Talk:Philosophy/Archive 20

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)

text: This is all the aftermath of Lucaas. I recall being the one to go digging for a philosopher's interpretation of Marx's famous quote, and of sourcing Wolff here at Wikipedia, but heaven knows how it was transmogrified into what's on the Wikiquote page. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:17, 9 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 

message: I removed a section called 'Meaninglessness' - here is the diff.  It was out of context (it's not a philosophical ism) and it was, well, a bit meaningless.  edward (buckner) 11:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Analytic tradition is not in the correct place, correct.  But frankly, the main reason for removing it was that it wasn't very well written. edward (buckner) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS Perhaps you meant Absurdism?  As I understand it, that is derivative of Existentialism.  But I'm not an expert, and I will defer to the others here who are. My reason for removing it was purely the quality of the writing. edward (buckner) 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I couldn't see anything that could be spruced up. It was generally illiterate and content-free.  edward (buckner) 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please sign your comments with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~, without spaces) so we can better follow the discussion. I concur with the removal. The article is overlong in any event. JJL 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I misread it, the author (Gamahucher) only cites himself/herself.  I have never come across an authoritative source for "meaninglessness" as a notable philosophical doctine or school.  I don't think there's even a debate here unless the author can provide independent support for the material, and even then I'd argue it's insufficiently notable for a general article like this.KD Tries Again 14:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless section removed 

message: This needs attention.  First of all, does the early modern period extend all the way through the 18th century or not?  Would it include Kant?  edward (buckner) 09:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK (answering his own question) yes it seems so.  Googling "early modern" + Kant gives stuff like this.  I'll do some work on that section. edward (buckner) 09:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I did look at the question of Kant and idealism, and I think I know how to fix that section - Kant was an odd kind of realist.  I just need time to word it properly.  I will get there.  KD Tries Again 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early modern period 

message: We've had a lot of problems on this page with silly vandalism (Ashley Cole sucking d--k in the Chelsea locker room, that sort of thing).  It was much better when they semi-protected it. I'm starting a page  here which you can add your name to, and the page you would like to see protected. edward (buckner) 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the random vandalism here is worse than most other pages. It's annoying, but easily reverted. I'm not so worried about it. JJL 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection 

message: why west philo have long article but east have short article Encyclopedia a-z 08:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because east stuff was moved into its own section.  Possible choices 
** Move the east stuff back in and end up with enormously long article (current project is to trim down this article by moving material into sub-articles)
** Trim down the west stuff to same approximate size as east
** Have two separate articles.  I think this makes most sense given the disparate nature of the two things (in east there was no word for 'philosophy' until it was borrowed from west).  But this has met tremendous resistance in the past.  edward (buckner) 08:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As you know, I think this article needs to include "Eastern philosophy".  On the other hand, I do not see any reason why the two topics need to be covered at equal length.  That way lies madness, e.g. "Lithuanian philosophy must have as much coverage as Greek philosophy".  No.  Though I do favor short paragraphs here with links to specialized articles. Rick Norwood 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why east west not clear 

message: From the Foundation of Mathematics news group.  Here. edward (buckner) 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Followed your link.  It took me to a definition of Bullshit.  I assume that is not the definition of Philosophy you had in mind. Rick Norwood 12:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After reading that post, I was reminded of one class I had where the topic of art came up. As a premise for a larger argument, I said that "Art is nothing more than those crafts that have been created with the intent to be put up for presentation". A well-meaning professor replied: "Yes, but some people might disagree!" As if that really meant anything, or anyone ought to care. { Ben S. Nelson } 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good definition of philosophy 

message: The third paragraph, beginning "Though no definition of philosophy is uncontroversial..." comes across as unencyclopaedic, as a "soapbox" attempt to protect philosophy from religion and superstition. The movement from myth to philosophy, for example, as Jean-Pierre Vernant and others showed long ago, was gradual rather than a rupture, leaving the border between them impossible finally to determine, a fact that might well be thought to mark the form and content of philosophy ever since. How much of later philosophy, whether Aquinas, Augustine, or Descartes, is devoted to religious ends, theologically grounded, etc.? So much of what has historically been called philosophy is hardly distinguishable from theology. The claim that it is "generally agreed that it is a method, rather than...etc." is questionable, and unclear what this is stating, and furthermore is advancing an argument in the introductory section of an entry devoted to a very broad discipline. It seems that the opening clause, "Though  no definition of philosophy is uncontroversial..." is an attempt to mitigate the argumentative appearance of what follows in the rest of the paragraph. No doubt these issues arise because of the wish to defend the entry from corruption by those who fail to see any distinction between philosophy, religion, new ageness, etc. This defence is necessary, but I would suggest that this is an ineffective form of such defence, in fact an invitation to further trouble later on with those pushing their own barrows. And it is in fact unnecessary. If a paragraph is needed here at all, between the etymology of the word and the short paragraph about Eastern versus Western philosophy, all it need indicate is that what the word means is susceptible to dispute and to change over time. I am not attacking what is currently there, but am inviting those concerned with this entry to consider whether this is really an effective and necessary paragraph. FNMF 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph you are talking about is the result of exhaustive effort; I've watched the process from Dec '06 until now, and just in that brief time, there was Olympian effort made to get some sanity on the page, and some of the authors are quite good at what they do. If you haven't already done so, review the archives from that period to get some of the background. Richiar 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that effort went in to the paragraph. To repeat myself: "I am not attacking what is currently there, but am inviting those concerned with this entry to consider whether this is really an effective and necessary paragraph." And I am forced to note that the comment by Richiar does not at all address the problems raised in my comment, nor does it argue in favour of the paragraph in any terms other than it was the result of hard work. Editors who argue solely from the position of defending what they've got, without regard to whether what they've got is any good, or whether it can be made better, are not editing to their fullest capacity. I maintain that the paragraph is flawed, for the reasons I made the effort to outline. That the original paragraph was the outcome of effort does not mean it cannot be improved, nor that the effort to improve it should be rejected. FNMF 08:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I consider the paragraph is OK.  It is uncontroversial that no definition of philosophy is completely uncontroversial, and so it is uncontroversial that this statement should open the paragraph.  And it's not just the new agers who find such definitions controversial.  So I think it should stay.  As for the reverts by JJL, I looked at them and I thought the additions neither added nor subtracted anything.  Thus he was right to revert, on the principle that any changes to the opening whatsoever should be extensively discussed here. I.e. the onus is to defend changes, reverts.  I.e. any changes whatsoever may be instantly reverted, without discussion.  And any changes that are accepted should have extremely good reasons.  That is not unreasonable, given the history of the article.  It is also recommended policy in the case of unstable articles.  edward (buckner) 08:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no doubt uncontroversial that no definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, so uncontroversial as to beg the question of the reason why it is mentioned at all. I contend that this reason is to mitigate the appearance of controversiality in what the paragraph goes on to state, namely that philosophy's "investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions." It is this sentence that my arguments addressed. Does anyone truly believe this claim, that philosophy unlike religion makes no unexamined assumptions? This is the sentence that is especially argumentative, and that is especially questionable, for the reasons indicated in my comment above. To point this out is not to threaten philosophy, but rather merely an attempt to approach the question of an encyclopaedic entry on philosophy without being overly defensive about its definition.  FNMF 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The initial wording of this paragraph is defensive, and you're right: It's there for the editors, not the readers. It is an indication that the editors have agreed to disagree on certain issues. The paragraph reads better without it...but I believe that removing it would cause more problems than it would solve. The argument here over whether or not unexamined facts exist actually proves that point, doesn't it? Both sides won't be happy with what's in the article unless a caveat is included. JJL 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To quote Bill Vallicella: "Explanatory rationalism is the view that there is a satisfactory answer to every why-question. Equivalently, it is the view that there are no brute facts, where a brute fact is a fact that neither has, nor can have, an explanation. In my view, no philosopher worth his salt accepts brute facts without a fight. Philosophy is animated by a nisus towards total comprehension so much so that a rejection of brute facts is inscribed in its very essence".  I.e. no unexamined assumptions.  Philosophers do have the notion of propositions 'per se nota' i.e. self evidently true.  But they still examine whether the propositions are self evidently true (is it self evident that they are self evident &c).  So, the point stands.  edward (buckner) 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're telling me it's true to say that philosophical investigations make no unexamined assumptions? Not only do I find this a doubtful statement, I would go as far as to say that there has never been a philosophy which did not include unexamined assumptions. Brute facts have a habit of finding their way back in to the most guarded fortress—the brutes. The sentence in question, concerning "unexamined assumptions," is, I fear, unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. As is the whole paragraph. However I leave the entry on philosophy to its worthy custodians. FNMF 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the intention is to say that phil. wants to have no unexamined facts. Of course there is a long history of people 'discovering' facts in need of examination that they have blindly accepted until then. It is a human enterprise, after all. As to leaving the article to others, I'll just say that it truly is frustrating making a document by committee. I have frequently been ready to simply leave the article too; I largely burnt out on Philosophy of mathematics even though the original troll is long since banned (but has a near-record number of sock puppets editing C.S. Peirce). If you can't accept that others simply don't see things your way despite the reasonableness of your point of view, it'll be hard sledding. People here want a good article...but have seen well-intentioned attempts lead to unintended consequences that make things worse, not better. We could probably all write an entry that would receive a higher grade as an essay in an English class...but a collaborative document will always contain compromise language. One can accept that or not. JJL 13:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you were to read "wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions ..." with the scope of "wedded" extending over everything that follows, would you be happier?  It is saying that philosophy is wedded to not making unexamined assumptions, in the same way that mathematics is wedded to flawless proofs, even thought many 'proofs' turn out not to be flawless.  It seems to me the meaning is obvious, and that any rewording would make it clumsier.  edward (buckner) 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that the way it is written will be understood by readers as meaning "wedded to not making unexamined assumptions." It seems to me the crucial point that is trying to be made here is that philosophy is dedicated to examining its assumptions. I simply do not believe the sentence (or paragraph) as expressed cannot be improved. If it needs to be there at all (I remain unconvinced). As for the analogy with mathematics, I think this is dangerous territory. Philosophy is not mathematics, and it is not mathematics in important ways. Specifically, mathematics is capable of flawless proofs, and flawed proofs are the exception rather than the rule. Whereas the history of philosophy is a history of mistakes—that is what animates its historical movement just as much as any "nisus." The yearning for philosophical argument to achieve mathematical certainty is one of the many ways philosophers are led into error. Which is not at all to say that philosophers should not strive to avoid error. In this case, the goal ought not be to "save" the sentence at all costs, but to find out what it is that is actually trying to be expressed in the paragraph, then figure out whether it needs expression, then figure out the best way of expressing it. All of which is possible. FNMF 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third paragraph 

message: I also suggest that this talk-page has grown far too large, and that a great proportion of it should be archived (perhaps up to the point where the interventions of Ludvikus were brought to a close—in fact, I would suggest archiving everything up to at least section 57, entitled Zoroaster). FNMF 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I thought there was an autoarchive that did this.  Anyone know about this?edward (buckner) 08:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely time to archive it. Just archive the whole thing--we can re-open any issue that needs discussion. JJL 13:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Manually archived up to "Useful tag". Autoarchiving is evidently supposed to only be used for user talk pages. { Ben S. Nelson } 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving this page 

message: Here is my last attempt to improve this entry. Read through the opening. Read that third paragraph. Now read through the opening, skipping from the second to the fourth paragraph. There is nothing in that third paragraph that needs to stay, and the entry reads much better without it. Then the entry proceeds from opening definition, to Greek etymology, to a comment on West v. East, etc. This makes sense. If you have eyes to see, you will see the third paragraph can be ditched without loss. Be bold. See if the sky falls in without the paragraph. It won't. FNMF 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it. You're right in many respects but wrong in one important point: We do recognize that this is an unfortunate situation. We do reflect on it--there's evidence in the (archived) Talk pages here--and we do find it regrettable. However, we also recognize that this same 'solution' has been reached on many WP pages and that, to paraphrase Conan Doyle' Holmes, once you have eliminated everything that doesn't work, whatever remains, however unpalatable, must be what does work. Philosophically (in the popular sense), I find the current staus quo very unappealing. Practically, having watched the page be protected from editing, having watched all work on it stagnate while revert wars go on for days, having watched good editors get disgusted that after having worked hard on something deep in the bowels of an article, it now says early on in the article that philosophy is, quite literally, the Mississippi River (as happened on the phil. of math. page), etc., etc., etc., people on page after page after page seem to reach a similar conclusion: If you can't get an agreement on the introduction--on what you think you're talking about--you surely won't have good luck later on in the article; and anyone unwilling to spend the time arguing for his or her change on the Talk page because it's so much more tedious than simply making a quick edit to the article and surfing on has too little invested in the article anyway. (This is how I see your situation. What is your argument against making your case here, as others have done, and as all have been encouraged to do so, including by having the page protected? What makes you(r edits) special?) I don't like what's happening at all as far as what you've referred to; I agree with your points; I just don't have a better idea. Otherwise, your one edit of the intro. would be followed by another small edit, and another, and another, until we have a bloated intro. that says everything and nothing. Yes, this is the tyranny of those who are, as you said, battle-scarred by experience, and that ain't fair and it's an impediment to good things getting done. But it's also an impediment to bad things happening. Eitehr way, please recognize that this is a WP-wide problem, and there are likely thousands of USer Talk pages with complaints like yours. JJL 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the comments on the User Page, and I am not sure what to draw from them except a request that the editor be permitted to revise the article without interference from anyone else.  KD Tries Again 16:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final word 

message: JJL has questioned section 2, which is mostly 'isms'.  Frankly I think there's a lot worse than that section (but I would say that because I wrote large chunks of it).  
I'd agree that it lacks a thread.  The sections on Phenomenology and Analytic Tradition don't belong there for a start.  They should be in a separate section altogether, on the background to modern (i.e. 20C) philosophy.  On the genuine isms, I think there is a need to capture the main things that have divided philosophers since the beginning of everything.  Of these probably the most important is the rationalist / anti-rationalist split.  This divides philosophers who think there are philosophical truths that it is the job of philosophers to discover, from those who don't think that (Locke, Ockham, Wittgenstein, many others).  Then there is the Realist anti-realist split - which is a division of rationalists mainly.  (Indeed, rationalist tend to be realists, nominalists tend to be anti-rationalists).  Then there are the sceptics.  
I could attempt to put a thread around it, but what do we think?  edward (buckner) 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I would prefer to see it have a thread. It's context-less reading right now. At the very least, it needs an introductory section to serve as a lead-in. It could say -ism A was in vogue at time a, then -ism B arose in opposition to it around time b, etc. (This is not the most exciting possible idea, but at least it puts the list in some sort of perspective.) It's an encyclopedia so it's OK if it's dry reading, but what is there now is isolated mini-entries that aren't tied to the whole article in any way. Should there even be a short "Here's why philosophy is full of -isms" paragraph? JJL 17:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, that's a good plan. Though easier said than done.  Right now I would like to see progress on the history section, as that's an easy-ish win.  We agreed on some key points for the early modern period, it's just a matter of writing them in a nice & compact way.  edward (buckner) 19:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Isms (section 2) 

message: Here. edward (buckner) 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of the day 

message: I've removed the 'expert attention' tag as this section is now better.  On the short side, perhaps, but it is better!  
On the rest, is 'late modern' the right word?  Couldn't there be a short section on nineteenth century philosophy, and then much longer section on twentieth century and contemporary philosophy?  As I've said before, the sections on Phenomenology and Analytic philosophy belong here, not in the 'doctrines and isms' part.  In my opinion. edward (buckner) 08:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think late modern applies to the period of 1800-1960, roughly Kant's Death to the publication of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and the height of Existentialism. 1960s onward, is the period of contemporary or "postmodern" philosophy. Poor Yorick 08:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah yes so it is.  Kant to Nietschze, says one site.  To 1960, you say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think late modern ends in 1960 thereabouts because current philosophical debates start in & around 1960.
* Wittgenstein's Investigations took over the debates in contemporary philosophy with guys like Strawson, Austin, Kripke, and especially Quine with Word and Object (1960).
* After 1960, Foucault, Lacan, and Derrida took over philosophy from Sartre.
* Plus, John Dewey is seen as the last major original Pragmatist, and he died in the 1950s, heralding the rise of so-called "neo-pragmatists"
Poor Yorick 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no strong feeling on the original question, but hope we don't describe contemporary philosophy as "post-modern".KD Tries Again 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked at the articles on mathematics, physics, chemistry, history, and sociology and found the usual widely varying degrees of quality.  All had history sections, but some were quite brief, especially by comparison with philosophy's.  I would be fine with brief sections on 19th century and 20th century philosophy -- and there are separate articles for each, though both are little more than stubs + lists.  In general, I think reduction and condensation is the way to go -- it shortens the article and reduces disagreements over particular points that really belong on more specific articles.  On the other hand, I think we are still too close to the last 200 years to put things in proper perspective (where by "proper" I just mean relative to our summary treatment of wide swaths of history as "medieval" or "classical").  We should try to think of some clear way of distinguishing the "doctrines" section from the "history" section.  What doctrines and "isms" are really live options with active philosophers working in them today?  Idealism is an extremely important philosophical doctrine worthy of mention in any introductory article, but I'd be reluctant to think of it as comparable to the branches of physics that appear in the physics article.  "Analytic philosophy" is almost too broad a label to be meaningful, except as a contrast to other, equally broad terms.  ...  Anyway, whenever I get around to it, I'd like to expand the early modern section just a bit.  That last edit was really just a stub and reboot. 271828182 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early modern philosophy 

message: A lot of this article (especially the 'Philosophical doctrines' section) features heavy emphasis on the history of the subject, without as much emphasis on describing the philosophical content/ideas of the featured doctrine.
I had a bit of a look around, and there is a separate History of Philosophy article. However it is in a bad way, and suffering from a lack of material. Considering that the aim here appears to be shortening this article, I recommend cutting down drastically on the 'history' stuff (i.e. who did what and when, who influenced what, etc.) and moving it all over to the History of Philosophy article (I am specifically referring to the 'Philosophical doctrines' section, but I imagine this could work for other sections too). That way, each doctrine section could feature a few sentences on what the doctrine is about and who the main important people were, and we could have a link somewhere to the article that deals specifically with the history of it all. Suggestions? Ideas? Disagreements? Stringman5 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult.  I'd say there are some fundamental issues or positions on which philosophers in all periods have been divided about, even if they call the issue a different name. The Realism / anti Realism position is one, Rationalism is another.  Those positions do not belong in a history article.  By contrast, certain positions or isms define certain historical periods.  You might say Idealism is one (as being one which is not found in ancient philosophy, which is well and truly dead today, and which characterises philosophy from the eighteenth to the end of the nineteenth century).  I don't know enough to make the judgement about Pragmaticism and Existentialism.  On Pragmaticism, my mental map of what is important in the history of philosophy assigns it a very small corner.  But this may be a subjective judgment.  On Existentialism I don't know enough to judge.  Intuitively, it is a position which is not found before the nineteenth century, it is in some sense a reaction to Cartesian scepticism and subjective Idealism, and it is one of those things you would have to understand before you can understand late modern philosophy.  On Phenomenology, that is not a position or division (there are no anti-phenomenologists as far as I know), but method.  In summary, quite what to do with the 'doctrines' section is a difficult question.  Generally, I'm against making hasty changes, and would like to see more discussion.  There's some good material in there, it's the organisation that is the problem. edward (buckner) 10:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Philosophy

message: I promised to amend the material on Kant in this section, as he was not an Idealist in the sense of disbelieving in the mind-independent existence of entities.  I was stuck for a while, because reducing the CPR to a couple of sentences is not easy.  What I have posted is far from perfect, but I think is roughly true.  If we need a cite for "controversial", I do have one - just need to find it.
I then linked into German Idealism with the simple point that Fichte and Schelling dumped the noumena.  After that, I found I had to rewrite Hegel - also imperfect, but better I think.  
I did lose some things:  Schopenhauer - again, not really an Idealist, but do we have space to explain his concept of Will here???  Also the claim that phenomenology rejected Idealism - Husserl's relationship to Idealism way more complicated than that.
Hope it's a step in the right direction.  I do acknowledge that there are issues about the structure of the article, but am tinkering with the detail right now.KD Tries Again 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idealism improved, I hope 

message: Actually, I went over the table of contents and also skimmed down the article, and I think it looks pretty good!  Certainly, it is astonishingly better than it was six months ago. Congratulations all. 
Would the person who put the cleanup tag on in January consider removing it? Rick Norwood 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lookin' good 

message: I noticed a phrase on ontology was placed in the first paragraph by 131.91.216.81 on March 21. Unless there is reasonable objection, I will delete it shortly (a-it comes already under metaphysics, b-there was no dicussion, c-my understanding of the focus is currently in the rest of the article, and d-other similar edits have been reverted lately and so should this for fairness sake). Richiar 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant ontology phrase 

message: I hadn't seen this one before.  It's from the philosophy section of the article "Human" []:
"Philosophy is a discipline or field of study involving the investigation, analysis, and development of ideas at a general, abstract, or fundamental level. It is the discipline searching for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative means.
The core philosophical disciplines are logic, ontology or metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology, which includes the branches of ethics and aesthetics. Philosophy covers a very wide range of approaches, and is also used to refer to a worldview, to a perspective on an issue, or to the positions argued for by a particular philosopher or school of philosophy..."
and so on.  Not bad.KD Tries Again 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, on the other hand it may have been taken from an earlier version of this article!  The word 'axiology' is a giveaway.  I have a problem with the 'investigation of ideas' bit, which is itself a philosophical position.  A realist might argue that philosophy does not investigate ideas, but extra-mental things like universals, substantial forms & so on. edward (buckner) 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another definition in another Wikipedia article 

message: You could look into the use of HTTP support for Javascript allowing to retrieve and update the cache for each "page" of content, in a buffer controlled PHP script, that handles the MySQL database content. This course of action would need to be applied to the kernel of Wikipedia, this would ensure the limited number of http requests/responces, as it would also make as a bad cause of lagging for precaching http servers (java;tomcat), and maybe a means of crashing the process.
Raw data should be used to process as images for supported browsers and proper HTML parsing, and would cut down on HTTP requests/responces for all of wiki projects. What I mean is by instead of using <img src="" /> as images, you can use src="data:type=png..." or something or other, to store less then 1024 bytes, including icons and small pictures and symbols. --Daemondevel 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible buffer solution for low caching support for browsers. 

message: I've tried to shorten one section, and don't think I should go beyond one section at a time.  There seems to be a lot of unnecessary repetition in the article as, over time, people have added their ideas without checking to see if those ideas have already appeared in an earlier section. Rick Norwood 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brevity is the Soul of Wit 

message: 1.  The section on Berkeley now contains a sentence that suggests Berkeley wrote some of his philsophical works in Latin.  While he may have written some mathematical works in Latin, I am not aware that any of the well-known philosophical works were in anything but English.  'Esse est percipi' was just a phrase he used.
2.  Why is 18C idealism now distinguished from 'Platonic Idealism'.  Plato is not generally regarded as anything but an extreme Realist.  Of course there was the theory of Ideas, but that is not the same as Idealism.  Idealism as such was an innovation of Berkeley's.  edward (buckner) 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both points are well taken.  Do you want to make the change or shall I?  Rick Norwood 23:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible inaccuracies