Talk:Philosophy/Archive 21

message: I've archived the remainder of this talkpage, to the two Jan2007 archives listed above, I wasn't sure whether to integrate those and the other two "additional archives" into the regular archives, and will leave that up to you. If anything in there was actually useful for the article, feel free to unarchive those threads. Ludvikus has been blocked for a week for unrelated abuse and personal attacks, and uninvolved admins are fully aware of the situations he has created, so everyone can ignore that whole issue, and get back to writing here and at the workshop. I'm retreating back to book design, where I initially met Ludvikus, so good luck with that whole describing the clarity of weltanschauung thing ;-p
Hope I helped, at least a little. And I still think this article needs more einstein, more meaning of life ;) --Quiddity 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I am tentatively setting up a workshop page for those who wish to collaborate on this subject. Please read the intro, as this is not the same as a usual free-form talk page. Its purpose is to gain views on some questions that come to mind. Any editor here is invited to contribute - but please read the ground rules first! FT2 (Talk | email) 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshop 

message: Truth is a lie, when it is missing a truth. (CS)
Only fitting...
"Ancient Greek philosophy may be divided into the pre-Socratic period, the Socratic period, and the post-Aristotelian period. The pre-Socratic period was characterized by metaphysical speculation, often preserved in the form of grand, sweeping statements, such as "All is fire", or "All changes". Important pre-Socratic philosophers include Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Democritus, Parmenides, and Heraclitus. "
You forgot to add the name of Pythagoras
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Greek philospher Pythagoras missing. 

message: I'd like to merge the first two paragraphs and drop one of the two versions of the Greek origins, i.e. either remove the reference to philosophía or to the combining forms: 
:...and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). The word itself is derived from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophía, meaning love of wisdom).
I know there's some argument over the best way to describe the etymology but a one-sentence paragraph on it giving both the Greek word and its origin seems like overkill at this early stage in the article. Bringing in a linked "combining forms" here seems distracting to the point. A link to a "History of the Etymology of Philosophy" entry would  be fine! JJL 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection.  The 'combining form' was an obsession of our dearly departed friend Ludvikus.  I gave up reverting this for obvious reasons.  Dbuckner 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JJL, I adjusted the account of the etymology some weeks ago; then Ludvicus added "combining forms". I thought that the addition was harmless enough; so, given the Heraclitean volitility of things hereabouts, I left it alone. But I have now made a slight adjustment, in response to your concern. I urge you (and others) to consider leaving the etymology sentence as it now stands. Very many accounts of the etymology get it wrong, including many in earlier versions of this article. A single short sentence setting things right is not too much in an article of this length, detail, and importance. We could go further, but should not. An editor pointed out earlier that the word for philosopher precedes the word for philosophy, in Greek; that's true, but it complicates the matter needlessly, for a general article like this. – Noetica 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an improvement, but I'd still prefer to see it shorter this early in the article. Perhaps it's a matter of looking at things from better informed eyes, but I wonder if showing philo- and sophia- isn't enough for the average reader to figure out where philosophy comes from, even if there are some slight technicalities that are omitted. JJL 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining Forms

message: I have updated the  quotations page with links to what Philosophy departments advertise their subject as being.  Everyone welcome to work on this page, so long as verifiable source material.  Dbuckner 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the most junior facult member gets stuck with the job of writing the description of the subject in the college catelog.  Not a good reference.  Rick Norwood 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Summarize key points based upon descriptions by notable philosophers and reference texts, and contrast with summarized descriptions of college course/departmental promo texts, perhaps? Multiple viewpoints, those seem the main ones. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been my experience too. To insure that students will be attracted to the dept., often a small committee or senior expert in the relevant subfield writes the catalog material and the head carefully edits it. This is a big responsibility for the head--the catalog is the arbiter of many disputes. JJL 16:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But does it describe philosophy (neutrally and accurately), or does it market philosophy (massage or tilt the description a bit to gain interest)? I'd be amazed if a marketing summary - even one written by a philosopher and department head - was as certain to be neutral and accurate and likely to catch the important "twists" in definition, as an academic or formal summary. It'll be professional but verrrry slightly off, I'd suspect? My $0.02.... FT2 (Talk | email) 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's bound to be a bias of some sort.  But the purpose of that set of quotations was to address the old question that has bogged down progress on this page for many years, namely whether philosophy uses the rational and critical approach.  All professional philosophers would say it does, and these quotations suggest that does.  Rick Norwood (who is not a professional philosopher) has argued that it does not.  Hence his remark above.  He (and also Lucas) has objected to the use of encyclopedias as in Definition of philosophy on the grounds that use of encyclopedias as sources is inadmissible in the Wiki.  So we are stuck.  Dbuckner 08:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well...when we're speaking of divisions of philosophy, for example, I think that how it's taught in universities reflects how working professional philosophers divide up and classify their own areas of expertise. If a curriculum requires that students take one course from each of n major areas of philosophy, that makes a statement. JJL 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the courses taught by a philosophy department are driven by the marketplace (to make philosophy look more useful outside its own).  Examples: Biomedical ethics, business ethics.  Zeusnoos 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is a wonderful resource that has been added.  There is the little question of a 'caveat emptor' to be included in it though, about inflated promotional claims for philosophy, but most importantly that it might be giving (you guessed) an exclusively analytic or anglo-fied or, if not, a traditional version of what philosophy is.  Somehow I think many of the graduating students might like to reword those claims that attracted them to philosophy, when they are on their way out the door. -- Lucas (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  KD, who is not an analytic but a continental (his tutor was Edo Pivcevic, who was a Czech philosopher who taught in England) has argued many times that the continental approach is also rational and critical.  You (and Norwood, and indeed Ludvikus)consistently seem to confuse 'rationalism' with the use, in philosophy, of a rational and critical approach.  You do understand there is a difference, do you?  Dbuckner 08:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Edo is Croatian, but otherwise I agree of course.  I have offered before a handful of example of philosophers who have sought to reject rationality as such, but they are few and far between and the position is arguably not notable.  KD Tries Again 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations page 

message: I'm resubmitting my suggestion for the inclusion of the Encylopedic Standards forum (ESF) as a way of mantaining quality editing, maintaining a pool of qualified expertise, resolving diputes, and maintaining a positive flow in the development of this article, and the philosophy portal overall:
The mission of ESF is to build a vibrant community with a pool of expertise that will match any organization, corporate or university.
We envision developing or refining:
1.	A set of goals for articles. 
2.	A system to indicate articles or article versions that have attained those goals.
 
3.	A quality-based method of resolving editorial disputes. 
Richiar 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resubmitting suggestion for standards process 

message: Note to self: we need a section on skepticism under epistemology/metaphysics. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (well, at least started). { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the department of the bleeding obvious: 

message: I left a rant on the Analytic philosophy talk page.  A little critical, but there is a lot that could easily be done to make it better.  Also see the Continental philosophy talk page.  I'm still unclear about the debate between Lucas and the person with a number.  What is it about?  Dbuckner 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two long rants 

message: I have deleted the paragraph in 'Identity of Philosophy' which begins 'Elements of the analytic tradition ...'.  It is poorly written and is a misreading of Tractatus 4.111.  The Schopenhauer remarks are pure OR.  Dbuckner 19:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us.  I have started a page  here.  This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page.  Let's clear up this town once and for all.  Dbuckner 12:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Dbuckner is attempting to do is to take some rather involved discussions and arguments between two people.  Cut out completely one-side's comments, replies, rebuttals and edits, and present only this one-half as "evidence".  Under what kind of rule does this constitute "evidence"?  When I say "rule" I mean with what historical or contemporary form of government would you associate this type of "evidence" gathering?  Democracy? Autocracy?  Totalitarian? Stalinist? Please do not assume this "rfc" has anything to do with "evidence" or justice.  And do not be fooled by the officious language.  You abuse these words.  -- Lucas (Talk) 20:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RfC" on Lucas 

message: I note that Wikipedia does not have articles on primary reserach and secondary research.  It should.  My own impression is as follows.
Primary sources are original manuscripts and physical artifacts such as the Rhind papyrus or the Rosetta stone.  Secondary sources are articles written by people who have examined the Rhind papyrus or the Rosetta stone and who publish their findings, usually (these days) in refereed academic journals, in earlier times in books or monographs.  I have not heard the phrase "tertiary sources" in my scholarly reading.  What I have heard is "scholarly", describing a book or article written by someone who has actually read the secondary sources, and "popular", describing a book or article written by someone who has only read the scholarly books and articles, not the primary or secondary sources, and now tries to simplify those for the general reader.  Usually scholarly books and articles are written by experts in the field, popular books and articles by professional writers who are not experts in the field.
People who write for Wikipedia can make their greatest contribution when they write about their own areas of expertise (in my case, mathematics and comic strips).  Sometimes, however, if we have read primary and secondary sources widely and carefully, as well as scholarly books on a subject, we get tempted to say something about, oh, I don't know, maybe philosophy.
A person who has only read popular books on a subject should not try to write about that subject.
Footnotes may refer to primary or secondary sources, or to scholarly works.  They should only reference popular works in order to make a point about the popular work being referenced. 
Rick Norwood 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean, Rick. See: primary source, secondary source, tertiary source. Unless you mean "Wikipolicy pages" or make a distinction between sourcing and research... { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  But please, always to call it -- research  

message: It is obvious from the discussions here that (apart from Ben) the people involved have not read WP:OR.  Since people are evidently incapable of following a link, let me digress here.  The three pillars of WPOR are as follows:
* Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought 
* Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis 
* Content should not be synthesized to advance a position
Which in fact boils down to one pillar (the first statement) supported by the two below (verifiable reliable sources + not analysis or synthesis). It doesn't use the word 'scholarly', it uses the word 'verifiable and reliable'.  Verifiable is obvious, 'reliable' is explained as: "books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."  Then the policy defines primary, secondary and tertiary sources.  It is these definitions only that we are concerned about.  
Lucas says" So, unlike wiki policy, in philosophy you can't say primary sources are less preferred nor that tertiary, or majoritarian claims, represent the stronger view."  That is fine for people doing original research, for the aim of original research is truth.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Ergo, no original research allowed in Wiki.  Got that?  Dbuckner 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote from me that you mention is not part of my understanding of wiki policy.  You here "synthesis" your own version of what I was saying.  If you look at the quote from me you will notice a little word at the beginning, "So".  This indicates that it follows from something said prior to it which you leave out, and you create a whole new section here in order to do it.  Why you do this?  Because otherwise you would not be able to make your point.  Remember my position (stated clearly in the above section) is that verifiable sources are what is required, after that it comes to skill and judgement.  From discussion above it seems clear that anything other than this is tentatively extra and depends on which editor you speak to.   My "extra" opinion at the moment, unlike your "extra" opinion, is that I do not consider major philosophers in general to be less preferable sources than other ones.  I say "at the moment" because I've not seen any argument against this so far, even  though its been a useful discussion of the skill involved in choosing sources.  -- Lucas (Talk) 10:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and Secondary (again) 

message: ::Beyond Analytic Philosophy: Doing Justice to What We Know by Hao Wang (1988) , pp. 115-6, says:
        I have often been struck by what might be called the dilemma of nothing-but and
   something-more in attempts to achieve a comprehensive philosophical position. a nothing-but
   philosophy tends to begin in an elegant way and then, if it attracts enough attention and
   criticism, undergoes stages of liberalization until it runs up by a new and different path
   against familiar difficulties in early philosophies. ... On the other hand, if one begins by
   taking a flexible enough framework to include the something-more, it may be so difficult to
   penetrate the large structure that one cannot even separate out the more reasonable parts
   from the rest.
        ... The contrast between 'analytic' and 'continental' philosophers may be summarized by
   such a distinction. The analytic philosophers tend to do better with the 'nothing but' part;
   the continental philosophers tend to begin with and to concentrate their attention on the
   'something more' part. In the case of individual philosophers, J. Habermas, for instance,
   appears to display in public his continued efforts, unsuccessful thus far, to blend a
   positivist cum pragmatist element of nothing-but with an elusive something-more element along
   the tradition of the average German philosophers.
Dbuckner's compaign to characterise philosophy as "rational enquiry" effectively dismisses Continental philosophers as simply failing to comprehend the rational nature of their philosophical inquiries. In fact, their concern is precisely with the failure to identify what makes an inquiry Rational - besides merely calling it so. --Ludvikus 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analytic vs. Continental

message: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method ed. by Richard Rorty (1967/1970), Ch. 28, by Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, A Prerequisite for Rational Philosophical Discussion opens with the following observation:
        Communication between philosophers has been deteriorating during the last decades.
   Logical empiricists and British linguistic philosophers have been branding large parts
   of the output of their speculative colleagues as 'nonsense' and 'literally unintelligible'.
   Speculative metaphysicians, after having recovered from the first shock, either just
   disregard these declarations, or else declare, on their part, that the standards of
   intelligibility employed by the critics are arbitrary.
I suspect that this campaign - under the banner of Rational Enquiry - is a smoke screen to dismiss Continentals as perpetrators of Nonsense. That, I think, is the view of Mel Etitis - who, by the way, is Wikistalking me at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here we have another fine example (sarcasm) of rational enquiry, regarding a "bizarre" observation concerning allegedly myself. Dbuckner, as I said before, I recognize your dedication to philosophy. So I ask you to look all around you, and see how all human methods are infested with irrationality. This Wikipedia is One Text, in a sense. Why must we take a narrow view of things? Look more carefully at the methods used to silence one another here. I realize this may be distasteful. But progress often takes place by stepping out of the box. In my opinion, you have too much invested in that word Rational - especially in the light of being surrounded by so much irrationality. The word just dangles there - it does nothing to improve the condition of philosophy. Yet you, Dbuckner are the most gifted socially - if anyone can make this discourse more Rational - it is you who can do it. Rationality belongs in our Meta-Wikipedia - and it still is not there to the degree it can be. --Ludvikus 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as having anything to do with analytical vs. continental. Both groups argue their cases; if analytical does so in a more formal style, that doesn't mean that continental is less rational at its base. Continental philosophers give reasons for believing things, don't they? Marx attempted to support his positions, which he had arrived at by considering the state of affairs as he saw it--that is, by a rational inquiry into economics, politics, and class? Would any continental philosopher say "There's no good reason for believing this stuff--it just looked good to me"? (Hold the Derrida jokes!) I'm sure an example could be adduced, but fundamentally, if it isn't supported by an argument using logic and marshaling evidence, it doesn't sound like (Western) philosophy to me. JJL 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct.  And as far as Marx is concerned, he goes so far as to claim that dialectical materialism surpasses mere ideology and is in fact scientific.  Hardly an embrace of the irrational.  KD Tries Again 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what might be missing is a critical edge on these matters.  What might be the problem certain philosophers have with Rationality is more to do with what is, or was, done in its name, so the criticism of the Enlightenment can be also a criticism of Nazism and the mis-use of reason in eugenics etc.  I'm not sure where this kind of critique occurs in Analytic but in Continental it generally is not very sparing of those who might claim innocence and promulgate what they call or define themselves as "Reason" and gets taken up and used for other purposes to the complete neglect of another's emotion, religion, romaticism, Freud, tradition, etc.  We can also find the unreasonable as one of the foundational pillars of Modern philosophy in Descartes' Demon. -- Lucas (Talk) 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Linguistic Turn"

message: Dbuckner challenges me to produce a major philosopher who says there is more to philosophy than reason.  I have answered that challenge several times: Kant is probably the most famous philosopher to make that assertion.  I've also quoted Carlyle, who is not in the same league with Kant, but who has a respectable reputation.  
But my main point, which I have made several times and which Dbuckner has never answered, is this.  If the question of whether or not rational investigation is desirable or even possible is not a philosophical question, then to what discipline do such questions belong?  Rational discourse should be defended by evidence, not handed down like holy writ as part of the definition.  
Rick Norwood 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The challenge was for you to give a single citation showing that the method of philosophy does not include rational enquiry.  The quote from Carlyle does not show that, as I already pointed that.  And I have already answered your second point too.  I said that this was an interesting question, but it was original research.  If the textbook definitions say the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, then Wikipedia says that too.  You have still not produced a single authoritative reference saying that the method of philosophy is not rational enquiry.  How long does this have to go on? Dbuckner 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On your point about Kant, if you remember I challenged you to locat this in Kant.  You replied that you find reading Kant rather tedious and difficult (this does not surprise me).  In fact, Kant says that the method of philosophy is rational enquiry.  See the page Talk:Philosophy/Quotations under the section: Kant.  Dbuckner 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something about rational/reasoned/logical should be in there. It definitely is an important part of being able to recognize philosophy as being such--or as is said about math., answers without reasons is magic, not mathematics. Philosophers, like mathematicians, argue. JJL 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thank you, exactly.  It's like saying that certain kinds of mathematics don't involve proofs.  In what sense would it be mathematics any more? Dbuckner 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Philosophy is also not moon exploration - but I cannot think of a single philosopher who says that (probably because no one does). Does it follow that philosophy is moon exploration? But why, Dbuckner, do you ignore Marx? Does he not say that philosophy reflects class interests? Is that not tantamount to saying that it is not rational inquiry? Do you think the oil industry presents us with rational arguments against global warming? Or does the cigaret industry present us with rational arguments that smoking does not lead to cancer? Why do you not see that Marx maintains that philosophers, in the academies of the West, are not insulated from similar irrationalities? Do you believe that their abode in their ivory towers makes them immune from their class interests? I cannot understand why you are so dismissive of Marx - except perhaps for your own possible prejudice against him. There is probably no better counterexample (to rationality) than Karl Marx. Now you are not required to accept Marx - but how can you dismiss him as a philosopher? What Marx did to Hegel is common knowledge to Continentals - but not so to Anglo-Amercans. Hegel saw the History of Philosophy is a kind of unfolding of a Universal Mind in History. The Dialectic is the constant evolution of philosophies into their opposites with a synthesis at the third stage. So what is Rational today becomes Irrational tomorrow. Marx saw this not as a Hegelian Idealist (the Real is Rational and vica versa), but as a materialist. Philosdophy is therefore (for Marx) an Idiology, or a collection thereof - and as such - a reflection of class interests. Now you may not like, appreciate, or understand, this train of thought. But it exists. And as a Wikipedian Encyclopedist, you have a duty to present it to the reader. On the other hand, perhaps class interests are such here, on Wikipedia, that Capitalism requires the silencing of Continental views (I'm only following up the Marxist argument and viewpoint). Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ludvikus should be reported immediately for the personal asides on this page today, and I'll be happy to do that.  As for the general discussion, there really is no stalemate unless someone can produce not just any authority, but a notable authority to the effect that philosophy is not a rational exercise.  And I am not wedded to the word "rational" - I am wedded to the idea that philosophy does need to be distinguished from other disciplines by reference to what is - obviously - its method: the advancement, consideration and acceptance or refutation of arguments.  I myself have produced the handful of authorities I can find which would oppose this - Lyotard only in one work (he rejected the position himself), Shestov, and arguably Bataille.  Deleuze would place the emphasis a little differently.  These are grains of sand on a two thousand year old beach.  Footnote them by all means, but do not use them as grounds to argue that Wikipedia must be unique among encyclopaedias in being unable to say what philosophy is.  KD Tries Again 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume we are required to engage here in a rational discourse. Your personal attack upon me, that I "should be reported immediately," and that you shall be "happy to do that" sounds to me like you think we are in kindergarden. Why must you police my remarks in such an irrational way? Why don't you tell us what you consider a notable authority? Am I supposed to deduce from your threatening remark above that you do not consider Marx such an authority? You seem to sweep over the argument that has been presented - why must we find authorities which maintain that philosophy is not a rational exercise? It seems to me that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders. I have the Continent of Europe on my side. It seems to me that part of your arguments is to "report me  immediately". What is the aim - is it not to get rid of me and my argument? Isn't that precisely the method employed by Stalin and Hitler? With whom one doesn't agree - him one must silence. That's precisely what moved the Frankfurt school to take issue with Rationality in the 20th century. Are you going to report that immediately? And take pleasure in it as well? Is that the kind of Argument or "excercise" you call Rational? --Ludvikus 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin and Hitler? I call Godwin's Law. You've given up. JJL 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Marx is certainly an authority, and he claimed that his work was "scientific", rather than not rational.  You need to find authorities, because otherwise the claim is OR or POV.  The Frankfurt School did not take issue with rationality as such - see Adorno/Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment; Adorno, Negative Dialectics.  You need only read as far as the sub-title of the latter.  Adorno championed critical rationality against instrumental rationality.  Or take a look at Lukacs, and his attack on irrationalism in The Destruction of Reason.  You'll find Sartre discussing a "rationality of the world" in - I think - chapter one of the CDR. So, you see, you don't have the continent of Europe with you at all.  I can't see anything else to respond to here, but I'll certainly report the remarks about Hitler and Stalin.  KD Tries Again 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pure reason 

message: But to write about philosophy. Keep that in mind. Banno 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are not here to ''do'' philosophy 

message: Dbuckner: You almost tempt me to try to read Kant, but I have papers to write in my own area, and so I have to rely on secondary sources when it comes to Kant.  Are you saying that what the secondary sources say about Kant is incorrect?  If so, I have given you direct quotes from Carlyle illustrating the kind of thing I'm talking about.  
I hope we are clear on my own personal view of the subject, even though that has nothing what-so-ever to do with writing this article.  I think philosophers ought to rely only on the method of reason, but don't. Rick Norwood 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the secondary sources say about Kant until you give me some.  As for the Carlyle, I've already commented on that.  It does not prove what you require.  Dbuckner 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why, but I find I have little to no patience with all this bad Kant.  Kant posited "God" as a regulative idea of Pure Reason, not as an irrational or a-rational or non-rational entity or a "notion".  I'd like to move on, because I don't know how to discuss it further if people don't know the texts well enough.  We may not be here to do philosophy, but we're surely not here to teach it either.  KD Tries Again 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's a supporting cite, lest I be accused of OR.  As you'll see, (section 6. especially) - and you can check any Kant textbook too - God, the world and the soul are ideas of reason - they are rationally, not empirically, derived constructs.KD Tries Again 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Kant 

message: I have deleted the schism section, as there was an extensive discussion of the section a while back, and general agreement (apart from the author of the section) that it should be deleted as unencyclopedic and poorly written.  Dbuckner 15:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly was decided.  There was a firm majority for deletion.  The only reason it was not implemented was the huge disruption caused by Ludvikus, and to a lesser extent by you.  So I am reverting back to the consensus version. You have reverted once.  If you revert twice more in a 24 hour period, I will take it to 3RV.  Please conform to Wikipedia rules.  Thanks Dbuckner 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't the right place for such a detailed discussion of this split. It seems to me that there's pretty wide agreement on keeping the discussion of it here quite limited and linking to elsewhere. JJL 15:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the section was an embarrassment as drafted, and as said above was way too detailed in any case.KD Tries Again 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The vote you (Dbuckner) refer to of a month ago, did not "certainly decide" the matter.  A number supported it, a number opposed, without firm consensus.  After this discussion from last month, what was removed was the "Historical notes" section which talked of Analytic and its origins vis-a-vis Marxism.  The discussion being from a month ago, is it not strange that you now return to this all of a sudden? And do not tell me it has something to do with a certain editor, the philosophy page was quite stable for some time and had few edits during that month.-- Lucas (Talk) 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Schism' section 

message: If I can quote KD on this:
:As for the general discussion, there really is no stalemate unless someone can produce not just any authority, but a notable authority to the effect that philosophy is not a rational exercise. And I am not wedded to the word "rational" - I am wedded to the idea that philosophy does need to be distinguished from other disciplines by reference to what is - obviously - its method: the advancement, consideration and acceptance or refutation of arguments. I myself have produced the handful of authorities I can find which would oppose this - Lyotard only in one work (he rejected the position himself), Shestov, and arguably Bataille. Deleuze would place the emphasis a little differently. These are grains of sand on a two thousand year old beach. Footnote them by all means, but do not use them as grounds to argue that Wikipedia must be unique among encyclopaedias in being unable to say what philosophy is. KD Tries Again 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to.  Lyotard gave up the attempt after Libidinal Economy, but I did think of another contender: Miguel de Unamuno in Tragic Sense of Life.  I will be pleased to provide quotes, as long as this is correctly represented as a minority dissenting view of the subject.
KD Tries Again 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable authorities 

message: I asked Franco for some help on this article, Continental philosophy and Analytic philosophy. He replies
::Sempre gli stessi mostri sacri. Managgia la miseria!! Those pages are the primary crank-magnets in all  of Wikipedia. They are wonderful for those folks who like being intubated through the penis without an anesthetic and lying in a hospital bed in the mental ward under 11 different erroneous medications with the air-conditioning on maximum 24 hours a day, occasionally pissing and shitting in their pants, unable to pick a spoon to eat, for an entire month (something I actually experienced, BTW). Well, ok, it's not quite that bad. But, it's still a mild form of masochism which might end up causing the described scenario. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So he is definitely coming back, then. Terrific! Banno 21:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at his trail, you see he is already working on Free will and Philosophy of mind.  I doubt, from his remarks above, that he can be tempted to work on this article, however.  Dbuckner 12:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, Dbuckner. His remarks make it sound like having a slight sniffle or an itchy elbow, for those of us who ever did a tour of duty at Talk:Physics/wip. (The horror... .) –Noetica 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message from Franco 

message: Lucas is contesting my delete of the infamous 'schism' section.  At the time, there was overall agreement to delete, with a small minority favouring a rewrite.  For the record, I believe that something should go in.  However, the current section is just so awful and rambling I would like to see it all go.  Any rewrite should reflect the fact that this article is dealing with several millenia of history across many different schools of philosophy.  I think there should be one section on analytic philosophy, in a summary form + link to the Analytic philosophy page.  Similarly for Continental philosophy.  There is probably room for a brief mention of the schism, but please, let the sub-articles take the burden of any detailed treatment.  If people feel the schism deserves a sub-article of its own, then let any detailed treatment go there.  This article should be no more than a roadmap to the relevant sub-articles, I am desperately trying to keep personal essays, original research and anything else out of here.  Thanks! Dbuckner 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its been established that Lucas is a malicious troll. See my comments at Talk: Being and Time-"Messin up the (read My) page". As far as I'm concerned, you have the support of the community to proceed, and standard troll interventions should apply to Lucas. Richiar 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If any action is taken against Lucas, I imagine that he will protest that some sort of analytical philosophy "mob" is shutting down his minority viewpoint (supposedly, that of "Continental Philosophy").  But let me re-emphasize, as KD and Mtevfrog have done before, that those of us trained in Continental philosophy recognize his "contributions" to the philosophy articles on Wikipedia are at best tendentious and ignorant OR, and at worst incorrigible trolling. 271828182 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  In the past, it has been easy to achieve a community consensus to delete his stand-alone articles which reflect his obsession.  He is now trying to protect his material (mixed with bits of Ludvikus's) as a section here.KD Tries Again 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comments seem noncontributory and irrelevant to the discussion, and perseverative.Richiar 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think everyone is agreed there is potential to develop some material somewhere in the encyclopedia.  The question is how much detail there should be here.  The view seems to be: not much.  The logical place for any detailed treatment would be one or both of Analytic philosophy and Continental philosophy.  Dbuckner 17:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I will locate Passmore to see what he says.  Dbuckner 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a difference between analytic and continental approaches to philosophy not only because it is obvious and not only because as a professor of philosophy I live on the terms of a profession dominated by this noisome distinction but because the claim that there is no such distinctive divide is politically manipulative.[
Now think about this political manipulation, is it really in your interest in an open society where philosophy is not just that which is sanctioned by certain political or religious interests, and are these interests the same as your own? I don't think so -- Lucas (Talk) 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noncontributory remarks. Will disregard. Richiar 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytic / continental schism 

message: He says in A Hundred Years of Philosophy (1957/1968), p. 467:
     The fact we have to live with, then, is that if most British philosophers are convinced
   that Continental metaphysics is arbitrary, pretentious and mind-destroying, Continental
   philosophers are no less confident that British empiricism is philistine, pedestrian and
   soul-destroying.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments seem noncontributory and irrelevant to the discussion, and perseverative.Richiar 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think everyone is agreed there is potential to develop some material somewhere in the encyclopedia.  The question is how much detail there should be here.  The view seems to be: not much.  The logical place for any detailed treatment would be one or both of Analytic philosophy and Continental philosophy.  Dbuckner 17:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I will locate Passmore to see what he says.  Dbuckner 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a difference between analytic and continental approaches to philosophy not only because it is obvious and not only because as a professor of philosophy I live on the terms of a profession dominated by this noisome distinction but because the claim that there is no such distinctive divide is politically manipulative.[
Now think about this political manipulation, is it really in your interest in an open society where philosophy is not just that which is sanctioned by certain political or religious interests, and are these interests the same as your own? I don't think so -- Lucas (Talk) 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noncontributory remarks. Will disregard. Richiar 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Passmore]]

message: Perhaps timely to mention this call for contributors from Larry Sanger, via the PHILOS mailing list.
User:Dbuckner/Sanger%27s_call_for_contributions
I'm not a fan of 'credentialism' – I've seen more articles ruined by plain bad writing than lack of expert credentials.  On the other hand, if there are a significant number of defections from here then I see no point continuing.  Everyone can see the problems caused by the attitude that trolls should to be tolerated and that if you react badly to them, it is somehow your own fault.  Let's see.  Dbuckner 08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanger's call for contributions 

message: I hesitate to edit because it is not really my area of expertise, but should this introductory article really devote almost ten times as much space to Zarathustra as to the Greeks?  It seems to me a shorter section, with a link to the main articles, would be more appropriate.  Rick Norwood 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when, by the way, has hesitation about your area of expertise ever stopped you from editing this article, Rick?  Dbuckner 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, indeed the author of this article argues that Jesus was a philosopher.  He defines philosophy as follows.  "The essential condition of being a philosopher is to be a strong and lived-out inclination to pursue truth about philosophical matters through the rigorous use of human reasoning.  By ‘philosophical matters’ I mean the enduring questions of life’s meaning, purpose, and value as they relate to all the major divisions of philosophy (primarily epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics).”  He argues that Jesus satisfies this criterion through his use of logical techniques such as appealing to evidence, use of " reductio and [sic] absurdum philosophical arguments", and the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and George Bush said he was a philosopher.  There you go.  Of course, Rick, you don't agree with that definition of philosopher so perhaps Jesus should not go in after all.  Dbuckner 14:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thus spake... 

message: I have not yet found the exact quote I was looking for, but I did find this at http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2h.htm#line.
"Finally, at the highest level of all, are the more significant Forms—true Equality, Beauty, Truth, and of course the Good itself. These permanent objects of knowledge are directly apprehended by intuition (Gk. nohsiV [nóêsis]), the fundamental capacity of human reason to comprehend the true nature of reality."
Now, this is a use of the word "reason" that is similar to Carlyle's use of "reason" when he says that reason directly apprehends the existance of God.  I think Kant says something similar, but I'm relying on secondary sources.
That isn't at all what I mean by "reason", and I don't think it is what Dbuckner's many quotes from philosophy texts mean by reason.  To me, the modern meaning of reason is something similar to "logic", while this use seems to use reason to mean a "higher" power of the human mind to arrive at truth by "intuition".  
Dbuckner, you did offer to help me out on this.  In the introduction, what does the word "reason" mean in the phrase "wedded to reason".  Does it mean "logic"?  Does it mean "intiution"?  (The Latin root means the ability to compute!) Rick Norwood 14:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  There is certainly a connection between 'reason' and 'logic', because 'reason' derives from the Latin 'ratio', which is similar to the Greek word 'logos' from which we get 'logic'.  I'm not an expert on Greek.  On the Latin 'ratio', this is famously a difficult word to translate into English.  It can mean simply 'compute', but has a closer connection to 'account', as in, give a full account of something.  It means a 'reason' as in 'giving a reason' for something, and can also mean 'nature' as in the fundamental nature of anything.  I believe there are similar connotations to 'logos' in Greek.  On Plato, well of course Plato was a kind of rationalist, with some strange views. He derived from Parmenides (the first Rationalist) the idea that the only real things are eternal and unchanging, namely the 'Forms'.  He had the odd idea that our knowledge of the Forms is innate, but we forget what is there, and can only 'remember' what is there by the use of deductive reasoning.  I.e. reasoning is a process of remembering or recovering what is already there.  That makes Plato peculiar, but in essence he is a extreme rationalist.  Dbuckner 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS I'm sure the others will correct me if I'm wrong - Plato is one of those philosophers I simply cannot abide.  I'll put him up there with Hegel and Shakespeare as very famous and important writers whose work I approach with distaste and loathing.  Dbuckner 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PPS You might find this link about 'logos' helpful.  In the hands of the neo-Platonists the idea of logos becomes very important in synthesising the Judaic and Platonic traditions.  That is what John is talking about when he says that God is 'the word'.  I.e. God provides a divine light of reason which permeates the world.  All very mystical and rationalist at the same time.  Dbuckner 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to help, but I just don't see Rick's point.  Plato's works that survive all proceed, in their philosophical passages, by means of reasoned argument.  If Socrates has any other method to lead his listeners to contemplation of the forms other than reasoned dialogue, I have missed it.  Incidentally, with apologies to Dbuckner, I don't recognize that account of Paermenides either! - not that it matters.  Yes, Plato is an ultra-rationalist.KD Tries Again 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, he got from Parmenides the idea that the real is eternal and unchanging.  The idea of the 'Forms' is of course Plato's own.  I wrote the sentence in a way that was begging to be misparsed.  Does that make more sense?  Dbuckner 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  On the Socratic method, yes, it is all reasoned dialogue.  But Plato / Socrates think of this dialogue is uncovering something that was already there, whereas it is natural for us to think of argument as getting us to a place we had never been.  Plato's take on reasoning is quite peculiar, in other words.  But, yes, it's reasoning he is talking about, once you strip away the mysticism.  Dbuckner 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a recovery of innate knowledge, I agree.  I would be worried if the Plato's method for recovering the knowledge was sitting cross-legged and humming, but it seems to be just good old argument.KD Tries Again 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Norwood wrote: "The later dialogs seem (to me) to go all mystical."  Say what?  Like the Parmenides and the Statesman?  Will people on  this page please stop pontificating about books that they clearly have not read? 271828182 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato 

message: I wonder if any editor has pride of authorship here?  There are numerous errors, but I won't correct them if someone is going to revert to the current draft without discussion.  
1.  What are "Anglo- nations"; I don't recognize or understand this term.  
2.  Any evidence that Hegel relief to a notable extent on neologisms? (caution: neologism in German is a bit different from neologism in English).  
3.  It is a significant error to say that Wittgenstein thought of philosophical problems as "puzzles of language" when he wrote the Tractatus - on the contrary, he thought they were real problems and that the Tractatus solved them.  The notion of "puzzles" comes later.
4.  His P.I. was a "second major work" only in a strained sense, as it was edited and published posthumously.  Its publication came several years after Ryle and Austin had developed their positions (Concept of Mind predates P.I.), so it can hardly have encouraged them.
5.  The third paragraph, if it means anything, seems to identify Einstein, Freud, Bakhtin and others as sharing some methodological precepts with ordinary language philosophers - either OR or twaddle or (probably) both.
6.  Why is Bakhtin described as "continental"?  Yes, Russia's in Asia, just as England is in Europe, but "continental" usually means something other than Russian in a philosophical context.
7.  The last paragraph is an odd soup of quite distinct movements.  Generally, the suggestion that everything came out of the P.I. is a misrepresentation of recent philosophical history. 
Can changes be made, or is an editor going to defend this to the death?KD Tries Again 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment above noted: see below. Richiar 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Analytic Tradition 

message: In the interests of the community of editors, in the interests of retaining quality-high quality editors, and in the interests of having a high quality article here, and Philosophy project, I have taken some initiative and attempted to devise a "quality managemet tool"; I have completed the prototype. 
I would be willing to act in the behalf of the other editors here as a "quality monitor", so to speak. I would open a "Quality Management" subpage for this article, and "host it". 
To protect and preserve the edits of quality editors, the monitor thing would always be on and maintained.
Shall I proceed? Richiar 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Quality Management process 

message: The comments by Lukvikus at (17:52) seem digressive with incorrigible perseveration, there seems to be veiled hostile insinuation, the questions he raises have been exhaustively addressed already and I feel do not warrant further comment. Richiar 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  KD Tries Again 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Lukvikus 

message: Flew's A Dictionary of Philosophy (pp. 277-8) says:
   Rational.
   1. Opposed to irrational.
   2. Opposed to non-rational or arational.
   Those who have spoken of man as the rational animal have of course been employing the word
   in the second sense, meaning capable of either rationality or irrationality, not trying to
   make it true by *definition that everyone in fact achieves the one rather than the other.
Dismissing the irrational is easy. But what about the non-rational, or the arational in philosophy in general (not just the Analytic school)? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So neither Kant, nor any other subsequent World-class philosopher ever recognized a non-rational, or an arrational, realm within Philosophy - according to Wikipedia? --Ludvikus 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, User:Banno. You are discussing his 21-page Preface. Notice his distinction of the two senses of the term Philosophy, the sense of "My philosophy is ..." and the other sense, whose "preliminary answer might be that given by a distinguished well-loved Cambridge professor": G. E. Moore, whose "preferred response ... was to gesture towards his bookselves: 'It is what these are about'" So for him philosophy is what philosophy texts are about. However, our 27 Wikipedia editors (according to one editor's count) are much more clever, and less modest, than Flew or Moore - they have found that the "method" of Philosophy is "rational enquiry." Also, Banno, notice that when Flew does use the word "rational" he says the following:
   Again, if the findings of the psychological and social sciences really do show that there is
   no room for choice and for responsibility, then the rational man has somehow to jettison either
   these ideas or those of the human sciences.
That is the ending of the paragraph you quoted from. The full sentence which opens this paragraph is conditional, and the next sentence, are as follows:
        Because philosophy, as we understand it, is characteristically argumentative and
   essentially directed towards the determination of what logical relations do and do not
   obtain, a course in this discipline can be, can indeed scarcely fail to be, a fine mental
   training. However, once we are fully aware of how totally different the two senses of the
   word 'philosophy' are, we do need to notice that many of the issues of philosophy as an
   intellectual discipline are in some way relevant to philosophy as world-outlook.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to think that what you have written above supports your case (whatever that is). I can't see how. But then, if you have rejected rationality, that would not be surprising. Banno 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anthony Flew]] on [[Rationality]] 

message: Question for User:Dbuckner: Is rational enquiry at all related to Rationality, or to Scientific rationality as characterized by the Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  ? If so, how so? If not, why not? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rationality|Scientific rationality]] 

message: In a summary of his philosophical ideas, prepared as part of his candidature for
   a professorship at the Collège de France,41 he criticised the rationalistic
   tradition he was attacking thus: 'We never cease to live in the world of perception
   but we by-pass it in critical thought ... critical thought has broken
   with the naive evidence of things.'
   [Boldface emphasis added]
Notice, User:Dbuckner, Merleau-Ponty's attack on your cherished/favored defining/characterizing terms/concepts of philosophy: 'rational' and 'critical'. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Passmore]] on [[Merleau-Ponty]]'s philosophical ideas 

message: I've added to the introduction a direct quote from Dbuckner that makes the point I have been trying to make all along, that not all philosophers use the word "reason" to mean the same thing.  Please, Dbuckner, edit your quote rather than removing this idea entirely, and I, for one, will be satisfied with the introduction and ready to move on. Rick Norwood 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let Dbuckner be Debuckner 

message: Hoping against hope that Dbuckner will accept some version of his own words in the introduction, I have moved along to the section on Medieval philosophy.  I do not know enough to make a major contribution to this section, but I do know enough to correct obvious errors, such as the claim that Boethius was a scholastic!  
It may be that the worst thing about the long squabble over the introduction was that it distracted people from sections, such as this one, which need a lot of work.  I hope there is a medieval scholar who will contribute.
Rick Norwood 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval philosophy 

message: Says John Passmore, p. 501 of 100 years ...:
      The traditional alternative to empiricism has been some form of 'intellectualism',
   according to which perceptual experience is nothing more than a means of 'triggering-off'
   the activity of pure thought. But then it becomes impossible to understand, Merleau-Ponty
   argues, why experience should be needed at all. For how can pure thought ever be ignorant?
   "Empiricism", Merleau-Ponty sums up, 'fails to see that we need to know what we are looking for'
   since otherwise we would not be looking for it; "intellectualism" fails to realize that we must
   be ignorant of what we are looking for, or else, once more, we should not be searching.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merleau-Ponty on [[Intellectualism]]  

message: Please, tell me you're kidding! Rick Norwood 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice pun on Ponty Python and Monty Merleau. Nevertheless, that France and the French for you, dear fellow Anglo-American. We may not like them philosophically, except as comic relief - nevertheless, they exist, and demand their proper place among us. --Ludvikus 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monty-Python on Intellectualism 

message: In answer to Rick's question, I have no objection to the change he has made in the introduction.  That's not the same as saying I like it.  It is not incorrect, but it makes the introduction unnecessarily prolix.  And I am not really sure why it is there.  But in any case, go ahead, be my guest.  I have lost the will to continue – I privately emailed some administrators to see if there was any possibility of changing Wikipedia policy on 'difficult' editors, and the answer is, no, not a chance.  So Ludvikus, Lucas, please, go ahead.  I'm interested in what you all have to say, and will watch the progress of this article with interest.  Best.  Dbuckner 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  If you have no objection, and I assume you don't, I'll shorten your quote a little to make the intro less prolix.  And I hope you will contribute to the rest of the article, which badly needs work I am not qualified to do. Rick Norwood 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New introduction 

message: Whereas User:Ludvikus repeatedly and blatantly ignores the ordinary principles of rational discussion, User:Ludvikus is an incorrigible troll and an obstacle to the improvement of this article.
Agreed to by the undersigned users:
271828182 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Richiar 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll support anything on those lines, but there is a wider issue.  The policies of Wiki are simply not strict enough to deal with this kind of offender.  L. is well-meaning, that I truly believe.  But he cannot comprehend the effect he is having. In a moderated news group, he would have been kindly and gently shut off just by preventing him contributing, unless his contributions were helpful, to the point, constructive &c.  I have taken this matter up with some of the administrators, but I am told it is 'our fault' for not dealing with him in the right way.  It is an embarrassment for my subject.  Google 'philosophy' and this page comes up number 1.  What sort of impression are people getting?  It is a scandal.  And no one outside this page seems to care about it.  Anyway, end of rant.  Dbuckner 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstood my remarks.  I believe L is acting in good faith, in the sense that he is not conscious of the considerable harm he is doing.  Really he isn't.  Nonetheless he is doing considerable harm, and there should be some way of easily removing him.  It is quite impossible to get anything done here without the stream of vacuous and irritating comments and thoughtless ranting &c &c.  Best Dbuckner 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A resolution for any to sign 

message: I have found user Ludvikus to be brazenly disruptive of the editng of this article, incorrigible to correction, and demoralizing to the community of editors. I believe there to be near unanimous agreement on this. His pattern remains the same as before he was banned for 1 week. Next step? Richiar 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, add my support to this.  But as I said above, it's a wider issue.  It should not take so long to deal with such an egregious problem.  Dbuckner 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC - conduct of user 

message: I wouldn't have dared suggest this, but in fact Rick Norwood did: the section on Z. is long in relation to the treatment of other philosophers.  Given (if my view is accepted) that the article is an overview, i.e. that not even Aristotle or Aquinas or Kant gets separate treatment here, what do we do with that section.   
I'm working on a section on Ancient philosophy right how.  Dbuckner 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confucius gets a single paragraph here...I would agree with cutting this back. (Is all that info. located at one of the more focused articles like Iranian philosophy etc.?) We still face the problem that covering Western phil. and Eastern phil. in one article is like, well, treating Western and Eastern science, or math., or art, etc., in one article; it's problematic. Still, both must be addressed, in my opinion. JJL 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last two paragraphs should be moved to Medieval philosophy, as the philosophers mentioned there are quite important in that period, and also that article needs fattening up.  If there are no objections, I will do that?  Dbuckner 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroaster 

message: See my assessment in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not failing. Dbuckner 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vital articles in philosophy 

message: I see someone removed most of the text I thought mistaken.  Thanks.  I also removed the picture of Chomsky.  I think we can avoid debating whether he is an analytic philosopher - he's simply not sufficiently notable to be the visual figurehead for the section (compare the other sections - Husserl decorates phenomenology, Russell adorns logic, Descartes illustrates rationalism, etc).  I should have thought Frege or Wittgenstein or Ryle or Austin or Quine would be better.  It just needs to be someone who it is not controversial to identify as an analytic philosopher.  KD Tries Again 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryle is pretty archetypal, or Austin.  Quine is too logical, Wittgenstein too Austrian :-).  We need one of those black and white pictures of chaps in three-piece grey suits having tea in college rooms and boring the hell out of someone with examples of linguistic usage. Dbuckner 09:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS I have put a pic of G.E.Moore on my user page.  Dbuckner 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, in that case Austin would be good.  Or Ryle, with his pipe.  KD Tries Again 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I forgot pipes.  Pipes were v. important.  edward (buckner) 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytic Tradition: Chomsky picture removed 

message: I am developing this now.  There is a new section on Islamic philosophy which builds on the section I moved from this article.  I plan to add a section on Early Christian philosophy, then a short section on the High Middle Ages which will link to a much more detailed treatment in Scholasticism.  Best Dbuckner 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval philosophy 

message: This article contains a solid dose of complete nonsense, is full of original research and presents an idiosyncratic, highly dubious view of the topic.  Please do not use it as a research source, and please, PLEASE, help to fix it if you are willing and able.	
edward (buckner) 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful tag 

message: Just started thinking about this.  Nietzsche needs only a passing mention.  I think it should be structured as beginning with Kierkegaard (using his opposition to Hegel to characterize his complaints about "objectivity"), and then showing existentialism as inherited by many religious thinkers.  Most well-known existentialists were concerned with religion: Marcel, Buber, Tillich, Unamuno, Shestov, Beryaev, etc.
Then develop the Jaspers/Heidegger roots into Sartrean existentialism, which is atheistic and which became the most famous branch.  Mention Camus and we're done, no?  I don't mean to make it much longer, but that structure makes more sense to me.  Thoughts?  I can source it from the Macquarrie book on existentialism, maybe from William Barrett.  I'll see what else I have.  KD Tries Again 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will Barrett uses the common structure of "The Big 4": Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre, which is standard in many existentialist anthologies. The SEP entry uses this standard. Heidegger is already mentioned in the phenomenology section, so only K, N, and S are left, and they get a sentence or two each. For a short section in the philosophy article, the Big 4 structure is enough, I think. The details must go in the actual existentialism article, but which is a mess. Poor Yorick 06:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've always argued that the Philosophy article should be a set of links connected by a coherent thread.  On this view, the section on E. should be a summary of what's in the main article.  Don't know enough about the balance between the big 4.  On the Existentialism article, I see what you mean.  A lot of the detail looks roughly right, but the overall style, and the introduction, are awful.  edward (buckner) 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  That said, there are some clearly good editors helping out on it right now.  The thing with introductions is to wait until the meat of the article is nice and ready, then get the introduction to summarise it.  edward (buckner) 10:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting draft. I've made some changes for the reasons stated:
# I didn't really like leaving Nietzsche alone here, so I added him with Kierkegaard, and refed a Nietzsche as Existentialist scholar, the late Bob Solomon.
# Likewise, I didn't like the existentialist stereotype Kierkegaard, so I refed a Kierkegaard as Postmodernist by the preeminent K scholars Matustik and Westphal.
# Hegel's comprehensiveness is debatable, so I replaced it with idealist, which is really what K was against.
# Refed one of the foremost controversial piece on this matter, Letter on Humanism
# Being and Nothingness is Sartre's tour de force
# Beauvoir arguably contributed more to existentialism than Camus, so I'll leave both in.
# As you've mentioned Christian existentialists, I've added a see also to that article.
Poor Yorick 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existentialism 

message: Regular editors of this article may be interested in participating in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community action review on Ludvikus. Best, Sandstein 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No!  We've finally gotten past the personalities and started discussing philosophy.  This action has nothing to do with the topic of this page, and threatens to start up again what has at long last died down.  Rick Norwood 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community action review on Ludvikus 

message: Congratulations to Edward(Buckner) and K D Tries Again for improving the article. Rick Norwood 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who User:Skomorokh is but he (or she) has done a lot of work in the past few days on Existentialism.  I'm not an expert but this diff looks like a very good explanation.  I mean, it tries to explain what something actually is, rather than get bogged down in detail, or lists, or nonsense.  As I've said before, it's the quality of the articles immediately underneath this one, which are what counts.  Perhaps we are finally getting somewhere.  (And thanks also for the compliment Rick).  edward (buckner) 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ditto.  I have some notes with which to spruce up the phenomenology bit later today, and I'll take note of the comments on existentialism too.KD Tries Again 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: I started to tidy up the beginning of that section, so it flowed into Phenomenology, then ended up making a number of corrections.  Logic seems to come out of nowhere in the discussion of phil of maths, though.  I hope somebody can do better with the contributions of Frege and Wittgenstein at the end of the first para.  Personally, I would lose the last sentence about Popper; it needs explaining, but why do we want to get into philosophy of science here?  I think the section as now written ends with Carnap et al's use of symbolic logic, although it could certainly continue with subsequent developments in logic - not my field.  KD Tries Again 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic section was an early attempt at introducing Analytic philosophy.  Better to have a short section analytics, mentioning the importance they gave to logic, and no more.  I think we are generally agreed we want to keep away from the level of detail this page has aspired to in the past.  edward (buckner) 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominence of logic 

message: As some of KD's recent edits attest, and as some of the recent vandalism indicates, it may be unworkable to try to synopsize all philosophy (western, eastern, north-northwestern, analytic, continental, 4-wheel drive) at the level of detail this patchwork often attempts.  The fix would be to have very succinct summaries with links to separate articles on each sub-field, historical period, etc.  (Of course, most such articles are almost as dire as this one, but that's a long-term problem: and maybe some of the current sub-sections can be spun into the separate articles.)  Does anyone have any clever ideas about large-scale proposals to shorten this article, and get its sub-sections treating subjects at a consistent level of detail? 271828182 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly see what you mean.  As things stand, the logic section basically stops in 1928.  Meanwhile, the phenomenology section, which I admit hardly does more than gesture at Husserl's work, already seems to give him more prominence than most philosophers on the page. KD Tries Again 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm all in favor of shortening the article, and standardizing the sub-sections so "favoritism" is minimized. Poor Yorick 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with all of this.  The advantage of sub-articles is that they do not attract cranks.  In terms of practical suggestions, why not just delete some stuff?  Removing obvious bad writing is an uncontroversial way to do that.  Also, given that Indian philosophy is already a sub-article with nothing in it, and since there is a long essay on the subject here, why don't I move that now?  edward (buckner) 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I've moved the Indian philosophy to Indian philosophy, and deleted the Persian philosophy section as there is already plenty of material in other parts of the encyclopedia.  I've left Chinese philosophy for the moment.  edward (buckner) 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  See WP:SIZE for useful information on how to trim articles down.  (A note to anyone reading this, in case of concern: NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN DELETED.  Juat moved to appropriate subsections.  edward (buckner) 12:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've completely changed the Medieval philosophy section, which was badly written and inaccurate.  A brief summary of what it is about, then a swift link to the appropriate page.  Note I have widened the scope of Medieval philosophy to include the Middle East and Byzantine traditions.  This is consistent with Hyman and Walsh's treatment.  I haven't dared suggest any major philosophers.  Academic consensus view, based on length of treatment, is  Aquinas, Ockham, Scotus, Maimonides, Averroes.  edward (buckner) 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually I have removed one bit, which was the introduction to the history section.  I've left in the bit about being divided into three periods, which is fairly uncontroversial.  edward (buckner) 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the article? 

message: The work on Existentialism has greatly improved on what was there before.  However the contrast between the other parts of the article only becomes more glaring.  Also the question of how to balance the different parts of the article becomes even more difficult.  The bits on existentialism and analytic philosophy occur in the large section called 'Metaphysics'.  Whereas these sections partly belong in the history section, partly to 'Schools of philosophy', and what they are really doing is setting the background to 'philosophy in the twentieth century'.  I wonder if the phenomenology and existential bits couldn't be put in the Continental philosophy article, which would be written in parallel with Analytic philosophy.  Having completed these, we could then make a judgement about how much goes in here.  Remember there is still nothing on Idealism yet!  Apart from some very strange things, that is.  edward (buckner) 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Prominence of Logic', inasmuch as it belongs anywhere (probably the bin) belongs in the Analytic philosophy article.  I'll tidy up and move at some point.  The real difficulty is in summarising all these points in a way that is balanced with the rest of the article.  That is precisely why Wiki is v. good at small articles on matters of detail, but awful at handling very general articles.  But we are equal to all of this, are we not.  edward (buckner) 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the structure is odd.  Why should existentialism not be under ethics, for example?  I am very open-minded as to where the stuff ends up; just thought I'd throw it at the wall while I had the chance.  I do owe sources on the existentialism bit, but won't get around to that until next week.  Shouldn't be difficult.  KD Tries Again 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of the (famous) 20th century existentialists, only Simone de Beauvoir attempted at all to derive an existentialist ethics, i.e. The Second Sex and The Ethics of Ambiguity, yet they were also classic feminist texts, as well. Existentialism, esp. Sartrean version, as a whole is deeply metaphysical (existence precedes essence, bad faith, etc.), as well as epistemological when discussing Christian Existentialism. Poor Yorick 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's not a big deal, as the question is where the write-up should go, but I thought Sartre and Camus said quite a bit about 'how to live' - to put it crudely.  Camus is pretty thin on epistemology.KD Tries Again 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest improvements 

message: I can fiddle around with this next.  I don't think it needs "American" in the title.  The current version is quite neatly written in comparison with some material, but I think it's actually subtly wrong.  It implies that, for the pragmatists, the success of a theory and the theory's fit with reality are two different things.  I don't believe that's the case, for Peirce or James at least.  They weren't closet correspondence theorists. But I'd better find some cites.KD Tries Again 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pragmatism 

message: I think the format: "main article: rubber duckies" right after the section title works better than the format: "See rubber duckies for more information about this subject." as the final sentence. Rick Norwood 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You had me very confused for a moment.  Yes, agree.  edward (buckner) 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: I removed the sentence that claims this is a work of philosophical & religious importance. Perhaps it is in Rastifarian circles, but from my research in Ethiopian subjects for Wikipedia (& having slogged thru this difficult work), it has no special religious or philosophical importance. It is an essay that justifies the claim of the Solomonic dynasty to the throne of Ethiopia, & from the comments of a few Ethiopians on Wikipedia I understand this work lacks even notable religious value (I'd say about the level of St. Augustine's The City of God might for the average Catholic); it has a unique historical & cultural value -- but nothing more. 
However, I expect some Rastifarians to insist on restoring this edit. I would expect that they provide verifiable cites for their claims of its philosophical importance -- but I doubt it. I made a serious effort to find any secondary literature on this work, & it was slim pickings: I could find less than a half-dozen published works on the Kebra Negast. -- llywrch 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re; ''Kebra Negast'' 

message: :" It is a commonplace view that once a branch of philosophy fully starts following the norms of science (i.e., use of the scientific method), it is no longer termed "philosophy", but "science". "
One possible citation for this is in the introduction to The Dream of Reason. I might do it myself later, but I don't have time at the moment. -- Calion | Talk 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy and Science 

message: I've completely rewritten the section on branches, and boldly removed the clean-up tags.  I haven't put too many references in, on the assumption that everything I have said is incredibly verifiable, but feel free to challenge it, or to add references.  edward (buckner) 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I haven't removed the top cleanup tag as there is plenty more to do on this.  I have already mentioned the 'Identity of philosophy' section which I do think needs a little challenge here and there.  It seems a little disconnected and fragmented.  If I were trying to summarise what it says, what would that be?  Also, some of the references do not support what is there.  For example, the citation of Ducasse (an essay, rather dated,that I read with interest) does not obviously connect with anything in that section.  edward (buckner) 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branches of philosophy 

message: I've enjoyed reading your edit, and agree with the removal of some of the flags.
I note that Aristotle contradicts himself (do I contradict myself, very well, I contain multitudes) in saying that metaphysics is primary and precedes all other investigation, and then saying that logic precedes all philosophy.  Poor Aristotle.  So much to write, so little time.  He always begins well, and then he keeps breaking off -- like Galois the night before his duel -- saying in effect, no time, no time.  
In your references, a publisher and an ISBN would be helpful.  You can find them on amazon if you don't have the book handy.
Rick Norwood 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All in good time.  edward (buckner) 16:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edward (buckner) edit 

message: I have corrected the section without lengthening it, and provided some sources.  I removed the claim that Bergson and Moore shared fundamental assumptions with the pragmatists, as at best controversial, at worst wrong, unsourced, and if right not notable.  Cheers.  KD Tries Again 20:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks KD! edward (buckner) 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pragmatism - February 27 revision 

message: This needs work, obviously.  That includes work on the sub-articles, of course.  I have done Medieval philosophy.  I'm also happy to take on Ancient Philosophy (and tidying up the pre-socratics article).  That leaves early modern philosophy, and whatever comes after.
Does anyone have expertise in Early Modern? 
On what comes after, there are two 'odd ones' in the 'ism' section, namely Phenomenology, and the Analytic tradition.  I suggest these really belong in the historical section on twentieth century and contemporary philosophy.  Any thoughts?  edward (buckner) 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical section 

message: I've just noticed the question about whether Kant should be in the section on Idealism, given he didn't believe in the opening sentence of the section. Is there any way of rewording the sentence so it would include Kant?  Presumably if there is subjective I., transcendental I, absolute I., there must be something they have in common?  edward (buckner) 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll think about it some more, as I raised it.  For me, German idealism starts after Kant, when Fichte and Schelling get rid of the noumenal.KD Tries Again 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant & Idealism 

message: I would like to make the argument that this article is not worth the electricity it takes to generate it on a computer screen if you writers do not add a section viewing western philosophy as the continuing battle between the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. For more indepth view of this battle please read this article written in the 19th centruy by Heinrich Heine  http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/heine-spinoza1.html
in philosophy, mathematics, physics, metaphysics, you always come back to Plato's ideals versus Aristotle's sophistry and materialism. Think of Leibniz vs Newton/Kant/emiricists think of Bertrand Russel vs Godel/Cantor et al. think of any great battle in the history of thought and I garuntee that the alignments of both sides will obviously attract to either Plato of Aristotle's view of the world.
:There have certainly been notable philosophers who shared your view, but I think that view should be defended in a specialized book rather than in an encyclopedia article, which needs to present many views in a relatively brief space. Rick Norwood 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. This article needs to present many views in a short space.  Moreover this opposition between extreme realism (Plato) and moderate Realism (Aristotle) is already implicit in this article.  I should certainly be discussed explicitly in the Medieval philosophy article, which is work in progress.  edward (buckner) 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato vs Aristotle 

message: The Maverick Philosopher has an interesting thread on philosophy on the Wiki here.  Someone has pointed out the the Faith and reason article is in a terrible way.  True enough.  edward (buckner) 08:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a shot at Faith and Rationality.  I've done something about the spelling, and the worst logical errors.  It still needs a lot of work; it's repetitious and unreferenced.  Also, the title should be changed to Faith and Reason. Rick Norwood 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maverick philosopher on Wikipedia 

message: The Maverick has taken  another potshot.  This time at the awful  definitions of philosophy.  Why is that link there anyway?  It's just a selection of arbitrary quotations which, as Maverick points out, have been taken entirely out of context.
: I have done some minor editing on the 'Identity' section, including taking the link out, but this whole section needs thinking through.  First step: summarise in a single sentence what the section is saying. edward (buckner) 10:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish he'd rewrite the Heidegger article.  I think that's his specialty.KD Tries Again 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maverick again 

message: Not sufficiently notable to warrant its own section in this article.  I am sure Wiki has an article about Ortega y Gasset where the material might be better placed (in fact, it duplicates what's in that article, but is also an expansion!).  In case it isn't obvious, the implication of retaining this section would be that the article needs a section of equivalent length on each and every philosopher as notable as Ortega.  Not feasible.KD Tries Again 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely remove it. It strikes me as a vanity piece. JJL 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Nothing against Ortega y Gasset, but considering the large number of philosophers of greater notability who go unmentioned by this article, this entire section should be stricken. 271828182 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  Didn't even realise it was there.  Only one thing, try not to remove from Wiki any well-written and researched material (I can't make that judgment here).  There is an article on Ortega y Gasset, which has less material on that subject than is here.  Would it make sense to move some or all of it there?  edward (buckner) 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One paragraph is taken from the Ortega article.  Correction, it's all taken from the existing Wiki Ortega article (or maybe someone moved it there already?).  I'll remove it from this article.  KD Tries Again 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raciovitalismo - proposal to remove