Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 9

message: Would somebody please look at Lack (manque)?  I have absolutely no idea what it means.  Corvus cornix 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, no one understands Lacan!  Seriously, though, the page is at least accurate, even if not of the highest quality.  It definitely needs to be fleshed out and brought down to a level where it can be read by an average reader. Postmodern Beatnik 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lack (manque)]]

message: Question. Which school of philisophical thought would hold closest to the idea that individual privacy is valued above all other societal needs?--Dr who1975 17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no school in philosophy that holds that position, nor could there be, if one thinks about it a while, and one holds that our lifeworld must be logically consistent. --Buridan 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand... I asked "Which school of philisophical thought would hold closest to the idea" I already knew the notion on its own is not tenable as a philispohical school. So which one comes closest?--Dr who1975 06:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ahh, then republicanism as described by machiavelli, montaigne, and pettit, as liberty in their models implies a privacy. --Buridan 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Aspects of Privacy 

message: Please have a look at formal axiology. It's written like an advert for one person, who I suspect is not the only person working in the field. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this topic nor where to begin. Anyone familiar, please have a go at bringing in neutrality. ··coelacan 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: {sigh} The "article" reads more like an essay ("concluding remarks," for example), but I suspect we'll have a lot of trouble finding an expert to write anything NPOV on the subject.  The reason is that formal axiology is not taken very seriously by anyone other than its proponents, who have a distinct tendency to be a bit... overenthusiastic about it.  So we're likely to have only people who don't know or who care too much editing the article.  This is unfortunate, since it strikes me as a topic that could truly benefit from a strong Wikipedia article.  I can put it on my list, but it'll have to go at the bottom.  Here's hoping someone else decides to put in the work faster than I can. Postmodern Beatnik 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nominated it for deletion. it strikes me as a topic that is fundamentally about relabeling someone else's conceptions in terms of axiologies then arguing they can be formalized.  i'd call it problematic.--Buridan 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: need help with POV article

message: Hello,
as part of the Notability wikiproject, I'm in need of an expert in philosophy for deciding whether Practicalism is notable for Wikipedia. If someone could spare some time to have a look at the article, please add your comments to its talk page. Thank you! --B. Wolterding 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practicalism 

message: So, I guess somebody decided to delete List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy.  There goes many months of my work and a somewhat valuable resource for new philosophers.  I hate the policies of the 'pedia. KSchutte 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted via WP:PROD.  I will interpret this statement as a request by you to undelete it, and will do so promptly.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF 

message: I am attempting to write the Joseph Priestley biography article right now; he was a dissenting theologian, scientist, educator, political writer and theorist (in a loose sense) in eighteenth-century Britain. Currently, I have tried to mix in a discussion of his works with his life. Because he wrote on so many different topics, it would be helpful to have some editors familiar with the disciplines he wrote in help me out a bit (I am an English person myself); his discussions of theology and science often involve the major philosophical topics of the century. Anyone familiar with Priestley or with the 17th-18th centuries more generally would be of great help. I think that the reason that there is so little scholarship on him compared to other figures of his circle is because he worked in so many different fields. No one wants to try and tackle all of that! (The page is ridiculously long - 100kb (perhaps from pictures) - the headings should guide any potential helper, though; it is also not it pristine shape - there are still poorly worded sentences - I'm just trying to get the basics of the article set up, then I will go back over the language with a fine-toothed comb.) I will, of course, be willing to help out anyone who helps me in whatever way they see fit. Awadewit | talk 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Joseph Priestley]]

message: Interested parties are encouraged to participate in the deletion debate for List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. KSchutte 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can't we just get rid of the lists and use categories? --Buridan 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think categories are as useful, you're welcome to say as much on that page. KSchutte 07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, that is a debate for here, not there.  that is an afd debate, and the category argument i think is moot in those terms.  I think you've done good work getting things together in lists, but i'm not convinced that lists end up as anything other than pov tarpits. afd is also not a place for policy debates.--Buridan 13:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the categories to be quite hellish to maintain.  Thus, I avoid having anything to do with them (most of the time). - KSchutte 02:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of philosophers 

message: Hi there, this article is being proposed for deletion, is this a real philosophical position described in a badly-sourced article, or is it original research? Thanks for any feedback. TimVickers 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD for [[Fragmentalism]]

message: Hi, I looked at this image from the polish wikipedia about Kant's Transcendental idealism, I was thinking in making many of this for philosophical ideas and its author, hope it makes reading here more easy.--Andersmusician $ 15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these kinds of charts are very helpful for all levels of readers, and I would note that they are used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Thanks for taking up this project! Postmodern Beatnik 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About philosophic theory charts 

message: Could someone please give some immediate attention to this? The article is so jargonistic it's close to gibberish, and reeks of original research to me. Circeus 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm these articles can be a little tough for me, we need experts on philosophical subjects. --Andersmusician VOTE 02:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone call for a metaethicist? The information in the article is pretty accurate as is, but I've given the entry top priority on my "to do" list.  I should get to it within the week. Postmodern Beatnik 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I've always figured that fallacy articles should be reasonably understandable for laymen, but this one is Greek to me. Circeus 21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a fallacy article.  I'm not sure why the fallacy template was included, and I have removed it. Postmodern Beatnik 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the same format as many "argument from" fallacy articles, and it's so uttely incomprehensible the confusion is not surprising. Circeus 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right.  Anyway, I do have a draft in progress.  It should be done shortly. Postmodern Beatnik 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Argument from queerness]]

message: Based on the entries for Daniel Dennett, Robert Nozick, and Charles Taylor, it seems that the "Works" section for philosophers focuses exclusively on books, and not articles.  Is this policy, or did this happen because it's just easier to focus on books than it is to track down articles? After all, Dennett's "Quining Qualia" is probably just as "major" a work as some of his books when we look at citation frequency and impact on the debate. Postmodern Beatnik 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still curious as to whether or not anyone has an answer to this question. Postmodern Beatnik 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles tend to be much harder to track down, particularly for writers several hundred years old. That's presumably the main reason that books are listed almost exclusively. Also, I would guess, most articles are later collected into books, which by definition then include the articles. I would guess the only regular exceptions to this are comparatively recent works, and generally there won't be so much attention paid to these before they get published in book in either the original or revised form that they can be generally not included. However, I doubt very seriously if that is an official policy, just the way things tend to work most easily and effectively in general. John Carter 19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are philosophers who have articles listed among their works, and there are articles about articles. I don't see any precedent, just a tendency to list books. Anarchia 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on "Works" Section? 

message: Hey All, Could someone look at the use of Category:Contextualism?  it seems to me to be very broadly applied, including Hypertext, World Wide Web, Dynamical system, Nature versus nurture and David Bohm to mention a few (IMVHO) questionable cases. (note I've made a similar query to the category's creator here. Pete.Hurd 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contextualism category? 

message: I found this page while tidying 'Category:philosophy', and can see no useful purpose for it. I suggest that it be deleted. Anarchia 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of philosophy component types]]

message: As above, I found these pages while tidying 'Category:Philosophy'. Is there any support for shifting the material into the Quine page, and altering the wording on the few pages that link to these ones to briefly explain the ideas? It seems highly unlikely that any decent encyclopedia would have entires with these headings, and as unlikely that anyone reading the few pages that link to these would bother to follow up the links. Anarchia 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure a merge would work - the content is quite specific. Perhaps put them up for deletion? Banno 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hold come what may]] and [[Hold more stubbornly at least]]

message: Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galileo Galilei FAR 

message: Template:Technical
Maybe we should tag them with , for managing our workload on them --Andersmusician VOTE 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  about jargonistic articles 

message: User:Banno on July 12 2007 WP:PRODed cosmosophy. 132.205.44.5 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmosophy prodded 

message: Any objection to me renaming this 'theoretical reason', and a redirect being made for 'speculative reason' to the renamed page? (I don't know how to do redirects, sorry). And, yes, the page is diabololical. Anarchia 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Speculative reason]]

message: I made some large-scale additions to the hylomorphism article. If anyone would like to look it over, please do so. (The only part I didn't touch was the latter half of the "Change" section, which I didn't understand. I personally think that part, at least as it's currently worded, isn't helpful to the average reader, but I refrained from removing it: whoever put it there must have had a reason.) --Phatius McBluff 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I took a second look, and I understand what the second half of the "Change" section is saying. But it could definitely use some rewording, especially for those who don't know what "bundle theory" is. --Phatius McBluff 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hylomorphism]]

message: I have tagged this AfD. Anarchia 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Philosophy of travel]]

message: (I'm placing this here temporarily for visibility)
The importance rating for many of the articles is either obviously misjudged or absent in many cases; something I would like to remedy. I have been reclassifying articles and rating the unclassified articles according to a fairly broad schema.
*Top importance: Major branches of philosophy in the broadest sense, that which appears on the Philosophy page, etc. (Philosophy of mind, Ethics, 
*High importance: Major philosophers, classic works of philosophy, schools of branches of philosophy, etc. (Hume, Philosophical Investigations, Functionalism, 
*Mid importance: Philosophers, treatises of reasonable acclaim, subbranches, etc. (R.M. Hare, The Meno, Buridan's ass)
*Low importance: Specialized, lesser known topics
The aim is to rate with respect to the average Wikipedia reader, not specialists- ie Plato would be known by almost all, whereas Wittgenstein would not.
I'd welcome any comments on or help with this endeavor. If you want to or drop a note on my talk page, feel free. Thanks,
The Rhymesmith 07:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to: for the criteria. And wouldn't this be better on the talk page? Anarchia 09:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paste from article - should be in talk 

message: Agnus Serra, who is tagged for your project, is currently at AfD. Espresso Addict 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[Agnus Serra]] 

message: Here's a copy of Cezary M. Kruk (:pl:user:W1k0) that he left at my commons talkpage:
===A few doubts ===
The transcendental idealism chart is nearly finished. I'm not sure of translations of four Kantian concepts: 
* What creates some ideas, for example of God, soul etc. (my translation of Polish term “rozum teoretyczny” is “theoretical reason”)
* What use time and space to create experience (my translation of Polish term “zmysły” is “senses”)
* What uses categories to create concepts (my translation of Polish term “rozsądek” is “sense” or “reason” -- I'm not sure which one is better)
* What creates practical reason, for example the idea of categorical imperative (my translation of Polish term “postulaty” is “postulates”)
Maybe your knowledge of English language or Kantian philosophy is better than mine. If you could help me (strengthen me in my translations or correct them) I'll be very grateful. Use my Polish home page to answer. :pl:User:W1k0	
Hope you check correct translation of the Transcendental Idealism chart, thanks--Andersmusician VOTE 22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About PHILOtheory charts (again) 

message: The transcendental idealism chart is nearly finished. I'm not sure of translations of four Kantian concepts: 
* What creates some ideas, for example of God, soul etc. (my translation of Polish term “rozum teoretyczny” is “theoretical reason”)
* What use time and space to create experience (my translation of Polish term “zmysły” is “senses”)
* What uses categories to create concepts (my translation of Polish term “rozsądek” is “sense” or “reason” -- I'm not sure which one is better)
* What creates practical reason, for example the idea of categorical imperative (my translation of Polish term “postulaty” is “postulates”)
Maybe your knowledge of English language or Kantian philosophy is better than mine. If you could help me (strengthen me in my translations or correct them) I'll be very grateful. Use my Polish home page to answer. :pl:User:W1k0
| 
|}
Hope you check correct translation of the Transcendental Idealism chart, thanks--Andersmusician VOTE 22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few doubts 

message: Greetings folks,
Over the past few months, I have been working many of the Logic articles. In doing so, I managed to upstart the WikiProject Logic, and the Logic Portal. I have come to realize that the entire Logic component of the Wikipedia is very "math"-centric, and very "philosophy"-deficient. For instance, the article about theorem contained all the mathematical aspects, but the logical definition (the more broad, and fundamental definition) was completely absent. Furthermore, the very organized WikiProject Math has its people monitoring those articles like academic mother ... hens (I was going to say something else). I did manage to get the logical aspect of theorem into the article, but it was only begrudgingly so. Several of these people are of the opinion that "mathematical logic" isn't "logic." Also, the opinion of not wanting anything to do with philosophy, or not understanding the connection with philosophy is prevalent. This has lead to some conflict in organizing the project. There are stubs for "mathematical logic" and just "logic." The latter may be interpreted as "philosophical logic" or as "non-mathematical logic" or more appropriately "logic the math people don't care about."
I always used to think of activism on the wikipedia as somewhat distasteful. However, I am now living thoroughly within the pragmatic realities of this place now; so here it is. I don't think npov tags are going to work in this phil v. math political environment. I would like to request a renewed attention to the logic articles by philosophers, and logicians from the philosophical perspective. Please join with WikiProject Logic, and keep in touch. I had to struggle on theorem, maybe I can have some help by time I get up the strength for lemma (which, after all, is just a theorem not dignified enough to be called a theorem) and others...
Be well, Gregbard 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Math v Phil over Logic

message: Absolute truth still has a talk page even though it has been merged with Universality. Is this what usually happens? Anarchia 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Absolute truth]]

message: A  template has been added to the article Khalufid's Fork, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).  You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with . User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Khalufid's Fork

message: Hi, I've added Jean Piaget in this project without any rates. Cheers Chrisdel 12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jean Piaget]] in project

message: There are two pages on Nozick's book, Philosophical Explanations both started by User:Rats. They are Philosophical Explanations, which I just changed from 'Philosophical explanations', and Philosophical Explanation. The latter has a note on the talk page by Rats saying that it should be deleted. Anarchia 05:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for speedy deletion [[Philosophical Explanation]]

message: I am having problems interpreting the importance assessment criteria. I have had one discussion about whether a book on phil of education should be high, mid or low importance, and have ended up revising some of my own ratings because the criteria descriptions seem to conflict. I have written more on the assessment talk page, but I suspect few people read this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment. Help would be appreciated. I am steadily working my way through the articles and would prefer to just get it right the first time! Anarchia 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with assessing importance of phil articles

message: At the moment there is a proposal to merge the articles Axiomatic system and Formal system, which I don't think is a good idea. Could any of you take a look at this discussion at the Talk:Formal system and give your point of view on this subject. Thanks - Mdd 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[Axiomatic system]] and [[Formal system]] ?? 

message: Is this suitable for wikipedia or should it be in Wiktionary? It needs a few changes - info about epistemology, for e.g. - but, I am not sure if the page is worth having. Anarchia 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not both? You can't fit much of a summary into a Wiktionary entry. — xDanielxTalk 07:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Alethiology]]

message: A merge of Brain in a vat and Evil genius has been proposed. Anarchia 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tags since the AfD proposal was sparse and inconclusive, and none of the AfD participants (who were most likely unacquainted with the topics) went through with the merge or voiced the proposal on either talk page. I don't think these articles should be merged given the fundamental differences, but if others disagree please direct the proposal to one of the talk pages. — xDanielxTalk 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of 'Brain in a vat' and 'Evil genius'

message: There is a category named "Philosophers of Metaphysics"!! WTF? I have never heard this term used anywhere, in any context, in any of my philosophical studies. Those who are more expert than myself (i.e. professors and PhDs) may certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the general term is "metaphysicians". It also sounds much more common-sensical and  appropriate to the grammatical ear. P of M gives me the willies, in other words. But this may be subjective. Anyway, not that big a deal, but I suggest deletion of cat and replacement with "metaphysicians. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If google numbers have any value here: c. 220,000 for Metaphysicians and 38,000 for  exact term "philosophers of metaphysics".  --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Metaphysicians" is the correct term. The recent trend of naming new areas of philosophy by "philosophy of..." comes well after metaphysics got its name. - Atfyfe 19:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. I'm not a PhD holder, but I don't think I've ever heard someone described as a "philosopher of metaphysics." — xDanielxTalk 04:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought that it should by "metaphysicists" since "metaphysics" is related to "physics," but I've never heard "philosopher of metaphysics" either.  Sadly, the correct term is "metaphysician." Postmodern Beatnik 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category names that do not correspond to general academic uses

message: I am probably missing something, but does this page make any sense? The title seems a plausible one for a page. It isn;t sutable for Afd is it? Anarchia 11:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed deletion for OR. Banno 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Political choice]]

message: This is a proposal to upgrade the project banner to include fields. I have a working prototype at . This will allow more assessment abilities at the subproject level. Gregbard 14:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a test of a new banner that assignes articles to one or more task forces. Comments? Gregbard 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are trying to shorten template you can do it like this:  Lara_bran 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner proposal

message: I seem to have gotten myself into two intractable disagreements with User:Aburesz 
# About what fits into Cat:metaphysics. The discussion is at the bottom of the ascended master talk page, and I have put an RfC on it. 
# About whether Francis Bacon is of high importance to philosophy.
Problem is I have not been involved in an intractable Wikipedia dispute before. Do I just figure it doesn't really matter what is in the category and what the importance rating is? (The thought makes me feel a bit like I have been wasting my time trying to tidy them up these past weeks... nothing like invested energy to make you care about something, no matter how unimportant it is in the grand scheme of things!) Do I ask for mediation or something like that? I have no idea whether that is appropriate in cases like this. This whole thing seems a bit ridiculous. Anarchia 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of your worries can be alleviated if we show a little team work. In the long term, the academic view can win if we stick together. The importance rating isn't very important in itself, unless there's a pattern across a bunch of pages. Hey, there is an interpretation under which Bacon was highly important to philosophy. I think if it's out of place we will figure it out eventually. Gregbard 02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly argue that Bacon is of high importance.  While Descartes may have been the first "big name" of the New Science/mechanical philosophy, Bacon is often considered to be the school's founder/originator.  Any thorough study of the British Empiricists needs to start with him, and you can't really understand Locke (and thus Berkeley and Hume) without understanding Bacon.  Plus, he invented a little known process called "the scientific method."  That might be important. ;) Postmodern Beatnik 04:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to go with the majority. Still disagree. Few philosophy degrees include more than a passing mention of Bacon. And, I just plain disagree with you about needing to understand Bacon to understand either scientific method or empiricism - do a quick chec on courses on empiricism on the net and you will see what I mean. Yes, Bacon is undoubtedly important for History of science, and even somewhat important for phil of sci - although I wil never include him in any  phil of sci course I teach - too much to get through in too little time, but as far as phil in general is concerned, as I say, I disagree. Looks like I am definitely on the out on that one though!Anarchia 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: {ahem} Not to get snooty, but try looking at courses taught by schools that excel in British Empiricism.  I suspect you'll find Bacon there (though syllabi can be misleading).  And just to clarify, I don't think you need to learn about Bacon to understand the scientific method.  I was just mentioning it by way of suggesting how important he is historically.  I stand firm on the point about Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, however.  Perhaps you do not need to understand Bacon to understand Empiricism in a "good enough" way, but to really understand the issues and motivations behind later Brits, you're going to need to understand how it all started.  You may be able to understand contractualism without reading Hobbes, but you won't really get it (or why later contractualists felt compelled to address some rather odd issues) unless you read his version (as well as the criticisms of contractualism by Hume--but now I'm just demanding perfection). Postmodern Beatnik 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice needed [[:Category:Metaphysics]], [[Ascended Master]] and related pages, and [[Francis Bacon]] importance rating

message: More advice needed, I am afraid. Cat:Prof ethics has a very nice introduction to professional ethics above the linked in pages. At the moment Professional ethics redirects to Code of conduct (or something like that), which is related, but not quite the same. Is it okay for me to cut and paste the info in cat: prof eth, and use it to start a new article prof ethics? I know that doing so will lose the page history, but that is really just one edit, and the person who created it does not seem to have edited wikipedia for a year... Anarchia 06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: be bold--Buridan 14:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: yes, go ahead - Professional ethics and Code of conduct are distinct. Banno 08:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - done! Anarchia 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Professional ethics]] 

message: :Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein was created as a clearly superior replacement for :Category:Wittgenstein following the latter's nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 5#Category:Wittgenstein.  Should we have an epynomous category in this case?  Please chime in at the CfD discussion.  GRBerry 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could everyone chime in on the Wittgenstein issue? I have proposed that the soft prohibition on eponymous categories specifically make an exception for philosophers. Very often a survey class is a 'philosopher of the week' type of class. The policy change proposal is being discussed at :
Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Rewrite_of_eponymous_category_bit. The Wittgenstein category discussion is at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_6#Category:Ludwig_Wittgenstein Gregbard 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now the discussion has moved to :
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_6#Category:Ludwig_Wittgenstein it is going to be a war about categories from now on unless we change the policy Gregbard 02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein]] 

message: Hmmmm.  "The unexamined life" --one of the most famous philosophical phrases of all time-- comes up with scanty results on WP.  Examined Life links to a book by Robert Nozick.  Seems a shame to neglect this.  Any takers? --Dylanfly 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone would search for such an article. (You have already proved that wrong!) And I susoect that it would be mostly OR. BUt, I could be worng. What were youthinking would go in it? Anarchia 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examined Life?  

message: The WikiProject Philosophy template on this article appears twice, with different ratings.  I don't find a way to fix this.
Also, I think assigning this important topic "low" priority is a bad mistake.  Rick Norwood 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a result of the previous arrangement of multiple banners. The current proposal is to unite all of these under one banner with an option for fields. The reason there may be two is that one is a transclusion from one of the formerly specialized field banners, the other is one that was placed there as part of the original philosophy banner. If you see these feel free to delete the specialized one ("moral", "logic2", "metaphysics") There shouldn't be to many out there. I'll take care of them sooner or later. Gregbard 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree it's not "low", but only perhaps "mid." You should feel free to change or add those. If it's a big change leave a comment. For any big changes, a bot will make a list for people to review at the bottom of the assessment page. Gregbard 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Entscheidungsproblem]] 

message: Hi guys, I have been being bolder, I promise - I will probably be bold to the point of obnoxious after another year or so! However, I do want advice on this one. Is it worth having as an article in wikipedia? If so, I will recategorise to 'sources of knowledge'. Anarchia 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This question cuts across the wikipedia. I'm a cab driver, so who am I to say? Well, there are inclusionists and deletionists of all kinds here. I am of the position that it is more intellectual to be inclusionist. This article already has several contributors. I think it should stay but then, I am very inclusionist. The topic doesn't necessarily seem to fit in an academic encyclopedia vision, but inevitably this topic will improve to an academic level gradually (more gradually for some articles than others.) I have the same view for the unexamined life. I think it would be wonderful if everywhere people use the phrase "unexamined life" it linked to that entry in the wp. Gregbard 02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Advice (opinion)]]

message: there are some www adresses referring to a commercial company....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.84.68 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linkspam removed. Banno 08:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there commercials on the bottom of the [[Entelechy]] page? 

message: I am planning on amending the eponymous category guideline so as to include: 
"Persons who are often studied in academia as individuals, such as philosophers, and who may have a body of terminology, or works associated with them such as :Category:Aristotle, :Category:Søren Kierkegaard or :Category:Martin Heidegger are also appropriate candidates for expansion into categories."
This will meet strong opposition from an editor named otto. If I could get some input as to the language, and some support when the time comes, we will avoid some battles later. (Although I am quite proud of WP:PHILO for being the prevailing view on the Wittgenstein issue. Way to go team.) 
Be well, Greg Bard 01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need some backup

message: Could someone please take a look at the Aesthetics categories and recent changes? Someone other than me. Please update the task force categories as necessary. At some point we have to choose whether art is under aesthetics or vice versa. Greg Bard 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That area is one of my areas of ignorance - sorry. Anarchia 09:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aesthetics categoriees

message: I'm afraid someone thinks that the only thing that matters about :Category:Søren Kierkegaard, is the fact that it is an eponymous category. It no longer has any connection to the top level philosophy category. Greg Bard 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soren Kierkegaard 

message: It isn't. That is, it isn't a disambiguation page. 
Fix it! please...or tell me what to do. Just change the name? Yours confusedly, Anarchia 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was moved from Law (principle), which is even less appropriate. Try a stubby merge to principle. –Pomte 22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Principle (disambiguation)]]

message: I have approached the Wikipedia:WikiProject Critical Theory group to see if they want to be subsumed into the task force organization of WP:PHILO like the other projects. I am not sure how it should be organized so as to be most useful. Currently, I have a potential category list for a combined task force listed under the Continental philosophy task force. Perhaps it could be broken into two task forces in a way that makes sense? One big one? A field for each? (I don't see why not frankly). I stated some goals in the organization at Crit theory:
The goal of the reorganized task forces should be to A) be general enough to cover a significant enough number of articles to merit a task force, B) be specific enough to produce a meaningful worklist for each task force, and C) be a convenient way to organize the content for the editor. Greg Bard 10:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There didn't seem to be any concerns, so I moved CT into the continental phil space, and added the Continental task force info. It includes everything except Marxism, which I think can stand on its own. Greg Bard 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental, Marxism, Critical theory, Phenomenology 

message: Thought you should know! Johnbod 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Philosophers' Football Match]] 

message: I don't know what exactly makes it into a notable philosophical topic, but apparently it is. The page currently redirects to List_of_Latin_phrases_(A%E2%80%93E)#A, and a previous deleted version doesn't seem relevant either. To be sure, as long as this list remains linked at List of philosophical topics (A-C), irrelevant changes might appear at the project's recent changes lists.
So, maybe someone who knows a bit can make a stub and link to it instead? trespassers william 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fortiori 

message: These pages have recently been started by a new philosophy editor who needs help. They overlap a bit with Emotion (which is also somewhat of a mess), and perhaps with other articles. But the idea for the article is probably okay. Could someone with a bit more wikipedia experience than me offer some advice to the editor concerned? Anarchia 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Desire (in Philosophy)]] & [[Desire Philosophy]]

message: Dear all,
I’m again calling for interdisciplinary approach. No encyclopaedia can afford entries limited within one discipline only if it aims to be a credible reference. And the silence my previous calls were met with does not seem encouraging.
Playing a lip service to findings in neurology (Libet’s findings for example) does not seem encouraging. There is one and one only, concept of consciousness for example. Memory is also one and one only concept. Entries that turn their “blind eye” to this cannot claim a credibility.
Sincerely, Damir Ibrisimovic 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a balanced approach, you will need a variety of experts, but I'm sure most experts have better things to do than edit Wikipedia. For others, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#A Notable Absence of Findings in Neuroscience for context. –Pomte 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for interdiscliplinary approach 

message: Hello,
At WP:PHYSICS, we have reorganized the Phenomenon and Physical Phenomenon pages. Unfortunately, we did not understand the section on Kant, so we left it out and wrote the best section we could for "Use in philosophy". We would value any any input you have for the section as the current section is very small. Here is a copy of the old section:
" Phenomenon has a specialized meaning in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who contrasted the term phenomenon with noumenon in the Critique of Pure Reason. Phenomena according to Kant are objects of sensible intuition, sensible entities coextensive with appearances. A phunokihjohnonoumenon on the other hand is an object exclusively of understanding; it is an object that is given only to a subject's intellect or understanding, i.e., not given by sensibility. As such, the noumenon and Kant's thing-in-itself (Ding an sich) are closely related; for Kant they refer to the same things. However, they differ in that the thing-in-itself is an ontological concept of an object as it is constituted in itself, while the noumenon is an epistemological concept of an object of a certain mode of cognition, namely intellectual intuition. Both, however, cannot be known. The concept of 'phenomena' relates to the tradition of philosophy called phenomenology. Leading figures in phenomenology - the science of objects as they appear - include Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and influenced Derrida, Deleuze and many other thinkers. Kant's account of phenomena has also been influential in the development of psychodynamic models of psychology, and of theories concerning the ways in which the brain, mind and external world interact."
We don't think the section needs a definition on noumenons or a list of phenomenologists- but it's your decision. You could leave a revision on my talk page or place it directly into the article in a subsection in "Use in philosophy".
Thanks for any input you have time to give,  Beast of traal T C _ 20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenomenon 

message: I'm wondering if anyone on this project might want to adopt this article. It makes some important points about the interpretive process in connection to whole-part perceptions and post-modernism but they have only partial cites and probably need some amplification.  There is also an unattributed mention of Schleiermacher.  Another issue: Aside from an occassional book on semiotics, my reading of hermaneutics literature stopped somewhere around the early 1990's and I think this term might have come into use after that point. I don't know whether the term has enough material to justify its own article or if it should be merged into the Hermaneutics article. Any help from someone familiar with the literature relating to this topic would be appreciated. 06:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hermeneutic circle]] 

message: We are in dire need of some ethics/morality related articles. We have nothing on intergenerational ethics, and I also feel we need something on ethics and evolution. There are two aspects to this: the evolution of morality, and the clash between what people believe is ethical and what benefits their genes the most. I'm not sure what the second case could be titled; some related entries are appeal to nature and naturalistic fallacy, and perhaps social Darwinism, though I'm still confused over this is/ought nature of that school of thought. Perhaps evolution and ethics would be suitable, touching on both the evolution of ethics and the clash between the two. Richard001 10:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, I hadn't looked at the preview and realized there was an article for the last one. Actually a quick search would have brought it up rather easily, though I was fairly sure I had looked for this before. Evolutionary ethics seems to cover both issues, so I've redirected the other link above. If anyone is interested in creating an article for the former, there's a detailed SEP article on the subject. Richard001 04:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics articles needed

message: Someone has copied an essay into Wikipedia as a new article Contractualism. The essay does contain some useful information, but it is weakly referenced, primarily about one form of contractualism, POV and needs wikifying. There is already an article about Social contract theory, but it contains different material at the moment. Any thoughts on what should be done with this new one? Anarchia 06:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the article to be way too POV for my tastes.  We should revert it to a redirect.  Perhaps an article on Scanlon's view is worthwhile, but (1) I doubt it deserves the Contractualism namespace and (2) it needs to be NPOV. Postmodern Beatnik 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Contractualism]]

message: The article Object theory needs some attention from a person familiar with the subject. I know that some philosophers have been associated with "object theory", so that some sort of article could be written on the subject. But I don't know that the content currently in the article is actually related to object theory (because I don't know anything about object theory). Expert attention would be helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object theory 

message: Paul R. Patton was tagged for speedy A7 (failure to assert importance).  He is a professor, which is an assertion.  Can someone from the project review for notability, and either improve the article, PROD, or AFD?  Thanks.  GRBerry 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. He is notable. More info added to make that clear. Anarchia 08:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub, debatable notability 

message: A new section has been added to Progressive Judaism to discuss the intellectual history of the progressive movement. The discussion I think needs some nuanced exploration of the thinkers. If there are members of this project with an interest in this area, your contributions would be more than welcome. Many thanks, Egfrank 15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of Progressive Judaism - philosophical roots 

message: The Gender and Judaism article has been marked as within the scope of this project.
There is a related article Role of women in Judaism whose development should probably be coordinated/merged/sub-main'd with this article.  A topic has been created to discuss this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism#Gender and Judaism.  Best to all, Egfrank 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender and Judaism 

message: The pleasure article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on pain but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? -- Karada 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pleasure]]: call for participation 

message: The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism are considering whether this article should include religious answers to the question as well. There is also some discussion about deleting the article. I imagine any comments from the members of this project might be welcome. Thank you. John Carter 15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Meaning of life]] 

message: Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
*List of basic philosophy topics
*List of basic humanism topics
*List of basic transhumanism topics
*List of basic thinking-related topics
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of List articles 

message: Ludwig Wittgenstein has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. One Night In Hackney303 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludwig Wittgenstein FA review

message: If something is important to a subproject (work group), e.g. ethics, but not the whole project, what should one rate importance as? Articles are placed in daughter categories as the same importance as the whole project, which doesn't seem very accurate. Is there a way to have a separate importance assessment for a particular work group? Richard001 05:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the interpretation we should take is that if it is at least of x importance to a sub-field, it should hold that importance rating under philosophy in general. I don't think importance-inflation is a problem under this interpretation. There is plenty of room under "top" and "high" to cover a large number of articles and still be meaningful. I think we use the same type of reasoning as it concerns importance and quality ratings as compared to other wikiprojects. Pontiff Greg Bard 12:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance in assessments

message: So I just created :Category:Zero as a subcategory of :Category:Integers and :Category:Mathematical constants. I'd like to make it a subcategory of :Category:Nothing as well, but the latter category doesn't exist! Ideally it would contain most of the articles that are currently held together only by the "See also" section of the Nothing article. It would probably be a subcat of :Category:Ontology, and it would likely have some relationship with :Category:Nihilism. Before I expend the effort, may I ask for a second opinion on whether these are good ideas? Melchoir 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am open-minded and intrigued by this idea. I would be interested to see where empty set ends up. Pontiff Greg Bard 12:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Empty set should be a top-level member of each category, and the same for 0 (number). This would be a slightly inefficient use of the subcategory structure, but still meaningful and useful. Nothing, on the other hand, would be a member of Category:Nothing and not Category:Zero. Melchoir 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On that note, it seems that the French Wikipedia has put Néant in Catégorie:Zéro, but we don't have to follow suit. Melchoir 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'm starting it up. Melchoir 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Nothing? 

message: "It is often called the Age of Reason and is considered to succeed the Renaissance philosophy era and precede the Age of Enlightenment, but, some consider it as the earliest part of the Enlightenment era in philosophy, extending that era to two centuries. "
Dates are bound to be shaky and overlap as to when exactly a philosophy/era (the Age of Enlightenment) begins and ends. But shouldn't there at least be an article defined by the name of the philosophy, as opposed to the century? These should probably still be organized in chronological order, and include within the first paragraph what dates it usually is assumed to cover, but the name of the article should not be the date/century.
--Akako|☎ 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the article? Anarchia (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 17th century philosophy. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification by century 

message: This page has been classified as a philosophy article, but it looks much closer to bullshit to me. 
....Just take a look and you'll see what I mean. I outlined my problems with the article in detail on the talk page, and have contacted the article's authors to give them a chance to defend/jsutify the article before I move to AfD. 
I'd appreciate it if some of you took a look and backed me up. The bastards even went and brought Ponty, Heidegger, Frankl, and Descartes into this mess. --Shaggorama (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bodymind]] 

message: Please could someone have a look at Cognitive closure. 
This is a disambiguation page for Cognitive closure (psychology) and Cognitive closure (philosophy). The former is a one-line quote/definition, while the latter is just one paragraph long ! 
Thanks. thisisace (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why the second article (psychology) was started. The two concepts really do seem to be different. The other option would have been to have one article with separate sections. If you think this is a better idea, why not propose a merge? Regards, Anarchia (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The psychology article seems to have been created in response to the discussion between me and an anonymous editor bemoaning how "misleading" the philosophy article was for not mentioning the (unrelated) psychological concept.  I can't speak to the psychology issue, but the philosophy page has a lot of room for growth and probably deserves its own article.  Then again, it is quite common to merge articles with the understanding that they may be split again should one or both grow into its own.  As such, I would have no serious objections to a merge. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive closure x 2 ! 

message: With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is here. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is reliably sourced without its being at best an original research synthesis. There also seems to be difficulty complying with WP:NPOV on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more pleased. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Meaning of life]]