Template talk:Philosophy topics

message: here is the proposed guideline for inclusion:
Overwhelming evidence of centrality to philosophy as demonstrable by thousands to ten's of thousands of publications in the history of philosophy.
this means, most things in philosophy aren't on this list.  most things are referred to on this list by a higher category.  --Buridan (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline for inclusion

message: I just added Jurisprudence to the template, and it was taken away, reasoning being that we should keep the classic 5 as they are. I don't agree with this. I learnt that Jurisprudence was part of the classic '6'. Other people believe that there are only THREE major philosophy topics: ontology, epistemology and logic. The fact that "of law" redirects to "jurisprudence" should confirm the fact that Jurisprudence should be put under branches.
BurningZeppelin (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you were mislead, there are only 5, jurisprudence is a subsection of ethics/political philosophy which deals with law.--Buridan (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't it be argued that ethics and aesthetics can fit in under metaphysics or ontology? And plus, there is no political philosophy in the main branches BurningZeppelin (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't political philosophy (and the philosophy of law) just a subsection of ethics? As they all concern questions: how should we act either as an individual or a society? C mon (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has there been an orthodox set of core philosophic branches? It seems equally legitimate to claim that there are only two (epistemology and metaphysics), three (+ethics), or four (+aesthetics), or five (+political philosophy), or six (+logic)... I really can't agree with including 'Jurisprudence' as a core branch of philosophy, but I am also skeptical about Buridan's (overly) definitive statement "you were mislead, there are only 5". That being said, let me stress that I think the 5 we have listed are what we should stick to. - Atfyfe (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: traditionally, political philosophy is under ethics, classically there are 5.  can't really change that in history, you can argue it is different today, but ehh, 5 works fine and it stops us from having everyone's favorite tree branch.--Buridan (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well made Buridan. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic five? 

message: this looks like the two are a fundamental, all-philosophy spanning (!?) bipolar pair (?), which isnt realy the case?! is is appropriate to give those terms such prominence? then putting history (starting with ancient history) below it really distorts reality completely. It also appears to represent a supposed self-contained, finalized system which isnt really the case? can this be represented more progressive? Thanks. 70.155.25.43 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Allow me to suggest that we change this template to be solely about Western Philosophy (and therefore also change the title at its top). Eastern and Western Philosophy do not interact very much, so it isn't required that they exist on the same template. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that we (the current editors of this template) have a wealth of knowledge about Eastern Philosophy and what schools have been important enough to include. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Eastern and Western philosophy on the top?  

message: Philosophy schools are predominantly Western. There's no Confucianism, Taoism, Brethren of Purity, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Vedanta, etc. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire list of school is arbitrary and sometimes bizarre. I'd remove it completely until its discussed here and then reworked. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: Hi everyone,
Could someone please explain me why ontology is  not mentioned in this "Philosophy topics" template?
Please reply here and not in my discussion page.
Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ontology is usually considered a sub-branch of Metaphysics. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ontology in this template? Could someone please explain me?

message: It's me again,
Okay, I got it myself. Ontology and cosmology are the two main metaphysics branches.
And metaphysics is mentioned in the template with the other 5 main branches:
# Aesthetics;
# Ethics;
# Epistemology
# Logic and...
# (Metaphysics).
Have a nice day.
Thanks anyway.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, no problem, I understood it myself. Sorry for bothering you. 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if Kyoto School should be included in the template, on the section "Schools". Kyoto School is a japanese philosophy movement which adopted western philosophy and applies them to reformulate eastern morals. --Andersmusician NO 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it has it's own plato.staford.edu entry and inside it says it is a philosophy movement, started in late XIXcentury, they apply western philosophy to eastern ethics I think.--Andersmusician NO 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kyoto School]] 

message: There appears to be a slow-motion version of an edit war between Buridan and Wikinaut1980. Wikinaut keeps adding Absurdism, Egalitarianism, Individualism and Jihad to the "Schools" list, and Burdian keeps removing them. This isn't happening fast enough to trigger the three-revert rule, but it's still troubling to see it happening over and over between the same two editors. I wanted to bring this out on the talk page, in the hope that an explicit consensus on these edits will put a stop to the back-and-forth.
Other than Absurdism, which was on the list before the back-and-forth started but got removed somewhere along the way, I don't think any of the disputed items could reasonably be called a "school" of philosophy. So I'm generally supportive of Burdian's edits in this. I also think his exclusion of these items is consistent with the previous consensus about what should or should not be included. I'd appreciate it if others who monitor this template would also speak up. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually there isn't an edit war, wish there was, that would be far more exciting.  instead it happened 2x....  and the standard is pretty well set, if someone else wants to define it differently, they need to make an argument.  right now what i think we actually have is someone who is new to the philosophy project trying to do what they want to a template.  it is ok to try, but then you should take it to discussion.  --Buridan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with RL0919 completely. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I also agree. None of those belong on this template. You're right RL0919 that Absurdism comes closest, but I still don't think that belongs here. -- Atfyfe (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow-motion edit war 

message: Today some style changes were made, most of them consisted in dropping the "s" off a number of names. I've added them back in some places. Here are my reasons:
:(1) The proper name of the branches and "Metaphysics" and "Ethics" have an "s" at the end. By contrast, "Logic" does not. We cannot just drop the "s" off of some of the branches for stylistic reasons.
:(2) I've added back philosophy of action. It is a major branch of philosophy (as reading its entry will make clear) and it is mistaken to see it as a branch of the social sciences. I am not sure why someone would think that. If one studies what it is philosophically to have a "belief", then that's either epistemology or maybe philosophy of mind. If someone studies what it is philosophically to have an "intent" or do something "intentionally" then that is philosophy of action/philosophy of mind.
:(3) I've changed the label for the link to the list of schools from "index" to "schools" since just calling it "index" is entirely uninformative.
:(4) I've added "s" back to everything it was removed from in the "Philosophy of" section since "Philosophy of Economic" is nonsense while "Philosophy of Economics" is correct.
I did leave a number of the stylistic changes the same. I don't know if I like them, but maybe they are for the best. Obviously someone did think they were for the best. So I left every change that I didn't actually think involved a mistake. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now I see why someone confused philosophy of action with some sociology theory. Apparently there is some theory in sociology called "Action Theory" whose Wikipedia entry is named Action theory (sociology). However, as the entry Action theory (philosophy) points out: "Philosophical action theory, or the 'philosophy of action', should not be confused with sociological theories of social action, such as the action theory established by Talcott Parsons." - Atfyfe (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Set of Changes 

message: Many radical changes have been made over the weekend. Lots of good effort, but lots of inaccuracies:
:(1) Faculty?
:(2) What are called "Fields" are branches of philosophy that go by the name "philosophy of..." which is how they were once labeled. What are now called "Faculty"(?) are the core branches of philosophy.
:(3) Some random schools are singled out as "Schools" while others are now called "theories"
:(4) Some of the branches that happen to have "ology" in their name are for some reason separated and called "-ology"
:(5) "Theory of Everything" is given a special spot on the template... despite the fact that it is a theory in physics and has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy
:(6) "Transantlanticism" is added, but there is no entry for such a 'theory'
:(7) A school of metaphysics ("process") is listed as a branch of ontology.
:(8) 'Wisdom' is listed as a theory?
As a result, I'm reverting all of the changes. I'd welcome the editor behind these recent changes to enter a discussion here on the talk page.
- Atfyfe (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much agreed. Also the stylistic changes were not an improvement, imo. Multiple levels of hide/show are not helpful - it already autocollapses, which is sufficient. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Set of Changes 

message: You've been putting a lot of effort into your edits, but most of them I cannot understand. Could you help the other editors of this template understand where you are coming from? Is there a philosophy textbook or some sources from which your division/understanding of philosophy is coming from? - Atfyfe (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Set of Changes 

message: I've been trying to figure out a way to add dates to the eras in the history section, but I can't find a way that doesn't look cluttered. I also can't decide how to abbreviate the dates: 16th c. / 1500's / 16c / C16... So if anyone else has sees a great way of doing it, I'd be behind you. Here are two ways I was thinking about formatting the dates:
:Ancient (-400)
:Medieval (400-1500)
:Modern (1500-1900)
:Contemporary (1900-)
:Ancient (-4c)
:Medieval (5c-14c)
:Modern (15c-19c)
:Contemporary (20c-)
Really I think listing them as centuries rather than years works better. It doesn't suggest exactness in the way years do. - Atfyfe (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for the History Section 

message: 15 sections?! This thing is huge and ungainly. It should probably be split into a few separate navboxes. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone went all crazy on it. I'll revert. - Atfyfe (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy crap this navbox is large 

message: I feel it is inappropriate to include the religion-related philosophies in a particular time due to the fact that they are not restricted to a particular time. They should go in a separate section like "By religion" or something like that. Iranian and CHinese philosophy should be moved for the same reason. Munci (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from, but philosophy of religion is now a branch of contemporary philosophy. The reason the religions are connected to a specific time period is because philosophy during those time periods were dominated by religion. Listing them in a specific time period doesn't imply that philosophy of religion isn't still done today, but rather reference a time that is known for how religion dominated the philosophical scene. They are not "restricted" to those time-periods, those are just the time-periods where philosophy is best characterized by its connection to those religions. - Atfyfe (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-arrangement of religion-related philosophies 

message: I've restructured the template to increase usability and reduce size. The most significant change is the merging of the "Schools of Thought" and "Historical" rows, which was done because some of the Historical entries were redundant, and some of the Schools of Thought entries could be included in the Historical one. I've also differentiated between categories that apply only to Western philosophy, and categories that can be used with all philosophies. This includes the Medieval and Renaissance categories, which are specific to Western philosophy.
Also, philosophies that are not categorized by era, are ones that originate in and can be applied to multiple eras or multiple cultures. Like anarchism, which can be found in both early Hellenistic and East Asian philosophy.--Ninthabout (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructured 

message: I propose categorizing the philosophical schools listed in the "17th–21st centuries" section of the template according to tradition or philosophical movement, similar to the structure of the "9th–16th centuries" and "Ancient" sections. Doing so would make the template easier to navigate. Ordinary language and logical positivism, as an example, could be grouped into analytic philosophy. Any specific objections?--Mathematicmajic (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: completely and utterly against it.  the categories you were using are not agreed upon even in philosophy.  they are at best short-hand categories and not reliable.  vienna circle for instance is both analytic and continental, but tell an analytic that and they freak out, tell a continental that and they know already, tell most professional philosophers that and they really don't care.  phenomenology, same, there are analytic phenomenologists, though some would be adamant that there aren't. there is a fundamental difference between the natural geographic and historical categories used in the other categories and the ones you implemented, the ones you implemented are based on disputed conventions, the other ones are not. So unless we find categories better than traditional short hand that rarely maps, we shouldn't use them.  oh and i do not agree that it makes the template easier to navigate. --Buridan (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede that categorization of philosophical schools is notoriously difficult. The analytic and continental labels are ambiguously and inconsistently applied (another example, despite the identification of Marxism with continental philosophy, Analytical Marxism exists with academic adherents). But that doesn't change the necessity for some form of structure. Any ideas on viable alternatives? Regional classification cannot work, like it can for earlier philosophical schools, because of the international nature of modern philosophy.--Mathematicmajic (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it does preclude their use, we do not need classification there.  --Buridan (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I propose adding Philosophy education to the template.--Taranet (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching Philosophy 

message: Why is hermeneutics listed parenthetically after philosophy of religion? Hermeneutics is the philosophy of textual interpretation, and has nothing to do with religion or the philosophy of religion per se, whatever its historical origins are. If it's going to be treated as a subordinate branch then putting it after literature would make far more sense. --131.111.184.8 (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. I think someone put it there because of it's historical tie with philosophy of religion. - Atfyfe (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermeneutics

message: It looks great! -Atfyfe (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to [[User:CsDix]] for the new sub-heading title formatting.  

message: * I've divided the Modern Era (17th – 19th) and the Contemporary Era (20th-21st); I would have done this years ago, but whenever I attempted to I ran into the problem of so many schools/positions belonging in both eras. However, with the newly expanded "positions" section, this needed division finally became feasible. 
* Where a school of philosophy had a major place in both modern and contemporary philosophy, I've worked to find separate entries or parts of entries to link to so they can be listed in both areas of the template. For example: (Utilitarianism for modern philosophy and Utilitarianism (Contemporary) for contemporary analytic philosophy. This was easier for analytic philosophy than continental philosophy. Continental Philosophy is more closely tied to philosophy in the 19th century than analytic philosophy, which is why I think it is more difficult. For now I listed the schools in the era when they came about (e.g. Existentialism, but I would like to find a way to list them both in the modern era and the contemporary era if I can find some way to do so (something like 'early existentialism' for the modern era and then 'existentialism' for contemporary continental philosophy).
* I was unsure what to label the third "other" section for contemporary schools of philosophy not belonging to the analytic/continental distinction, for now I've just left it without a title which seems to be in keeping with how the rest of the template treats similar issues of labeling, for example how we had the branches of philosophy sub-division labeled for years (although, I see now that someone just changed it).
* I've moved a number of "schools" down to the "positions" section of the template (particularly those dealing with philosophy of mind; Functionalism, etc.).
* I've tried to list in the schools section not mere "positions" on issues in philosophy, but the overarching, unified approaches that have arisen. For example, philosophers often label themselves "Kantians", "Wittgensteinians", "Naturalist/Quinean", "Rawlsian", "Logical Positivist", etc. to get across their general and broad approach to many different philosophical issues/problems/positions. It is hard to separate what is a mere "position" in philosophy from a "school", but I think this is a good start. For a while now what was listed as a school and what was listed as a position was really arbitrary since it hadn't been updated/revised since the "positions" subsection had been created/expanded. 
Well, this is just a start. I think we'll be able to better sort out the modern/contemporary division and the school/position division over time. But I hope everyone agrees that this was needed! - Atfyfe (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revisions (Dividing modern/contemporary eras, etc.) 

message: it clearly defies the inclusion criteria, same with several others, this needs a cleanup/cleanout to return to 'philosophy topics' and not 'ideological spew' Buridan (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  how did objectivism ayn rand sneak in 

message: For consistency, "Neo-Aristotelian" should probably be changed to "Neo-Aristotelianism". 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Normally, I would agree with you, but the target of that link is Virtue ethics#Contemporary 'aretaic turn', where the phrase "Neo-Aristotelian" does not appear. Should the link have a better label, and if so, what should it be?  – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not arguing for the term neo-Aristotelian[ism] at all. I'm merely saying that if it is to be included – and there appears to be an implicit consensus that it is to be (though that's neither here nor there to me personally) – is there any reason it should be in the form of an adjective rather than a noun? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As a grammar and consistency fanatic, I understand your reasoning. I have both fixed and commented out the term, since I am not persuaded that it is a real thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019 

message: Is there a reason why "Ontology", "Reality", and "Free will" (should maybe be renamed "Causality"?) are listed as top-level categories, and not subcategories under "Metaphysics"? Likewise, shouldn't "mind" be under "Ontology? — Remsense诉 01:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-level categories