Talk:Philosophy/Archive 2

message: In fact the term "philosophy" was not in use long before Plato.
I removed this sentence because its meaning is unclear, and I do not know which meaning is the correct one. Does it means that the word originated with Plato? That it appeared just before his work? Is the word "not" simply a mistake?  —  Adam Conover † 17:37, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
:Any Wikipedia Sentence that starts with in fact… is almost certainly wrong. Banno 20:42, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
::all generalisations are inaccurate (including yours and this one):o) --(talk)BozMo 11:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, of course. In fact, all sentences in the Wikipedia that start with 'in fact' are certainly wrong. Banno 08:22, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
More seriously, can we have a note that the phrase "doctorate of philosophy" has nothing to do with philosophy and is just historical usage? --(talk)BozMo 10:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of "philosophy"

message: Hello, I have moved the content of this page to Western Philosophy. Western philosophy (with a small p) should also lead to the latter page. This page is serving as a disamb. page for the moment, but please feel free to expand on it from a non-axial point of view. -- Simonides 23:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. But I think that much of what was written - what's now in "Western Philosophy" - can be salvaged, overhauled, and put into this wiki. Then "The History of Western Philosophy" can take the place of the wiki that's currently called "Western Philosophy". 
Lucidish 23:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly support the move; material can certainly be reintegrated, but a fresh start will provide the opporunity to re-integrate conscientiously and be a little less distracted by the urge to compromise with the past. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved. 

message: Anybody know the source for that? There's a certain amount of spurious quotation out there, and it would be good to have chapter and verse on this. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I'll replace it with a quote from Bartleby's list of quotations. Lucidish 23:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, I like the new version. I note this, however, from the Bartleby page: "Attributed to BUDDHA.—Life, March 7, 1955, p. 102. Unverified in his writings." ::sigh:: I'm not saying it shouldn't be here, because I'm inclined to think it's real, just that Life is lazy. But if anyonen does come across an attribution... -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddha quotation

message: Please accept my apologies for my rudeness. Your editing of the article was generally helpful, and I do appreciate that there needs to be a balance between the various schools of thought, and thank you for providing a counterpoint to the analytic school. It is apparent that previous editing difficulties have spilt over into this article, which is a shame. Let’s start again, and see if we can come up with a suitable settlement. Banno
I still think the present introduction is better, because it is shorter and leads straight into sub-topics within philosophy. The introduction is usually the most difficult area to write. I’d rather focus on what the main sub-topics of the article should be. Banno
:Writing introductions is indeed difficult, so let us leave the last version alone till we can agree on something better. Merely saying that "asking what philosophy is, is itself philosophy" begs the question. Secondly, as the article mentions, sub-topics are only relevant in certain approaches to philosophy. I hope you see why a little too much specification can easily imply a philosophical bias. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As above. If you want to define philosophical terms, you're obliged to balance the article by introducing philosophical terms from every major tradition and every branch of philosophy within that tradition; terms in Chinese (like chi) or in Sanskrit (like maya) which are not entirely translatable may need to be explained with more space than is necessary for an introduction; you will also have to differentiate between the use of the same words across more than one tradition, or its mutating usage even within the same tradition, from philosopher to philosopher, and it simply means unnecessary work. Not that terminology should be shunned, but that's what main articles are for. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know what you mean by misrepresentation because I don't understand why its relative position in an article somehow connotes its status. I didn't write this article from the first draft, merely began revising it a couple of days ago, and what I objected to, and still object to, is the tendency for contributors to write from an Anglo-American POV; in that respect spending a whole section or two on Analytic philosophy seems unbalanced to me, in favour of the Analytic stuff (I realise Analytic and Anglo-American philosphies are not equal, but I am generalizing for brevity). Another thing most contributors, including myself, often forget is what may be called "historical foreshortening" - some things appear more important to us simply because they are nearer to us, or we are more familiar with them, and we tend to assume the most recent perspectives as the most correct - but analytic philosophy occupies only a very small segment in the timeline of philosophy and using it to evaluate all other traditions is a bit of a stretch. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually there is no structural distinction in the article between Eastern and Western, or Analytic and Continental, there is just a section surveying Western and non-Western traditions but the article doesn't split into two, three or more from there, so I am not sure what you mean. Yes, article editors are predominantly trained in analytic, which is why I'm offering at least a token resistance against it. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a very good idea and comprehensively running through a range of methods would make a great article, but it belongs more in History of Western philosophy or Western philosophy, at least as a long new section if contributors don't want to alter the current text, with Eastern/ other counterparts in their main articles. This article is an introduction for a complete beginner. If we want to make a sequential list of philosophical trends it would have to be extremely condensed, but I'm not opposed to the idea. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current format because it is not too formal nor too thematic. I prefer an even looser and more ambiguous structure that allows one to freely make connections across different areas and periods of philosophy, emphasizing both similarities and differences between the various sources: ex. the similarities in the treament of ontology between phenomenologists and the writers of the Bhagavad Gita, while reminding the reader that the academic approach to philosophy is usually more structured, but also that questioning academic strictures allows philosophy to sustain itself, and that philosophy can be thrust in unforeseen directions because of new disciplines, or give rise to them - and so on. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Banno, good points, but I have to go now with just a quick note: do you think some of your suggestions would be better implemented at Western philosophy, which also needs work and which I haven't gone over yet, where Analytic and Continental philosophies and terminology can be given more attention, while this remains relatively general and simplistic? -- Simonides 23:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That's too bad, because I still think so. -- Simonides 06:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify one more time: 1) this article does not make explicit any philosophy; it makes some loose generalisations about Analytic philosophy but does not go into it - you are welcome to change those generalisations, but remember this is not an article about specific philosophies; also please read/ reread what I said about foreshortening above. There is no reason to spend more time on analytic philosophy than on any other period/ school. 2) You talked about the structural distinction in the article - not between the philosophies. The article does not make branch off into two areas (which is what your sentence reads as); perhaps you are trying to say the article does not differentiate between the two philosophies as schools of thought. Yes, but that's why the main articles are linked. -- 19:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  two structures 

message: I've unprotected the page.  Obviously, please keep it civil. 
Markalexander100 08:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection