Talk:Philosophy/Archive 11

message: I am far from having an authoritative knowledge on eastern philosophy, but I must say that the entry for Persian philosophy bothers me a bit. The main contributor (84.177.125.142, August 15) states that because Zarathushra, per the Oxford reference’s definition, is chronologically the first philosopher then he too must be the “father of [the] humanit[ies] and ethics.” Pardon me but doesn’t being the father of something imply that one is not only the first in a series, but is also the principle influence in said series’ beginning; evidence for which is not provided. Nonetheless, the contributor has no problem implying that there is some causal relationship between Zarathushtra and Classical Greek philosophy. I would appreciate any input...Thanks
:I absolutely agree, the statement isn't just POV, it's also incorrect. Zarathustra can hardly be considered “father of [the] humanit[ies] and ethics.”. --D. Webb 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Philosophy 

message: The article presents some information about the term, "philosphy".  It suggests there are topics associated with it.  It suggests there might be a relationship (ill defined) between "philosophy" and "wisdom",  All very erudite. But a good, clean definition of "philosophy" which a reader can read, know, and apply into life, isn't present in the article.  If a reader reads the article, they can't be confident that they understand what the term, "philosphy" when they talk with their neighbor, their doctor and their political representative.  Shouldn't we first present a good, useable definition of the term ?  "Philosophy is something about wisdom" just isn't very useable. Terryeo 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is the nature of the beast. Banno 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As Banno says, a clear-cut definition of philosophy isn't that simple. Philosophers do not all apply a common method and their considerations are most certainly not all on the same subjects. It seems to me that saying that philosophy is something about wisdom is as specific as you can get without misleading people or leaving out large chunks of philosophical studies by implication. Anria 08:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think useful first section is "What is philosophy?" Invariably, it is a question all philosophers ask. The intro to the article could mention the difficulties of the definition as well as some areas of inquiry: past and present. What is philosophy could also include some different limits of philosophy within other cultural traditions. --Gyuen 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition ? 

message: I think that the section on Indian philosophy should be removed. Even a cursory look at the other areas of study on this page will reveal that what is being done in the Gita or the Vedas is of a very different nature. This is not to degrade Indian religeous thought and an enterprise, just that what is done lacks certain criteria for it to be called philosophy. There are of course Indian philosophers (Rabandranath Tagore, for example) but what is refered to here is theology.
:I support this view. Radhakrishnan's views below look more like religion/theology than philosophy to me, and to most others too I guess. If a subsection of Indian philosophy is to be kept, this problem should at least be mentioned in the article. (The fact that Indian philosophy often seems highly regarded amongst Western intellectuals these days doesn't make its content any less religious or any more "philosophical" in a more traditional sense). Narssarssuaq 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of finding ground for what really should be written: what follows is an exerpt of a discussion about the hallmarks of Indian philosophy. The first, by S. Radhakrishnan, is (it seems) the consensus view, or something close to it. The second is the dissenting view by Daya Krishna. The two views are evaluated by Arvind Sharma ("Competing Perspectives on Indian Philosophy", Philosophy East and West © 1999 University of Hawai'i Press), concluding that the former summary is more powerful than the latter: "it cannot be gainsaid that the counterperspective offers a strong challenge to the existing presumptions of studying Indian philosophy".
S. Radhakrishnan (the conventional view)
1. The chief mark of Indian philosophy in general is its concentration upon the spiritual.
2. Another characteristic view of Indian philosophy is the belief in the intimate relationship of philosophy and life.
3. Indian philosophy is characterised by the introspective attitude and the introspective approach to reality.
4. The introspective interest is highly conducive to idealism, of course, and consequently most Indian philosophy is idealistic in one form or another.
5. Indian philosophy makes unquestioned and extensive use of reason, but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate can be known.
6. Another characteristic of Indian philosophy, one which is closely related to the preceding one, is the so-called acceptance of authority.
7. There is the overall synthetic tradition which is essential to the spirit and method of Indian philosophy.
8. All philosophies in India -- Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, Carvaka - have a practical motivation, stemming from man's practical problems of life, his limitations and suffering, and culminating in every case except Carvaka in a consideration of his ultimate liberation.
9. [THere are] several schools and systems of Indian philosophy.
10. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, in all their branches, accept the underlying doctrines of karma and rebirth.
11. The way of life accepted by Hinduism... includes the fourfold division of society, the four stages of life and the four basic values which man seeks (namely, dharma, artha, kama, and moksa).
Daya Krishna (the dissenting view)
1. The characterization of Indian philosophy as 'spiritual' is erroneous.
2. The notion of 'Vedic' authority ... is a myth.
3. There is no such thing as final, frozen positions which the term 'school', in the context of Indian philosophy, usually connote.
4. [It is a] myth that Indian philosophy is intrinsically and inalienably concerned with spiritual liberation.
5. Indian philosophy is not moka-oriented, as usually claimed.
6. That there are four Vedas, and that they are the sruti or final authority for all orthodox Hinduism is axiomatically accepted by everybody who writes on the subject. Also, that they form a unity, a musical harmony like that of a string quartet, the so-called sakhas are nothing but recensions of the same text, and there are no problems in this best of all possible worlds. [THis is just not so.]
7. It would be no exaggeration to say that the tradition concerning what are regarded as the Upanisads is largely accepted uncritically and repeated as read or heard from the so-called 'authorities' who[m], in the context of the Indian tradition, one has learnt not to question.
8. The traditional and the modern scholars both seem to be either uninterested [in] or unaware of the problems [associated with the text of the Nyayasutras]
9. [The concept of Adhyasa in Sankara is based on] Samkhyan premises.
10. The search for the meaning of Vedanta leads nowhere. The most haloed term in Indian philosophical thought connotes nothing. It is an empty shell, mere verbiage, and absolute nothing.
11. The Indian doctrine of karma makes morality in the usual sense impossible.
12. The oft-repeated traditional theory of the purusarthas is of little help in understanding the diversity and complexity of human seeking.
In the right hands, a few musings on these themes should be more than enough to satisfy a brief description on this page. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian philosophy? 

message: : In the interests of finding ground for what really should be written: what follows is an exerpt of a discussion about the hallmarks of Indian philosophy. The first, by S. Radhakrishnan, is (it seems) the consensus view, or something close to it. The second is the dissenting view by Daya Krishna. The two views are evaluated by Arvind Sharma ("Competing Perspectives on Indian Philosophy", Philosophy East and West © 1999 University of Hawai'i Press), concluding that the former summary is more powerful than the latter: "it cannot be gainsaid that the counterperspective offers a strong challenge to the existing presumptions of studying Indian philosophy".
S. Radhakrishnan (the conventional view)
1. The chief mark of Indian philosophy in general is its concentration upon the spiritual.
2. Another characteristic view of Indian philosophy is the belief in the intimate relationship of philosophy and life.
3. Indian philosophy is characterised by the introspective attitude and the introspective approach to reality.
4. The introspective interest is highly conducive to idealism, of course, and consequently most Indian philosophy is idealistic in one form or another.
5. Indian philosophy makes unquestioned and extensive use of reason, but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate can be known.
6. Another characteristic of Indian philosophy, one which is closely related to the preceding one, is the so-called acceptance of authority.
7. There is the overall synthetic tradition which is essential to the spirit and method of Indian philosophy.
8. All philosophies in India -- Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, Carvaka - have a practical motivation, stemming from man's practical problems of life, his limitations and suffering, and culminating in every case except Carvaka in a consideration of his ultimate liberation.
9. [THere are] several schools and systems of Indian philosophy.
10. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, in all their branches, accept the underlying doctrines of karma and rebirth.
11. The way of life accepted by Hinduism... includes the fourfold division of society, the four stages of life and the four basic values which man seeks (namely, dharma, artha, kama, and moksa).
Daya Krishna (the dissenting view)
1. The characterization of Indian philosophy as 'spiritual' is erroneous.
2. The notion of 'Vedic' authority ... is a myth.
3. There is no such thing as final, frozen positions which the term 'school', in the context of Indian philosophy, usually connote.
4. [It is a] myth that Indian philosophy is intrinsically and inalienably concerned with spiritual liberation.
5. Indian philosophy is not moka-oriented, as usually claimed.
6. That there are four Vedas, and that they are the sruti or final authority for all orthodox Hinduism is axiomatically accepted by everybody who writes on the subject. Also, that they form a unity, a musical harmony like that of a string quartet, the so-called sakhas are nothing but recensions of the same text, and there are no problems in this best of all possible worlds. [THis is just not so.]
7. It would be no exaggeration to say that the tradition concerning what are regarded as the Upanisads is largely accepted uncritically and repeated as read or heard from the so-called 'authorities' who[m], in the context of the Indian tradition, one has learnt not to question.
8. The traditional and the modern scholars both seem to be either uninterested [in] or unaware of the problems [associated with the text of the Nyayasutras]
9. [The concept of Adhyasa in Sankara is based on] Samkhyan premises.
10. The search for the meaning of Vedanta leads nowhere. The most haloed term in Indian philosophical thought connotes nothing. It is an empty shell, mere verbiage, and absolute nothing.
11. The Indian doctrine of karma makes morality in the usual sense impossible.
12. The oft-repeated traditional theory of the purusarthas is of little help in understanding the diversity and complexity of human seeking.
In the right hands, a few musings on these themes should be more than enough to satisfy a brief description on this page. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement material 

message: I removed the following from "Applied philosophy":
"The idea of philosophy as general concepts or principles of knowledge breaks down in fields of endeavor which require a certain type or level of personal performance. For instance, no principles of knowledge can tell a person how to write dramatic works comparable in quality to Shakespeare's or symphonies comparable to Beethoven's or to hit baseballs like Babe Ruth or sing songs like Elvis Presley. Yet, there is a certain state of mind conducive to peak performance in such fields. Sports psychology does bring knowledge to bear upon such endeavors. William McGaughey's book, "Rhythm and Self-Consciousness", approaches rhythm as a philosophical concept, discussing both its conscious pursuit and its limitations".
--I thought this sounded more like applied psychology than applied philosophy. And the part on "Rhythm and Self-Consciousness" doesn't really contain any information central to philosophy, in any case it needs to be longer in order to be comprehensible. Narssarssuaq 11:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup attempt: Removed paragraph 

message: I am new and mistakenly added a link to a webpage of my own (Wikipedia policy infringement, self-promotion?):
is this link of added value for this article:
Philosophy - overview
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links suggestion 

message: Right now, there are three paragraphs involved in defining what philosophy is and isn't. For clarity, they might be assembled into one, hopefully without leaving out too much substancial information. The three paragraphs are "Origin and meaning of term", "Confines of philosophy" and "Philosophers on philosophy". Or perhaps the present situation is all right; to have a brief definition at the top and then come back to a more thorough discussion at the end of the article? Narssarssuaq 08:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "definition of philosophy" page has always seemed rather useless to me. If truncation is needed, then it would be a better idea to work with a pa
ge on Metaphilosophy, and then both offload the unwanted sections here into it, and merge Definition of philosophy with it. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 23:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: One idea. Move first paraghrap to second, to top "Origin and meaning of term". What others thing about this idea?--Jack007 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "origins and meaning" section used to be a part of the intro, but I think it was more or less agreed that that made the intro a bit too topheavy. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this is better than earlier, but in intro is still f.ex "philosophy is itself debated", so, it is not well agreed intro. I think (and it is also common habit) to show "Origin and meaning of term". I am confident that, it is well accected. That intro into second paraghrap, or remove it. My vote.--Jack007 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup: Definition of philosophy 

message: I've removed the following from the "Confines of philosophy" paragraph. It is too long and without sufficiently important points for an article of this scope. It raises some questions, though, perhaps this could be moved to a different article and pointed to from Philosophy. If you think I'm wrong about removing this, feel free to discuss.
:Much debate has also considered what kinds of persons are capable of thinking philosophically.  Kant explicitly excluded women, saying that they were good at conveying philosophical skills such as moral reasoning and were in fact necessary for teaching children to behave ethically, but that (alas) women lacked the rationality necessary to engage in original philosophical reflection. Aristotle was also explicit about his belief in the rational inferiority of women to men.  More generally, the work of women has not been representatively present in the philosophical canon , and women working in philosophy often used initials rather than names so as to mask their gender. For more on such criticisms of philosophy as exclusive of women, see Feminist History of Philosophy.  Several years ago, the American Philosophical Association estimated that average salaries of female faculty are 70% of the average salaries of their male counterparts.  This is a major improvement from 1963, the first year that women were granted diplomas from Harvard University whose philosophy programs has long been a leading light in American academic philosophy. 
:Children have also traditionally been excluded from the category of philosophers by virtue of being incompletely rational, and yet the Philosophy for Children movement holds that not only is it the case that children can engage in philosophical reflection in early primary school with increasing quality as they develop physically and cognitively, but that it is also the case that a healthy civil society requires people who have been taught how to reason from the earliest age.  
:Similarly, criminals are often excluded from the category of people for whom philosophy is useful or who are capable of philosophical reflection.  Yet, some philosophers have found that taking philosophy into the prisons has reduced recidivism and improved the ability of prisoners to reason well about their decisions in the future.
Narssarssuaq 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: So yeah, I was in the midst of writing a message to you all relating how I thought the body of the article was out of the scope set out in the intro, when I actually began to read it. Although you title the meat of the article as a "history," I've gotta say, you all did a fabulous job discussing different periods/traditions with respect ot the ideas and questions that characterize them. I believe you have all succeeded in finding the middle ground between discussing philosophy as a field of study and different philosophical traditions, which was a source of serious tension in this article a few months ago. I've been MIA for awhile, so I just wanted to congratulate you all on a job well done, and a much improved article. Keep up the good work. - Shaggorama 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOOD JOB EVERYONE! 

message: I'm reapplyinkg the cleanup tag.  Reason, many parts, for example "Philosophers ponder such fundamental mysteries as" which if not ironically intended is an embarassment.  I like the picture, however.    There is also the mistaken reference to Elizabeth of Bohemia.  Guys, just read a book and work out what is wrong.  Dbuckner 08:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that is not really the best possible language. Changed it today. Hard to find the best, most perfect wording. But I do think but the use of the phrase "fundamental mysteries" is appropiate. As well as making the transition from philosophy to philosophers, as unlike many other fields of study, the individual thinker is part and parcel to the history of philosophy.--Gatfish 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that condemnation of banality in the "fundamental mysteries" bit is not exactly interesting or relevant to the summary conclusion that the article needs a "cleanup". Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 22:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: See below.  The "1066" tag is for passages whose style is parodied in the book "1066 and all that".  Dbuckner 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some examples 

message: Is it me, or is this section a bit skimpy? Do we have anyone who is an expert in this topic that can give a more adequate summary on African Philosophy? Until then, I think that section would qualify to be a stub. 24630 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a tiny section. And I have no idea what to write there. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Philosophy 

message: Just to let you know, the "Greco-Roman" section is actually just a "Greco-..." section. There is no mention of the Romans. Maybe some research here by people more knowlegeable than me. -Hairchrm 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greco-Roman Section

message: Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The review of [[Physics]] continues at [[Talk:Physics/wip]]

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)
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: 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]]