Talk:Philosophy/Archive 9

message: Apologies, but I don't know how to work wikipedia, so I'll just ask that someone try to fix these issues.
The section on the analytic tradition needs a lot of fixing.
1.  ordinary language philosophy arose out of a response to Wittgenstein's Investigations, not the tractatus.
2. the idea that we can solve problems piecemeal is not restricted to ordinary language, but is pretty much typical of all analytic philosophy.  Russell, who almost never considered ordinary language to be important at all, was probably the first to claim this- he wanted philosophy to follow the piecemeal scientific model, and not the big hegelian systems of philosophy.
3. I don't know much about him, but did Freud really think that philosophical problems are unrelated?  It seems dubious to me, given that since he was in Germany he would have learned Hegelian philosophy, which claims everything is connected.
4."There are indications that a new revolution may be underway in English-language philosophy."
I think by this point the revolution's already happened.  Apparently, in the past decade, there's actually been more of a movement in analytic philosophy to bring ordinary language and analysis closer together.  Anyways, something to think about.
5. Finally, Quine and Co. aren't the ones reacting to the Philosophical investigations, that's the ordinary language guys.  Quine is following in the tradition of Russell and the early wittgenstein - looking at the logical structure of language, not the ways in which it is ordinarily used.
If someone makes these edits, you have my thanks!
PG 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise interesting points, but you may have to put them in the article yourself.  A few suggestions.  First, put comments to talk:Philosophy at the bottom of the page, and sign with four tildes.  Second, introduce one of your suggestions into the article at a time, by clicking on the EDIT icon to the right of the heading of that section.  Rewrite the paragraph, in the Edit summary box type a few words to describe what you have done, and then click on Save page. Rick Norwood 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing those out. I did something about most of your points, but didn't touch the part of the wiki that #3 talks about because that part of the article is suspicious at a conceptual level and needs to be clarified if it can be saved. Are we led to believe that Quine was not an analytic philosopher because he advocated holism? Or Peirce, because he advocated synechism? Lucidish 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analytic tradition

message: "In the present-day context, it is used to refer to debates concerning topics such as what exists, what knowledge is (and whether it is possible), and how one should live. Philosophical literature is typically characterized by its use of reasoning in order to advance cogent arguments about these topics. Typically, these arguments involve consideration of competing views and their perceived inadequacies."
This seems to me a very negative picture of philosophy.  Philosophy is "debates", "arguments", "competing views", and "perceived inadequacies".  
Sadly, I get the feeling that the discussion on this page reflects that view of philosophy.  No movement toward consensus, just "debates", "arguments", "competing views", and "perceived inadequacies".  
Doesn't anyone have anything positive to say about philosophy?  Doesn't philosophy make any positive contribution to our understanding of the universe? Rick Norwood 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, you haven't even glanced at my draft of this article.  It illustrates what an article on philosophy ought to look like (except, of course, that it isn't finished). KSchutte 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I think the view that philosophy is the love of wisdom is perfect. Lucidish 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: Did Plato and Aristotle ever meet?  I cannot find any statement in the works of either where there is a mention of their meeting.  Aristotle, of course, mentions Plato, but he does not mention meeting Plato.
KSchute offers as evidence of their meeting Diogenes Laertius, who wrote more than five hundred years after the death of Aristotle, and yet is able to quote what Plato said about Aristotle.  The reference for the quote is Aelian.  Now, Aelian also lived about five hundred years after the death of Aristotle.  As for his accuracy, consider the following quote from his Wikipedia article, "The Beaver is an amphibious creature ... it understands the reason why hunters come after it with such eagerness and impetuosity, and it puts down its head and with its teeth cuts off its testicles and throws them in their path ... ."  Am I wrong to wonder if Aelian might have made up a quote, just like he made up his animal lore?  If this is the best evidence for such a meeting, I remain in doubt. Rick Norwood 23:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick, this isn't the place for skepticism of such sources, or of common knowledge, unless you have verifiable and serious references to the contrary. Lucidish 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In which case, I am sad to admit, my 4000AD counterpart on Hypo-wiki-telepedia will defend the existence of Batboy to no end. Lucidish 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is unfortunate the lack of ancient sources that have survived that might have proved such a connection between Plato and Aristotle. On the other hand, there is a complete lack of evidence that suggest that they didn't meet, in which case, we would have to go with the opinion that they had (there are, after all, claims about this dating back quite a long ways...). The problem with real ancient history is the paucity of sources, which means that (in many cases) ancient history is reconstructed on the basis of so few sources that with more contemporary events, we would be inclined to think it questionable at best. Nevertheless, the strong ancient tradition that Plato and Aristotle did meet and the lack of ancient sources that they didn't makes for a fairly strong prima facie case (one should note that Aristotle's tenure at the Academy was quite a bit prior to true acclaim as a philosopher; nor does he seem to have been the star pupil; rather it is history -- and the divisions within the Academy that arose after Plato's death that gave Aristotle his particular place, as such, it should be no real surprise that the "meeting" of two such great philosophers may pass unrecognized in their own writings -- although Aristotle does make a good number of references to Plato's philosophy). Ig0774 09:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato and Aristotle 

message: Should Critical theory (Frankfurt school) have a mini-section on it in the "modern philosophy" section? -- infinity0 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crticial Theory 

message: Any comments (up or down) would be appreciated.--Lacatosias 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the huge phrenology diagram which seems out of place. As a purely historical subject it shouldn't take up that much space. -- infinity0 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, what is it with you people on the English-based Wiki. All of the images were borrowed from the FA German version. The German articles on philosphy of mind are almost ALL FEATURED ARTICLES. If you don't like the phrenology brain, what would you suggest as a replacement? Exactly, that's what I thought. Philosophy images are all over the place, aren't they?? I almost think it's a contradiction in terms. Yet absolutley no one can put in doubt the fact that the reason there era so few Fueatured Articles in philosophy is partly because of a lack of images.--Lacatosias 10:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The devil take me as I had forgotten the most fundamental point though. Phrenology was the first systematic attempt to specify which parts of the brain gave rise to which mental functions (or states or whatever your preferred term is). This was the basis for Fodor's important modularity of mind hypothesis and has also been vindicated to some extent  by modern studies of the neural correlate of consciousness, the neural correlate of this, the neural correlate of that, etc.. It is still very much oen to dispute whether, and to what extent,  mental states can be localized in speficic brain areas. We now know, for example, that the amygdala is the locus of fear and anxiety, the orbito-frontal cortex plays a huge part in planning and decision making, the areas of Broca and Wernicke have to do with very specific aspects of language. So it is not just of historical interest.--Lacatosias 11:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice. I barely know anything about the mainstays of philosophy of mind, it's an adventure to learn more. One thing I might add (if space allows) is the research of Benjamin Libet and reactions to it in the free will section. Lucidish 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would belong in an article concerning the consequences of neuro-scienctific research for the free will debate. The article free will or determinism for example. The last section attempts to address the consequences (if there are any) of positions such as materialistic monism in general on the free will debate. Besides, the article is supossed to be an overview as broad and "reductive" (if you will excuse the pun) as possible. 
--Lacatosias 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philosophy of mind]] 

message: :I hate to point out that the article is almost singularly about western traditions. There is NO mention of the pioneers in the philosophy of mind, the oldest school of dualism, samkhya of circa 600 BCE or buddhist idealist traditions like yogacara whose ideas were borrowed by many medieval/ modern philosophers.  SV 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, sir. I will be adding this information ASAP.--Lacatosias 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More East v west concerns 

message: I nominated User:Kenosis for the Star of Sophia. If anyone else agrees, support the award. -- infinity0 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for Sophia Star 

message: :Category:Atlas_Shrugged - Why are there 8 articles on one book? In all other cases this would be fancruft and deleted immediately. Comments to Category talk:Atlas Shrugged, please. -- infinity0 23:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just nominate them for deletion if you want to get into it. Lucidish 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put up a request for comment. Nominating 8 articles for deltion is tedious; they could and should be merged into the main "atlas shrugged" article. But please direct all comments to Category talk:Atlas Shrugged. I've opened an RFC for it. -- infinity0 23:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivist fancruft 

message: In many parts of this article, empiricism has been attributed as a part of rationalism or logical thought. However, empiricism and rationalism are opposites in a way. Empiricism deals with experimenting to see whether something is true according to the experimentations or not. Logic, however, deals with, having some basic assumptions, developing theories from these basics, without testing, only using the power of deduction and thought. --Andrelvis 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where abouts? Lucidish 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empiricism = Rationalism? 

message: Some of you who have an interest in the subject may wish to take a look at the recent history of changes to consciousness and Mind.  I'll let you come to your own conclusions about what's necessary. Alienus 07:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks A. Could you do me a favor and post this on the 
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy of Mind (I need a short-cut for this, BTW. But how does one make short-cuts?) There are probably thousnds of such artciles that need to be looked at. I don't even know about the existence of 90% of them, in all probability.--Lacatosias 07:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on [[Consciousness]] and [[Mind]] 

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places in Atlas Shrugged - please vote. -- infinity0 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD objectivist fancruft 

message: I had thought the Modern era section would have been compressed by now, and the rest of the material been rearranged into the "branches of philosophy" form that Lac had proposed. Has this plan been abandoned? Lucidish 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit, Lucidish.  About the disputed sentence, I agree that, if it belongs at all, it is in the wrong place.  I think that there has been a separation between religion and philosophy, but I don't think it really took hold until the 19th century or later.  Today, I don't see much communication between philosophers and religious people, except to hiss at each other when the pass in the hall.  Rick Norwood 13:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Made a few changes. I still don't like the paragraph, though, because I don't know whether or not Burke was as secular as is currently implied. Lucidish 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I still dislike the Rousseau-Burke sentence. Don't know what to do with it. Advice would be helpful.
 Lucidish 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lac proposal 

message: Anything I might say would be superfluous. Rick Norwood 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding female figure to modern philosophy. 

message: I've moved this discussion to the Talk:Organon. Lucidish 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organon 

message: Moved. Poor Yorick 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 9