Talk:Philosophical movement

message: If it's not explicitly philosophical then it doesn't belong on this page.  Otherwise, we could put every political movement out there.
*anti-globalization movement - moral, political and ethical and not explicitly philosophical, but sharing certain key ethics and an ontology
I don't think this is true.  In fact, many postmodernist philosophies claim that you can't objectively set quantitiative values on relationships between things.
::Today philosophical movements are often expressed in a political economy that purports to set new quantitative values on relationships between things.  This reflects a consensus in the philosophy of mathematics that mathematics is, for everyday purposes, often the most neutral point of view.
-----
It's exactly this claim of the postmodernists that "you can't objectively set quantitiative values on relationships between things" that lead the anti-globalization movement to reject all forms of global measurement.  This is definitely a philosophical (or theological) movement, if only for its localism.  It's sort of the fusion of minarchy and anarchism with the basic assumptions of postmodernim.  I guess I said it was "not explicitly philosophical" because it has no shared metaphysics beyond its foundation ontology which is all pretty much defined tacitly and by resistance.  Not because philosophical claims are never made for it, nor by it. 24
So, if you re-read what you just wrote with that in mind, you may notice that you have contradicted yourself somewhat - first you discount the anti-globals on the grounds of not satisfying the conventional requirements of a philosophy, then you admit that by the standards of certain philosophers, notably body philosophers, those standards are irrelevant or dangerous - that philosophy as understood prior to the philosophy of action was simply an attempt to usurp a God-like neutral point of view.  Which one may see in action here a lot... 24
I think you can't discount both political economy and body philosophy as movements - what's left?  Only philosophy with no relevance to action or body? What use is that? 24
:24, google hasn't heard of "body philosophy", nor has our resident (or former resident) philosopher, who, whether he disagreed with a particular position or not, would certainly acknowledge its recognition amongst other philosophers if it was so recognised.  As far as we can tell, the term "body philosophy" is your own invention and is thus outside the scope of Wikipedia.  --Robert Merkel
— Editor2020 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Old? comments

message: This article is in bad need of some references to keep it from being WP:OR  -- noosphere 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations please 

message: isn't a philosophical movement.   it is barely considered philosophy, and that is likely promoting it a bit far, even though some minor characters in current philosophy are building their careers on it.  a movement like the others listed? no.   and adding it makes this article primarily into an article of loosely related things.--Buridan 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  objectivism 

message: As of now, the article has no sources, so the inclusion of anything is as much of an 'unsupported opinion' as its exclusion. Providing a source isn't necessary to improve unsourced text. The initial addition of the items I removed were not given rationales by those who added them, but I have given rationales for my removals, making my edits privileged in that respect. I will restate them here: 
* Modernism: Like the lede says, "[i]n contrast to the idea of a philosophical movement, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Romanticism are broader cultural "movements" that happened to be characterized by fairly distinctive philosophical concerns: although they are movements with philosophical cores, they extend beyond the field of philosophy into art and culture more broadly, hence are not specific enough to philosophy to be considered movements within it." This applies straightforwardly and obviously to modernism (if anything, even more so than the given examples). Modernism is neither a "specific school" nor a "fairly broad but identifiable sea-change in philosophical thought on a particular subject"; there is no particular subject, nor any constellation of particular subjects, which modernism addresses. If you were to name a subject, what you identify (i.e., Marxism or Logical Positivism) may itself be a school of thought, but "modernism" would remain vastly more broad than whatever determination you were to make.
* Atheism: Atheism is not a philosophical school of thought; it is the absence of faith, which, taken alone, is an incredibly diverse universe of differing and contradictory positions (or non-positions). Atheism is, in the broadest sense permissible and perhaps only as a negation, a philosophical position, but so is Anti-foundationalism, and neither are movements. It is incredibly ahistorical to suggest that it is merely a contemporary movement. Besides the fact that there is no "fairly specifiable time and place" in which we could locate the presence of atheism the 'school of thought' to the exclusion of any other time and place, its inclusion could also be subjected to the same critique as modernism. The vast majority of atheists, just like the vast majority of Christians and Muslims and Jews, are not philosophers, do not participate in philosophical discourse or its institutional sites of production, and do not publish philosophy books. It would be wrongheaded to put Christianity on this page, because Christianity was clearly not a philosophical movement, but a movement in the totality of society which produced specific philosophical movements (that are listed on the page) as aliquot parts of its greater whole. Same with atheism; not so with Postmodernism, which is used in multiple fairly distinct senses, of which one is intended to signify a concrete and identifiable philosophical movement. One cannot say the same of atheism because the word by itself is only used in one type of sense, which sense is not a movement in philosophy.
* Objectivism: Not a movement, but the specific theory of one individual, and a marginal (and discredited) one at that. "What makes a movement identifiable and interesting as distinct from a specific theory is simply that a movement consists in a large flourishing of intellectual work on one or more ideas"; no such large flourishing exists for Objectivism. (Randian) Objectivism is a single system of thought bound to particular institutions, which 'control' the official legacy of Objectivism and dictate its course, not a trend composed of those disposed towards certain philosophical considerations. The difference between Objectivism and every other item on the page is so vast as to disqualify it at this point. If it were ever to expand to include Juche thought, we could think about putting Objectivism back in.
71.191.208.132 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of modernism, atheism, Objectivism 

message: I've started an attempt to add sources, copyediting and rewriting where there is pasted or unsourced content. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit and sources

message: Don't we need to make a distinction between philosophical movements, schools of philosophy, and  List of philosophies? Now the seem to be all jumbled up. Editor2020 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I think philosophical movement should be better defined in this article but I'm not sure how. Maybe some version of the old opening sentence could be reinstated perhaps, but rewritten. The opening that I just wrote came from one book, but maybe we could find something better. Is a philosophical movement culturally broader than a school of philosophy, but not as culturally broad as a cultural movement e.g. the renaissance? And where can we find a source for something like that? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction