Talk:Philosophy/Archive 6

message: From the article:
:The discipline of philosophy once included all forms of knowledge, and all methods for attaining it. 
Did philosophy ever really include procedural knowledge - apart, that is, from various attempts to differentiate it from propositional knowledge? Would a philosopher consider, for example, how to make a pot, apart from how to make a good pot? If not, then I suggest that this line is not true. Banno 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural knowledge 

message: :Philosophy can be seen as a method of rational inquiry, with the approaches used varying considerably
Nietzsche himself said that his philosophy is not based on reason. And there are many other so-called philosophers whose thinking couldn't ba labeled as rational inquiry.--Arado 11:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. This is something to be considered. But I think, ultimately, that even Neitzsche was engaged in a process of reasoning. You can find arguments in his works. Lucidish 17:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line Philosophy can be seen as a method of rational inquiry should be placed in context; it was used [] to differentiate philosophy from religion. Banno 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that the context was especially relevant or accurate. It's not relevant since we can discuss the positive emphasis upon "rationality" as a key feature of Philosophy without requiring a discussion of religion; religion is not necessary to explaining the point about reason. And it's not accurate because there is such a thing as religious philosophy. Lucidish 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: the proponents of Nietzsche should take great care here. Do they really wish to claim him as an irrational philosopher? Isn't it rather the case that he used irrationality as a rhetorical tool, and that his arguments themselves are profoundly rational? Banno 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if Nietzsche's writings are not "rational inquiry" (I would argue that they are), they certainly fall under "literature in a certain tradition". — goethean ॐ 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rational inquiry 

message: A parenthetic comment and a list in the first paragraph. Yuck. Banno 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would like the first paragraph better as a paragraph than as a list. The parenthetic comment (which I just realized contains another set of parenthses) took the place of the sentence on etymology, which was off-subject. If you don't like the first sentence containing a parenthetical comment, then you don't like very many wikipedia articles. — goethean ॐ 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, we'll make it a paragraph. I don't think that etymology is off-subject at all, though. It's the first thing to look at in a semantic analysis. Parenthesis may be a necessary evil. Lucidish 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Possible uses. That should be clarified, naturally. Lucidish 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Banno might be implying is that he doesn't like having a section header over the "overview" section. In the preceding version, the intro paragraph did lead more easily into the rest of the intro (which has now become the "overview" section, if you follow me). — goethean ॐ 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll leave you to edit it as you see fit, and comment later, as too many editors working at the same time will prove too confusing. I agree that the entomology should be included, the only question being where and how. And yes, I do think parenthetic comments should be avoided, especially in introductions. Banno 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put etymology in the overview-of-uses section, which scraps the parentheses. Also de-listed the thing. Hope that works. Lucidish 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: With all respect, the view of analytic philosophy presented here has a strong bias to the tradition of linguistic/conceptual analysis, and to such fields as epistemology. It doesn't reflect the reaction against a lot of this that happened in the late 20th century, and is still happening. On the one hand, many philosophers want to have a far more practical discipline. Many philosophers (sometimes the same ones) want to be much more informed by (and involved with) science. See current applied ethics, moral psychology, and philosophy of biology, and the work of Peter Singer, Daniel Dennett, Michael Ruse, Elliott Sober, Philip Kitcher, and many others. I've made some small changes to soften this bias. Metamagician3000 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of some work on metaphysics from Nagel I must confess ignorance in this area, any contribution you may give is absolutely appreciated. (Though perhaps this may not be the article for anything more than the punchlines, since it's a generic philosophy article, not specialized to analytic philosophy.) Lucidish 02:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistic analysis bias

message: Just altered a few sentences here and there. Probably a bit piecemeal (reading the article I felt it could do with an overhaul) but hopefully improvements (albeit slight) Fabulist 15:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bits and bobs 

message: A few comments on recent comments...
Firstly, I noticed that Owl's preferred structure is much the structure of the present article. It could be achieved by promoting the section on Philosophical traditions. I agree that the present section on history of philosophy is lacking in its description of analytic philosophy, I think this is a result of having been written by those with a delight in continental philosophy. But remember that this section needs to be brief, a lead-in to the main article, so we need to keep any re-writing short.
And yes, the end of the article is a link-fest. Not sure what to do about that. 
In any case, thanks for your input, Owl.
Thanks also to DBuckner. Actually, it was I who suggested "alternate" as a way of capturing the notion of a disjunction of conjuncts. That is, the definition and usage does indeed alternate between the rivals, depending on time, place and company. Perhaps this is an aberration of my particular native tongue? 
I am going to have to write a piece on the role of authority in the Wiki. DBuckner, if what you want is a place in which only real-world authorities may edit, then the Wiki is not the place for you. Appeals to authority simply do not work here.
: Not at all.  Just that we might profit from the advice from authorities, just as in writing an article on brain surgery and quantum mechanics.  See my 'consensus' list of points below.  I keep saying this: none of this should be a million miles from any standard reference work on the subject.  By no means blindly follow them, but do not be radically different either.   Dbuckner 09:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, I've noticed of the articles I've written (and I have written many completely from scratch) have very little changes made to them.  Once an article gets to a state where it looks coherent and well rounded &c, people are surprisingly reluctant to change things).Dbuckner 09:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Banno, your comments would be far more helpful if you gave reasons for supporting these measures. I find this novel introduction deeply flawed. Lucidish 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority and equivocation 

message: I hope you're having fun.  I just dropped by to let you know I haven't forgotten this article. Rick Norwood 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, another expert.  Dbuckner 10:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still at it, I see. 

message: Good grief, what's happened to this article?  It wasn't brilliant before, but it's now a mess.  I mean: "Formally, philosophy can be regarded as a broad discipline wherein all knowlege is abstracted for the purpose of being communicated accross divergent fields"?  The whole article is full of that sort of stuff.  I told my undergraduates some time ago to be very cautious about Wikipedia on philosophical matters, but I'm beginning to think that I should just warn them off it altogether. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the history page and you will find far more adequate edits. People are simply reverting and revising at whim. This is an example of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia system when the urge to cooperate has broken down. You should probably advise your students in light of that. Lucidish 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My sincere best wishes, Ludvikus 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up template