Talk:Philosophy/Archive 12

message: Here are some online sources for papers and other information from Professor's at Rutgers University:
*Rutgers Philosophy Homepage - go to Courses, and then course webpages for syllabi and readings provided by professors
*Steven Stich's Webpage
*Frank Arntzenius's website
Note: These sites may change significantly every semester. 
--165.230.46.67 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Professor Sources 

message: ...even for me, a student of philosophy. It should have:
* More concise and clearer definition of philosophy (as opposed to the current state of swirling it through etymology and other linguistics/word-stuff). Or at least it should have much more citations included if it is circled around different interpretations.
* There is almost a self-dialogue-like feel to the introductory part. Very unencyclopedic and very unprofessional. Needs drastic improvements throughout.
* References, references (a lot of statements in the intro are very confusing, because there aren't sources/references provided that would enlighten the reader)!
It's absolutely appalling that this article is considered to be a core topic and it is in a state like this. An article considered core topic should in my opinion be a featured article, or at least very, very close to a one. And now it's rated B. Disgraceful. Otvaltak 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction is too long and confusing 

message: Content arguments aside, the structure and language of this article is rough and amateur at best.  Could an English professor or two with some background in philosophy spend a few minutes re-doing the worst sections?TeamZissou 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be editted 

message: See history page.  Could whoever is removing the cleanup tags discuss this on the talk page before doing so.  Dbuckner 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: Hi all. Anybody sees the need and the place to add a link to digital philosophy on this page? Regards.--Powo 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital philosophy 

message: (Please see heading above on this topic (the introduction) to which a number of 
people familiar with the area have contributed.)
The introduction is still poor.  The opening about etymology contains the sixth-grade 'It can be construed then either as the love of wisdom or the wisdom of love.'  It is nowhere mentioned that many philosophers consider the etymology misleading or unhelpful.
Then there follows a bit about the 'schism' between analytic and continental.  A bit too detailed for an introduction, plus it introduces the new idea of 'western philosophy'.   
Then some 'tentative definitions'.  'The study or discussion of the truths, principles and practices of knowledge, and conduct, being, and ideology'.  This is ungrammatical.  What is the practice of being?  What is the practice of conduct?  As for 'That which grasps its own era in thought', what does that mean.  Similarly 'The dissolution and relief from enigmas and mysteries' is ungrammatical.
For all of the definitions, citations are needed.  Dbuckner 08:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the intro. is very poor. I prefer to see a "Phil. is ..." definition, expanded on as the article goes on. I concur that the anal./cont. distinction is given too much prominence too soon. The list of multiple defns. isn't helpful so early in the article. What is an acceptable one-sentence defn. of the subject to start the entry? I have suggested (C) above. JJL 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The discussion was irrelevant to my criticism that there are no references for the claims in the introduction.  Which philosopher defined philosophy as 'That which grasps its own era in thought'?  If you can't find a reference eventually I will delete the whole introduction.  Dbuckner 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction 

message: I've taken a quick glance at the layout of the article, and it seems that some of the borders are clashing and over-lapping on the right side of the screen. It can probably be corrected with some minor paragraph clean-ups. I'll do what I can, but I won't be able to do it all.
:I have unaligned the table of contents for the meantime to eliminate the overlapping problem. Although there is a lot of whitespace beside it now, it looked a bit too packed with text up there before. As to any thumbnails overlapping with the "need of attention from an expert" templates, hopefully we'll be able to get rid of those soon. Pomte 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clashing of borders 

message: This (27 Dec 2006) is the worst yet.  I've reapplied the clean-up tags.  Would anyone like to claim credit for this?  Dbuckner 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's totally content-free and summarizes nothing about the topic or the article to come. I'll put back the (imperfect) version from a few weeks ago until something better can be written. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you think it's a bit like ploughing the ocean?  Dbuckner 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When it comes to content disputes, I have gotten into the habit of making the argument that philosophy is always going to be a bit nebulous, and maybe I'd say something about how the public school systems totally and completely fail to teach core material, making it easier for totally innocent misconceptions to arise. But that would be if we were dealing with substantive disputes. The most recent intro has so little content that it is not even wrong. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest version of the introduction 

message: Philosophy comes from the ancient Greek words philo, to love or to befriend, and sophia,
     to be wise. It can be construed then either as the love of wisdom or the wisdom of love.
The above is what I found today when I visited the page for the first time. Accordingly, since the view here expounded -- that "Philosophy comes from an ancient Greek word" -- I presumed it would not take much effort to improve it!!! --Ludvikus 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Philosophy comes from a word"? 

message: To avoid the accusation of ethnocentrism, it is important to distinguish among cultures, and their relation to the subject of philosophy. On the other hand, we are writing for the English language Wikipedia. This itself justifies beginning with Western Philosophy.
:As any of us who are trained in the history of the West, and more particulary the History of Philosophy, the ideas of Science, and Knowledge before it, are new ideas. As I've introduced into the article already, Newton called his book "Natural Philosophy." In other words, Newtons work, which we now call Physics, was in Newton's time a brach of Philosophy.
:So in this ENCYCLOPEDIA we must explain how Physics, today, is regarded as a subject distinct from Philosophy.
:What some may regard as trivial, I do not - namely, the shifting meaning of words in history!
:I do not see any way of writing a good article on philosophy without considering both its history, and the change in meaning, or the change in the conception, in a historical context. 
:I would find it extremely useful if I were to receive specific coments, rather than vague generalities about inadequacies. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy, Eastern and Western 

message: A User, above, would like the Introduction/First paragraph to give a definition, or a quite definite specification, as to what philosophy is. But this is impossible - because there are, arguably, as many as there were philosophers since Philosophy began 2,500 years ago.
:To be specific, in satisfaction of that user, we might say as follows (naming each philosopher):
   * Philosophy is the proposition that there is no change (Parmenides).
   * Philosophy is the proposition that all is change (Heracleitus).
   * Etc., ...
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Schools of Philosophy 

message: >> Will you take offense if I remind you here that it is easier to be a critique than a producer.  (Ludovicus)
----
Well I've tried working on this article many times before.  But since you ask, I have replaced the current, slack introduction, with a very short one.  I've moved the cleanup tags to an appropriate place.  Dbuckner 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New introduction 

message: The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. Its literal meaning derives from the ancient Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom."  It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; a body of philosophical literature that created over the centuries by a culture or civilization, as in 'Hindu philosophy'; a personal outlook or viewpoint, as in 'my philosophy of life'; truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone.
This article, however, concerns what is sometimes called 'academic philosophy'.  Philosophy, in this sense, is the discipline whose subject matter is the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality, whose goal is to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates, and whose method is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality.  See the article Definition of philosophy for the sources of this definition of philosophy
*I oppose include examples of Eastern philosophy in the introduction to a subject which has, until very recent times, has been an isolated European subject, influenced by Islam, and somewhat by the Middle East primarily in its Biblical roots.
*How the "common man", or the "man in the street," views philosophy should also not be included here. What a "housewife" (dear educated housewives, please forgive me) believes philosophy is, also should not be included in the opening paragraph - do we really want the trivial, "what's your philosophy" included here?
*And the fact that there is a huge body of work (texts) which falls under the category of PHILOSOPHICAL - of what help is that, to our enlightenment?
*And isn't physics, Academic? As is medicine? There is, I know, the notion of alternative medicine!!! And there are those who seek it. There is also chiropractic (I probably misspelled it). And also. accupuncture.
*I suggest an article entitled, Ordinary man's philosophy (as opposed to, Ordinary language philosophy.
:Yours truly, Ludvikus 16:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of 'housewives' in the current introduction.  As to the 'ordinary' view of philosophy, it should be mentioned if only to inform the reader that philosophy is not actually this.  The introduction says 1.  Its literal meaning is 'love of wisdom'.  2.  It can mean a number of other things.  3.  This article is not about those things, but 'academic philosophy'.  What's wrong with that?  Dbuckner 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Introduction - by [[User:Dbuckner]] 

message: The notion of Philosophy, in the English language, may best be explained by accounting for  the word, its meaning, and its history. When other European languages are considered, etymologically, it is found that the same word exists there as well, indicating a common heritage. That is not necessarily the case with other languages whose speakers are not in physical proximity to the Mediterranean Sea. The word enters our language in the Fourteenth Century. It does so by way of (in reverse chronological order) Middle English, Old French, Latin, and Greek. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996,  As it turns out, both the word, and the subject behind the notion, shift, or change with time, or in historical context, as is more fully narrated below. In brief, philosphy , orginally, roughly, encompassed all that we today mean by the three words,  science, knowledge, and wisdom. As the content of these subjects increased, and changed, and in more recent times, with the historical phenomena known as the Industrial Revolution, and its consequent division of labor, philosophy became a vestige of what was left and not subsumed by the specialized sciences. Says author, Prof. Peter A. Angeles, Professor of Philosophy, "Philosophy has as many meanings as philosophers engaging in it." Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angeles, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1981), 
*Please note, to begin with, that the above concerns, inter alia, the notion, rather than the word. It also traces etymological evolution with a dictionary duly cited. User:Dbuckner, on the other hand, gives no citation, but apparently graces us with his ORIGINAL views. --Ludvikus 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I give citations in the footnote at the end of the second paragraph.  For example, the stuff about rationality is in the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.  See Definition of philosophy for all the sources.  By contrast, all this stuff about the Industrial Revolution is simply uncitable.  Dbuckner 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition Between Introductions

message: I give you Merriam-Webster's:
:philosophy \fe-la-s(e-)fe\ noun pl philosophies [ME philosophie, fr. OF, fr. L philosophia, fr. Gk, fr. philosophos philosopher] (14c)
:1	a  (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical art
:(2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy>
:3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
:b  (1) archaic : physical science
:(2) : ethics
:c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
:2	a : pursuit of wisdom
:b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
:c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
:3	a : a system of philosophical concepts
:b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
:4	a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
:b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
:(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Why don't we use the dictionary as a guide & outline? Ludvikus 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On not re-inventing the wheel - So what is philosophy?

message: Philosophy is the investigation and analysis of the basic principles which are the basis of all our knowledge and  activity and are normally taken for granted. As a concept and as a subject it encompases all of knowledge and all that can be known including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired. The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. This organization of the subject is still largely in use today and can be profitably used regardless of where one's answers to specific philosophical questions lie.
Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of existence in the most fundamental sense. It attempts to answer the question as to what are the most fundamental attributes that all existing things share, if any, as well as fundamental questions concerning how they relate to one another. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and how man can know things. As such certain aspects of the functioning of man's mind  is included -- his rational faculty (particularly his conceptual capacity) and how it functions as well as his emotional nature. Ethics is concerned with the nature of values and in particular how this concept applies to man and his relationship to the external world and to other men. Politics is concerned with the behavior of men toward one another in the social context. Hence the first question of politics as a philosophical subject might be: how should men deal with one another in such a social context? Thus it can be seen that politics is really a sub-category of ethics since ethical criteria must be used in order to answer its questions. Aesthetics is concerned with man's artistic creations. It also involves choice, i.e., value criteria and as such can also be viewed as a sub-category of ethics. 
There are a number of broad approaches to the subject as a whole which vary according to the traditions of people all over the world. One notable approach is that of Western philosophy, a school of thought originated by the Greeks and developed in the West (discussed above). Eastern philosophy is considered its counterpart since subjective non-rational criteria are largely used to evaluate and resolve issues. The methodology of philosophy is itself debated within the field of metaphilosophy and epistemology.
----
: Why do you say 'Western philosophy' and 'Eastern philosophy'.  Since the idea of a rational, non-subjective method is essential to 'Western philosophy', and since the very opposite applies to 'Eastern philosophy', how do they comprise 'the subject as a whole'?  I've long fought two battles on this page 1.  To distinguish clearly the discipline of 'academic' or 'western' philosophy from anything else 2.  To have the name 'philosophy' applied to the 'academic' variety.  (You don't have a department of Western philosophy, for example).  Perhaps I should give up on (2) as a lost cause.  In which case, we have an article entitled 'Western philosophy' or 'academic philosophy' or whatever, and delete all reference to Kant, Descartes &c from this page.Dbuckner 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work, User:JJL. Just please Sign your part(s). Unfortunately, I'm distracted by User:Dbuckner's interjections. Your overall generalization is truly EXCELLENT.You have my total support. Unfortunately, your work is being chopped up by these instant & distracting questioning interjections by Use:Dbuckner. Yours truly, Ludvikus 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (A) Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation

message: Philosophy as a form of analysis is really quite a narrow category to include it under.  Secondly, saying it refers to all knowledge only covers (badly) epsitemology (unless you want to calll ethics knowledge).  Thirdly, we already have an article on Western philosophy and this opening should be general enough to apply to Eastern, African and Western philosophy.
--Lucas
: My purpose in reverting was to get the cleanup tags in place.  I have put them back at the top, where they belong, to warn any unwary reader of what follows.  This applies to the current introduction.  E.g. "The easiest clue to indicate which of these philosophies is being referred to by the word philosophy is to note the language used."  Slack, ungrammatical, no context &c.  Dbuckner 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on "Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation"

message: I find this fourth option for an intro, like the editor above, as the worst of the four optins so far.  I will list my reasons for this and it is not merely negative.  First philosophy is not a western subject anymore than it is eastern, geography is not something it concerns itself with much, in any case there is already a page Western Philosophy and unless you suggest a merge of the two pages, this statement is off the mark and dismisses the other editors above, who only seem to agree so far on etymology and not that it is a subject of western intellectuals.
I find the second sentence, "A rough, but brief, sense of what that subject is can be acquired from the etymological and linguistic analysis of the word philosophy.",
to be very awkwardly constructed.  Previously what was there was just that etymological meaning was the least disputed and agreed by all editors as a good place to start.  
References to Goliers 1957 famously inaccurate encyclopedia and to the Americanised one are poor places to go for authentic information, they seem to ignore many philosophers and give a very biased account of the subject.  
They say philosophy was science before Plato!  This is such an odd thing to say, and is contradicted by the second encylopedia.  Many of the pre-socratics weere mystics and the like not scientists, it mixes up centuries.  The second encyclopedia quoted above is clearly biased (unlike history) toward Aristotle, the author perhaps being scientifically minded.
Further trying to track down an origin for philosophy as you do by refering only to Plato and Aristotle in the introduction is a mistaken view of what it means, it loses itself in an etymological discussion which was already been given and that should be brief.
The intro should be as inclusive as possible, that means not ignoring people like Wittgenstein or Russell or Hume, nor Hegel or Heidegger nor Lau-Tzu or Confucius.
Most importantly wiki is not a meta-encyclopedia, we don't just reproduce what the dusty old ones said, there are scholars and experts directly online who know more about it than these archaic compilers. --Lucas
----
Lucas, clearly, substitutes his opinions, and philosophical view, in brief, his
own, personal philosophical view and preferences, in place of the Masters, and the recognized authorities. The ad hominum against Golier is absurd. What Golier says is by far suprior to these a-historical diatribes and ramblings in ignorance - I mean this literally - the above clearly demonstrates ignorance of writings on philosophy,or its history in the world!!! Ludvikus 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on "Philosophy as a Western intellectual subject, an defined by encyclopedias as X"

message: After giving 3 names, of ancient Greeks, in Greek, Zeller begins his Outline, "The term φιλόσοφοι, although it existed at the time, was not applied to them. It seems first to have acquired its technical sense in the circle of Socrates and Plato and only after that to have attained general currency." There is no better way to begin the INTRODUCTION than with the view of what φιλόσοφοι was according to the views of these great Greek Masters!!!
:Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (E) Philosophy originally - a la [[Edward Zeller]] 

message: I'm afraid I've had to revert again.  The point is to start with some brief remarks about what philosophy is NOT (philosophy of life, alchemy &c), followed by a short characterisation of what experts currently think it is, split into 
* its subject matter
* its method
* its object or goal
On the Eastern vs Western bit, in the first place philosophy has no geography.  Everyone studies it everywhere, and mostly always have done.  On the academic vs non-academic bit, the article as it stands is mostly about the academic bit, with bits added in that clearly do not belong, such as Zoroastranism &c.  We need to keep the two bits distinct.  If there really are going to be terrible arguments about this, why not make this a disambiguation page? Dbuckner 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I've reverted back.  Please be clear about my objection.  Others have voiced it: it is that your introduction is overlong and long-winded.  Moreover, it addresses the one issue about the characterisation of philosophy that nearly all professional philosophers agree is irrelevant: its etymology.  Nigel Warburton (English professor of philosophy who was a student of mine way back) says says the etymology is "not much help" (Philosophy: the basics).  None of the other introductions I have looked at give it much time, and rightly so.  But you insist on long and tedious rambling about the etymology.  So I deleted it.  All modern introductions to the subject insist that the method of philosophy is rational enquiry (or something similar).  Why do you omit it?  Dbuckner 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think discussing qualifications will be helpful. (Relevant, possibly, but helpful--I doubt it.) I do continue to support an intro. that is relatively short and that begins by assuming the reader wants to know what the subject is, not what it isn't. An early emphasis on the etymology is of questionable value, but I don't object to it. However, phil. has changed over the course of, what, 2800 years? To me, it's an academic subject that, in the West, is largely defined by the three major areas in which introductory college phil. courses are now given--logic, metaphysics/epistemology, and ethics (broadly construed), plus possibly the hist. of phil. as its own subject. At the introductory level, that's what philosophers teach and talk about. At some point it must be mentioned that it's the wellspring of science, that there are Eastern traditions that are important, and so on. I would probably make the East vs. West distinction early and the anal./cont. distinction much later. But, please, everyone, let's do as is done with essentially every other entry on an academic pursuit, and start with "X is..."! JJL 16:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly not helpful, but it is painful to have gone through 5 years of higher degree, taught the subject, have many publications in good journals, then suffer this.  On what philosophy is not, that is negotiable, though it is recognised that there are many misconceptions about what philosophy is, and many introductions to the subject start for that reason by saying what it isn't.  On the branches of philosophy, I agree, and that can go in, if brief.  But the main problem here is a user who is blatantly reverting to long rambling personal essays and refuses to discuss the matter except by long irrelavant and off-topic rants.  I frankly don't know how to deal with this.  Dbuckner 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting again 

message: OK I am reverting for the third time, which takes me to a territory I've never been before after nearly 4 years as regular editor in WP philosophy.  The case here is blatant and persistent OR by a problem user.  Can anyone help?  Dbuckner 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're careless here, I hope, and not a Vandal. It is User:JJL who has submitted the compromise Introduction which you believe - I hope merely CARELESSLY - was me. But it was not. So it is your FIRST REVERSION of the work of User:JJL. I therefore have, just now, merely corrected what I believe was your sloppiness. --Ludvikus 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was being careless.  You win.  It's all yours.  Dbuckner 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Graceful of you to acknowledge & concede. Good man. It's appreciated. Best wishes, --Ludvikus 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant, I give up!  The problem now is that the current introduction is not consistent with modern introductions to the subject.  Very few of them mention the etymology, and some say the etymology is confusing.  All without exception mention the canons of rationality bit, and this says nothing.  And there is still the rambling bit you are so proud of after the introduction, and there will be lots more to come.  So I concede, in the sense of, it's a lost cause.  But it ever was so in Wikipedia.  Back to Citizendium, where expert qualifications are welcomed.  Dbuckner 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3d reversion 

message: It seems that of the two sources of the above combining forms, wisdom is easier to pin down than love. And in that light, lets consider the following translations:
:1: Quest for Wisdom = Philosophy
:2: Affinity for Wisdom = Philosophy
:3: Seeking Wisdom = Philosophy
:4: Love of Wisdom = philosophy
:: Question: Is only the last correct???
: Yours, etc., Ludvikus 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wisdom]] Related