Talk:Metaphilosophy

message: I cannot see a single use of a philosopher outside the traditionally analytic school. Continental philosophical tradition, critical theory, and other writers, thinkers, and critics have meaningful input on this subject which merits documentation as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDSavage8 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skewed representation 

message: In the secion on the so-called "linguistic" metaphilosophical stance it says, "Criticised as being vacuous and without relevance, the logical study of meaningful language is in decline in many universities."  This is absolutely false.  I am not someone to delve into debates about the virtues of Contintenal vs. Analytic styles of philosophy, but I don't think this is really what is at heart.  The claim as stated expresses that the study of logical form and theories of meaning is in decline, which is simply not true.  These form the backbone of the linguistic study of semantics, which is a rapidly growing field of study that has made major scientific advancements since the time of Chomsky.  Furthermore, as a statement about philosophy it is also false.  Analytic philosophy, which is associated with the "linguistic turn" is still the dominant trend throughout the English-speaking world.  That means it is the trend at the very large majority of universities throughout North America, the UK, and Australia. Colin 14:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Claim 

message: Seems to me like this article could use a clean-up. I'll have the necessary time to do the research but only in a month or so - if no-one else is willing at the moment. In the meantime, any suggestions?
* Introduction: could be a bit more compact, but it's okay I guess, though I'd remove "Philosophy is, however, commonly understood to encapsulate metaphilosophy, so the distinction is seldom made." as the distinction is standard if not always made.
* Taxonomy: theology is often considered as a seperate discipline, so perhaps "(some include theology)" or an explanation of why both disciplines (philosophy and theology) have diverged in modern times.
* Existing stances: awful. The idea itself isn't bad but I'd include it in an independent overview of each of the specific questions (nature of philosophy, aims, relation to everyday life, ?) There is also no reason at all to make a section both for existing stances and metaphilosophical writings. 
Possible (new) categorization:
* Introduction
* Aims of philosophy: nature of philosophy; relationship between philosophy and life/sciences; historical overview of stances
* Philosophical method: the rationalism/empiricism distinction, experimental philosophy, to a priori or not to a priori (as e.g. in naturalized versus traditional epistemology; but also the broader debate about whether philosophy has a distinct method or a distinct subject-matter); genealogy and other methods of criticizing the methods, aims and premisses of a particular type of philosophy.
* Progress in philosophy (and perhaps other smaller problems like these, if there are any?)
* Suggested reading list would be nice.
Other ideas? 
Stdbrouw 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: Since it was published in 1936, I have taken the liberty of chaning "post war debut" to "book".  KD Tries Again 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Truth and Logic 

message: I've done some reordering of the article, added a few things and removed the stupid reference to linguistic philosophy as being vacuous. The article is still crummy and my additions aren't top notch themselves, but overall I think it's a improvement. Too bad few others seem to be interested in improving the article; considering that it might be a good idea to create a somewhat smaller but better article - something on my to-do list. Stdbrouw 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Jan 28 / 07 

message: Certainly the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be a method to demark philosophy from pseudophilosophy. Otherwise what is the point of metaphilosophy?  Gkochanowsky (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demarcation problem? 

message: I've integrated the content of definition of philosophy into the body of metaphilosophy and cleaned it up a tad. It still needs tighter integration with the rest of the material here, e.g.:
* section 4.4 Method should probably be integrated into section 3 Philosophical method
* sections 4.3 What philosophy is not, 4.5 Intrinsic character, 4.6 Second-order nature, and 4.7 Critical nature should probably be integrated with section 2 Aims and nature of philosophy
** however, I think perhaps that section (2) ought to be split into two sections, one on the nature of philosophy, to merge with the aforementioned subsections, and one on the aims of philosophy, to merge with section 4.10 Goals and section 5 Progress in philosophy.
*** furthermore, "empiricism or rationalism" seems much more of a question of method than of nature, so I think that should be moved.
* sections 4.8 Subject matter and 4.9 Branches should probably be integrated with section 1 Taxonomy of philosophical problems
* I think the first two sections of Definition of philosophy should stay under that heading, perhaps not even broken down into subsections, and that Definition of philosophy should be the first section in this article.
Thus in the end I hope to have an outline about like so:
#Definition of philosophy (controversial subject, but some agreement, misleading etymology, etc)
#Nature of philosophy (incl. "Intrinsic character" & "What philosophy is not"; contrast with religion and science, mysticism and lifestance)
##Second-order nature
##Critical nature
#Aims (or goals) of philosophy
##Progress in philosophy
#Philosophical methods
##Phronetic
##Epistemic (incl. "empiricism or rationalism")
##Analytic
##Rethinking intuition
##Computational philosophy
#Philosophical taxonomy
#Metaphilosophical writings
#References etc
I'll likely be whittling away at this project for a while but anyone else feel free to jump in and help if you want... --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the overnumerous and superfluous section headings and changed the title.  If the section intends only (or mainly) what dictionaries or encyclopedias have to say then that should be made clear.    Dictionaries are interesting to an extent, but if one were interested to know more about (say) the concept of "force" then one would be better of consulting and citing Newton or reliable text books in Physics rather that the OED.  To which end I have added a section giving a fairly comprehensive list of quotations from authors of note concerning the nature of philosophy.--Philogo (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of superfluous section headings, I have temporarily moved your section of quotes to Metaphilosophy/quotations because it was absolutely destroying the table of contents with so many subheadings. I very much appreciate you providing us with that material, however it doesn't look quite ready for the article yet; thus the sub-page, from which we can move the content as we integrate it with the article. Thanks! --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotations I think are a useful resource--Philogo (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they are a very useful resource, and that is what I was thanking you for. I just don't think a raw dump of them on the article page is appropriate. With them on a sub-page, we can use them as a resource to improve the article page without overwhelming the more cleanly organized and formatted material on the rest of the page. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I have finished my work on this merger for now, after many extensive edits and much cleanup and expansion tonight. It didn't quite go according to my above plan but I think this is an improvement over that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger begins, here is my plan

message: "There are many kinds of philosophy, dependent on the numerous human cultures. What is not controversial are the general types of problems included in philosophy."
 
Too dang funny. Gkochanowsky (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy of philosophical problems 

message: I think the article really needs some direction. Most of it is about philosophy, not metaphilosophy. One does not learn much about metaphilosophy. Can anyone help? 82.247.114.156 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Metaphilosophy is about philosophy; it is the philosophy of philosophy. As such, this article discusses various questions about philosophy itself, and various proposed answers to those questions. Perhaps it could use a bigger lede to explain this in more detail. Any suggestions? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an article about philosophy or about metaphilosophy? 

message: Can't we just end up with an endless cycle? For example the study of the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta Philosophy) and the study of the philosophy on the philosophy of philosophy (Meta-Meta-Meta Philosophy), etc, thus making it pointless?--207.68.234.177 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The philosophy of metaphilosophy would itself be metaphilosophy still. Any reflective system will loop like that. For example: awareness of your own self-awareness is still just self-awareness. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra Meta Philosophy 

message: The article starts with suggesting that 'metaphilosophy' means a discipline about philosophy outside philosophy. "Metaphilosophy relies on the idea that it might be productive to distinguish some general pronouncements about philosophy from philosophy itself." Later in the article it says that there is no consensus whether a philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy is possible. Still, this article does use the term 'metaphilosophy' as meaning 'philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy' as is the case in this quote: " In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote that there is not a metaphilosophy.[31]". But can't we just use metaphilosophy to mean 'philosophy of philosophy' leaving it a question on itself whether it is in or outside philosohy or whether there is philosophy on philosophy outside philosophy AND philosophy on philosophy inside philosophy? Or is metaphilosophy already an established term which by definition means 'philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy'? The article refers to Rescher and suggests that he supports the idea of philosophy of philosophy OUTSIDE philosophy, is this really the case?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking 'metaphilosophy' to mean something outside philosophy 

message: Even though the quote of Wittgenstein that opens the section on 'the methods of philosophy' literally uses the words "the methods of philosophy" I don't think the quote illuminates on the methods of philosophy. The quote just shows that Wittgenstein thinks philosophy is only 'meaningful' when it is used to attack (traditional) philosophy. So the quote shows a hostile stance to philosophy rather than explaining the methods of philosophy. I suggest removing the quote. (There is a bit too much Wittgenstein in the article anyway right?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.77.128 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Methods of Philosophy starting with a quote from Wittgenstein 

message: In a recent set of about sixteen large-scale revisions on March 11, this to this, Snowded has completely rewritten the article Metaphysics to suit Snowded's personal views about what this article should contain. These changes were not discussed on the Talk page, and are contrary to various views expressed there by other authors, and by sources that are no longer represented adequately. Snowded has repeatedly pursued the merging of this article with Philosophy and repeatedly suggested that metaphysicsmetaphilosophy is a subject with no standing (at least, among the philosophers that Snowded wishes to read). 
In view of the controversial nature of these changes, and the resulting complete emasculation of the subject Metaphilosophy, even to the point of refusing to let stand the simple definition of ts subject area, these changes should be reverted and, if there is reason to re-implement them, then those changes should be supported by Talk page discussion, and not simply by fiat. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is talk page discussion and I made sure there was an edit summary for each change.  I've also conformed the material with what the sources say.   I realise you are frustrated that not a single editor supported your proposed changes to Philosophy but you really need to calm down a bit and deal with content issues.  If you want to raise an RfC do ----Snowded TALK 15:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it make sense to merge the content into Philosophy? There isn't really such a thing as "metaphilosophy". The study of "metaphilosophy" (or philosophical method) is the study of philosophy in a way that the study of history is not the study of historiography. To study philosophy is to go meta instantly. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My original proposal on the talk page was to do that for similar reasons ----Snowded TALK 16:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only point of having this page might be to discuss the term (who uses it and why). But I'd be surprised to learn that there's a university course in a philosophy department anywhere that's called "metaphilosophy". SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Is that a reply to me? I'm allowed to say with certainty that I'd be surprised, given that I'm the only one with the privileged access. :) As for the rest, I think it's common knowledge, but one thing to do is to look for a course called "metaphilosophy" in a philosophy department. I can almost guarantee that you won't find one, unlike meta-ethics and metaphysics, but I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revisions by Snowded arbitrary and unsupported by Talk page discussion 

message: *Nicholas Joll "What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? These are metaphilosophical questions, metaphilosophy being the study of the nature of philosophy." Contemporary Metaphilosophy
*Timothy Williamson: "The primary task of the philosophy of philosophy is to understand philosophy...The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy..."
*Richard Double: "By a metaphilosophy I mean a view of what philosophy is, what philosophy can do, and, especially what philosophy is for." Metaphilosophy and Free Will p. 4
*Nicholas Rescher: "Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophy. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects." Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy Chapter 1, p. 1
*Nicholas Rescher: "While philosophers from Plato to Kant have discussed the mission and methodology of philosophy, this area of deliberation has only recently been acknowledged as a distinctive branch of philosophy as such, duly entitled metaphilosophy" Studies in metaphilosophy, Preface 
*Søren Overgaard, Paul Gilbert, Stephen Burwood: "However, to attempt to answer this question - to reflect on the methods of philosophizing - is to do metaphilosophy. An Introduction to Metaphilosophy, p. 8
*Charles L. Griswold Jr.: "The term metaphilosophy is a recent invention. It seems to have been coined by, not surprisingly, a follower of the later Wittgenstein, in order to refer to the "investigation of the nature of philosophy, ..." Platonic Writings/Platonic Readings p. 144
I hope these definitions might prove helpful in providing a more suitable introductory sentence for metaphilosophy inasmuch as Snowded has removed an earlier proposal. Brews ohare (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of 'metaphilosophy' 

message: I don't know how helpful or not this will be, but I thought I'd draw attention to the fact that User:Philogo once populated this page with a huge number of quotes from primary sources which he thought were relevant to the subject, which were subsequently archived at Talk:Metaphilosophy/quotations. Again, not sure what relevance that may be, but in case it is... --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: Also for reference in the above discussions, Talk:Philosophy/Archive_24 through Talk:Philosophy/Archive_28 contain discussions by editors at Talk:Philosophy about bringing metaphilosophical issues (e.g. regarding the definition of philosophy) to that article, and the push to move discussion of such issues here instead. I believe this should discourage attempts to merge this article into Philosophy, but should not necessarily discourage a renaming of this article to another title if "Metaphilosophy" is an objectionable title for this subject. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding a proposed merger to [[Philosophy]] 

message: The above is presented as the definition of metaphilosophy. It is not. It is one possible definition, but there are others with different meanings, and this one is not the most common one. The cited article in the journal Metaphilosophy is not available without subscription, so it is difficult to say whether this remark is taken out of context. However the citation Contemporary Metaphilosophy] says in its two introductory sentences (emphasis added):
::"What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? These are metaphilosophical questions, metaphilosophy being the study of the nature of philosophy."
A summary of other possibilities is provided in Contemporary Metaphilosophy:
:"Lazerowitz proposed (1970) that metaphilosophy is ‘the investigation of the nature of philosophy.’ If we take ‘nature’ to include both the point of philosophy and how one does (or should do) philosophy, then that definition fits with the most general meta­philosophical questions just identified above. Still: there are other definitions of metaphilosophy; and while Lazerowitz’s definition will prove best for our purposes, one needs – in order to appreciate that fact, and in order to give the definition a suitable (further) gloss – to survey the alternatives."
:"One alternative definition construes metaphilosophy as the philosophy of philosophy. Sometimes that definition intends this idea: metaphilosophy applies the method(s) of philosophy to philosophy itself. That idea itself comes in two versions. One is a ‘first-order’ construal. The thought here is this. Metaphilosophy, as the application of philosophy to philosophy itself, is simply one more instance of philosophy (Wittgenstein 2001: section 121; Williamson 2007: ix). The other version – the ‘second-order’ version of the idea that metaphilosophy applies philosophy to itself – is as follows. Metaphilosophy stands to philosophy as philosophy stands to its subject matter or to other disciplines (Rescher 2006), such that, as Williamson puts it (loc. cit) metaphilosophy ‘look[s] down upon philosophy from above, or beyond.’ (Williamson himself, who takes the first-order view, prefers the term ‘the philosophy of philosophy’ to ‘metaphilosophy’. For he thinks that ‘metaphilosophy’ has this connotation of looking down.) A different definition of metaphilosophy exploits the fact that ‘meta’ can mean not only about but also after. On this definition, metaphilosophy is post-philosophy. Sometimes Lazerowitz himself used ‘metaphilosophy’ in that way. What he had in mind here, more particularly, is the ‘special kind of investigation which Wittgenstein had described as one of the “heirs” of philosophy’ (Lazerowitz 1970). Some French philosophers have used the term similarly, though with reference to Heidegger and/or Marx rather than to Wittgenstein (Elden 2004: 83)."
The chosen definition is not the most commonly used, and it contradicts the definitions presented in published books with open access found here on this Talk page. Moreover, it contradicts the position of Heidegger:
:"When we ask, "What is philosophy?" then we are speaking about philosophy. By asking in this way we are obviously taking a stand above and, therefore, outside of philosophy. But the aim of our question is to enter into philosophy, to tarry in it, to conduct ourselves in its manner, that is, to "philosophize". The path of our discussion must, therefore, not only have a clear direction, but this direction must at the same time give us the guarantee that we are moving within philosophy and not outside of it and around it."
::::—Martin Heidegger , Was Ist Das--die Philosophie? p. 21
and Williamson:
:"I also rejected the word “metaphilosophy.” The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is, whereas metaphilosophy sounds as though it might try to look down on philosophy from above, or beyond."
::::—Timothy Williamson , The philosophy of philosophy, Preface, p.ix
and of Wittgenstein.  
Brews ohare (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphilosophy is the philosophy of philosophy, the higher-order study of the nature of philosophy 

message: #SlimVirgin added the material that presently makes up most of the lede, including the sentence about Paul Moser.
#That sentence was part of a longer piece about Moser's views, but Snowded trimmed it down to the present single sentence.
#That sentence by itself does not fit in with the rest of the paragraph, which is about the controversy of whether metaphilosophy / philosophy of philosophy is first- or second-order, so I had left it dangling after that paragraph.
#BrewsOhare didn't like it dangling and tried to stick it into that paragraph.
#That made it a non-sequitur as it is not about what the rest of that paragraph is about (it is giving an example of a metaphilosophical problem, not discussing whether metaphilosophy is first- or second-order), so I moved it closer to SlimVirgin's original location, before the "controvery" paragraph, adding only the words "for example" to segue to it from the preceding sentence. In my edit summary I called for further expansion of that first paragraph, e.g. more examples of what metaphilosophy / philosophy of philosophy is about.
#Snowded just reverted that with an edit summary implying that I was expanding something beyond the material we have, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was a mere rearrangement of material that was already there, and a two-word segue to connect the train of thought.
#I've reverted that now because that edit shows a complete misunderstanding of what was even reverted.
Snowded, please pay closer attention to what you are doing, both with this in particular and your editing pattern at this article in general. I get the overall impression that this is a fight you were having with Brews (I've recently had one of them myself so I sympathize) at Talk:Philosophy spilling over to here with an eye to "win" rather than a calm approach to understanding the material and improving our coverage of it. Please, slow down, read, listen, and think. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop dellivering little homilies.  For someone who moved a whole article when active discussion was going on, its a bit of cheek asking anyone else to slow down.   I moved a section into the main body where it fits better.  If the article is to survive then the body needs to be right, then the lede should summarise it.  I think that is the sequence that swe should follow.   You might want to read up on WP:OWN ----Snowded TALK 06:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You made further edits while I was writing this and after those (with some tweaks) I withdraw my objection here, it was not clear what you were doing. --07:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood and those last two edits you made improved that section ----Snowded TALK 07:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Moser sentence 

message: This paragraph has been deleted and restored several times, and is presently deleted:
:The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of wisdom."Philosophia, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, at PerseusOnline Etymology Dictionary, philosophy: 1. orig., love of, or the search for, wisdom or knowledge 2. theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe".  However, few sourcesPenguin Encyclopedia give "love of wisdom" as a possible meaning of the term, and othersPhilosophy: The Basics, by Nigel Warburton say the etymology is "not much help" in resolving such definitional issues.
I admit that I was having trouble organizing this paragraph logically into the Limits section, so I'm not just going to restore it, but it seems notable information that there are sources commenting on the usefulness or uselessness of etymology in defining the subject. Just giving the etymology is pointless without that, and us claiming that it is useless ourselves, obvious though that may seem to some, would be equally pointless. But if some sources actually do give the etymology as a definition, and others decry its uselessness, that seems at least worth a mention, and this paragraph claims to have sourced assertions of both those things, so pending verification of that sourcing I think it deserves a place in the Limits section. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could't see anywhere that it logically fitted and it did not seem greatly relevant to this article ----Snowded TALK 05:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymological paragraph 

message: In this edit Snowded removed the following remark:
:"Metaphilosophy is intent upon providing an overview and evaluation of methods philosophy-wide, and is not intent upon taking over the various schools of thought in various sub-disciplines."
His reason is given as: rv unreferenced personal opinion.
It's fair to say the removed statement is unreferenced, but to suggest that it is simply a "personal opinion" needing further support is ludicrous. There is no philosopher that would disagree with this remark, as is fully evident from the few sentences (fully sourced) that precede it in the lead. Its purpose here is very simply to underline the fact that meta-philosophy is not to be confused with philosophy proper and its classical sub-fields, a confusion that can result from skimming over the introduction, as shown by some confusion expressed in the RfC underway on Talk:Philosophy here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say what it would mean for metaphilosophy to take over certain schools of thought in sub-disciplines? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

text: SlimVirgin: That's an interesting question. I suppose if it were to happen that careful examination of the methods of philosophy demonstrated some problems of methodology in some sub-field, that would provoke a revolution in that area. It wouldn't be a take-over, exactly. More like reinforcing old buildings so they were more earthquake resistant. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If its self-evident why say it?  No one is claiming the negative intent and there is no literature to support it. ----Snowded TALK 11:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of my 'unsupported opinion' 

message: The following paragraph seems to capture the idea of 'metaphilosophy' rather simply for the average (non-philosophical) reader:
:"What is philosophy? How should we do it? Why should we bother to? These are the kinds of questions addressed by metaphilosophy - the philosophical study of the nature of philosophy itself."
I suggest it be added somewhere in the introduction as an easier and less dry approach to the subject that makes clear what 'mataphilosophy' is about. It is similar to the introduction to the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, which begins:
: What is philosophy? What is philosophy for? How should philosophy be done? . 
This choice indicates that Nicholas Joll also thinks this is a good approach for an introduction. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that could make a very good quote to include after the lede. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was reverted for belaboring "the investigation of the nature of philosophy". Readers asking "What is philosophy?" should see the philosophy article... Those who are asking "what it is to ask what philosophy is" are the target audience, i.e. "the average (non-philosophical) reader".—Machine Elf 1735 07:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: MachineElf: There are three views of what metaphilosophy is, all documented in the WP article and in Contemporary Metaphilosophy. There is the school to which apparently you subscribe that metaphilosophy is the metatheory of philosophy. That position, while not denied, is labeled "narrow and tendentious". The second position held by Heidegger and by Williamson among others, is that there is no metaphilosophy, only the 'philosophy of philosophy', part of philosophy. The term 'philosophy of philosophy' is mentioned in the lead to metaphilosophy. The third position, taken to be that of Lazerowitz who coined the term (according to him), is that metaphilosophy encompasses both these views and advantages itself by straying back and forth over this boundary as the discussion requires. With this latter more general view of the subject, the musings over ‘What is philosophy? How should we do it? Why should we bother to?’ are within the scope of metaphilosophy, as explained in detail in the article and in Contemporary Metaphilosophy and, of course, in the Cambridge University Press's concept of An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: To push this point a bit further, given the general approach of the article, and the misconceptions of its content that apparently are possible given the present lead, it would be salutary to include these questions in the lead to make the meaning more obvious to the casual reader. Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I've added two sources to the lead that might make the matter clearer. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple questions 

message: * Hampl M., (2000) Reality, Society and Geographical/Environmental Organization: Searching for an Integrated Order, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Science, 
62.168.13.98 (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metaphilosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905143806/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5526 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5526
*Added  tag to http://www.southernct.edu/departments/philosophy/metaphilosophy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: -Just found this Metaphilosophy article in Wikipedia; (editors) could change the first two "philosophy" descriptions in this Metaphilosophy article and the Philosophy article, and make them the same-please, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  /*/*description consensus needed*/*/