did that. Tell me what you think. Please reply to me either on here, or through my personal Talk Page. --Lord X 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended the links on topics of philosophy

message: History section mainly describes "history of western philosophy". There are several big regional branches, so I think History section should be divided into two or three (maybe more) sections, like 1.History of Western philosopy. 2. History of Eastern Philosophy. etc. Janviermichelle 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Good work, Jagged 85. Rick Norwood 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jagged 85's edit 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Responses_to_Objectivism
If you wish to participate, I ask that you carefully read the commentary to get some idea of what's going on.  I'll say no more, as you need to make your own decision. Al 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of possible interest. 

message: There is a dispute on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) on the matter of whether Ayn Rand's Objectivism qualifies for the category of Cult.  This may be of interest to editors of this article. Al 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rand and cults. 

message: [I have posted this also at Aey's own talk page.]
Aey, you recently substituted this for something that most of us, I'm sure, thought was quite sensible:
:Nietzsche, whose contributions to philosophy extend beyond existentialist thought, developed complex aesthetico-philosophical premises, based in part upon the concept of the will to power; existentialists tend to see Nietzsche's thought as one characteristic of a self-defining paradigm.
Now, I don't want an edit war. But you came in claiming that this amounted to "Correctives to misinformationist edits". That edit summary tells us very little, and (may I say) is barely literate. Please explain:
# What was wrong with the information you replaced?
# What are the "complex aesthetico-philosophical premises" of which you speak? (Why do you mention them, and why do you label them in that obscure way?)
# Which existentialists are they, who think that way about Nietzsche?
# What is a "self-defining paradigm"? How can Nietzsche's thought be reasonably considered "one characteristic" of it?
Thanks. I look forward to enlightenment! Noetica 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that my summary there had a typo (I was in a hurry). To put it briefly, the original had information that suggested Nietzsche's project was about developing some "superhuman race" or whatever, which is simply a Nazi reading or what have you. The "premises" I mention aren't obscure at all: he very clearly defined them as aesthetic and philosophical in nature. And, generally speaking, all existentialists (by dint of definition) read Nietzsche in the way I described. Existentialists are those that characterize his thought as a "self-defining paradigm", which means exactly what it says: any individual "defines" his or her "self" (not to say I agree with them, or anything alike). I can clarify the last point in the article if needed. Aey 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aey. I strongly advise that you do indeed clarify all of your proposed contribution, and that you reflect carefully about the value of what you propose to replace. "Self-defining paradigm" is unlikely to be understood in the way you intend; it looks more as if some sort of a paradigm is somehow supposed to be defining itself. I will intervene, and I suspect others may also, if the result is not an enhancement, or not easily understood. Noetica 07:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after that other person came in and fixed up a lot of stuff, I really didn't have to do much. Please tell me if there are other problems or anything. Aey 08:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah I noticed that edit.  Not really sure, but doesn't existentialism hold individualism to be true? Poor Yorick 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's how you can put it. According to Sartre, all are "condemned to be free". Aey 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (By the way a fine example of an unanalytic, but pretty, claim). Narssarssuaq 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aey: what do you mean?

message: Want to pat self on back, encourage others to participate I like philosophy, so I started the Department of Philosophy in the School of Humanities. Join in! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy on [[Wikiversity]]