Talk:History of philosophy

Split again
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy. fgnievinski (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

note
Okay, I've given the section on Western philosophy a quick once-over. I did my best to explain edits in the description fields, but please just tag me if anything is unclear or seems wrong.

You're not consistent between "pre-Socratics" and "Presocratics." I'd incline towards the former, but I don't know which (if either) is best practice. Whatever you decide, just Cnt-A and standardize.

It would also be nice to have something on how the analytic-Continental distinction largely fell apart in the late 20th century and is no longer operative in most circles today. But that can, of course, be added later. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the thoughtful improvements! Many of these things are easily missed if one just follows the standard overview sources. I went with "Presocratic" since this spelling seems to be favored by our sources and Google Ngram. The decline of the analytic-continental divide was also my impression. But I'm not sure that it is generally accepted. See, for example, the first sentence of.
 * I've two points regarding your changes:
 * I think it should be mentioned that Plato's Academy and other schools had to close at the start of the medieval period. It underlines the socio-cultural climate of that age and the role of religion. You are right that it was not Church itself that shut them down. What do you think about the following sentence that makes this more explicit: "The Christian Emperor Justinian forced schools of philosophy, such as Plato's Academy, to close." (Grayling 2019: Plato’s Academy (the ‘School of Athens’) was closed by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE, along with a general ban on the teaching of philosophy because it conflicted with Christianity.; From Blackson 2011: By convention ancient philosophy ends in 529 when the Christian Emperor Justinian prohibited pagans from teaching in the schools)
 * Since Hegel is the most important German idealist, I think we should have a sentence or two to give a very rough overview of his philosophy. What do you think of the following: "For him, the unifying principle was spirit. He tried to show how various aspects of concrete reality can be understood as a manifestation of spirit." (from Critchley 2001: unifying principle ... For Hegel, it was the notion of Spirit; from Kenny 2006: Cosmic history, according to Hegel, consists in the life story of spirit(Geist). The internal development of spirit manifests itself in concrete reality.) But you are probably better versed in Hegel so I'm open to other suggestions.
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Phlsph7, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. To your points:
 * 0) The decline of the analytic-continental divide is widely, though not universally, accepted. But you are right, of course, that it should be so qualified and needs a source with a good discussion of this vexed (and ultimately, I think, philosophically unimportant) distinction in academic philosophy.
 * 1) I did not realize that! By all means do include.
 * 2) I'll write a sentence or two on Hegel to add.
 * 3) I changed a few of your numerals to spelled out numbers because in all the styles I know you're not supposed to start a sentence with a digit. Wikipedia, though, might have a different policy, in which case that should probably be followed. I don't think it will bother readers either way.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to circumvent the numeral problem by reformulating the expressions so we follow general style guidelines and have consistency. The new text on Hegel is helpful. Do you have page numbers for Beiser 1987 (source for the text on Kant) and Houlgate 2005 (source for the text on Hegel)? On a short look, the criticism of Kant's dualism should be covered by the pages 8-15 in Beiser and the role of freedom in Hegel is found on page 181 in Houlgate. But I'm not sure about the other claims. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Hegel source is the whole book. Houlgate does an admirable job of showing how the concepts of freedom, truth, and history (which make up his subtitle) provide the unifying through-line of Hegel's thought, which he explicates in a linear fashion at an advanced introductory level over the course of the book.
 * The Beiser citation is not quite so clear cut because the history is so much more confusing (too many people, too frequently revising their own positions). I can add another monograph, however, that foregrounds these issues even more than Beiser. A more specific citation, though, would have to be something like p.x and passim, which is frankly useless. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to nominate the article for GA once all the main work is done. I don't think the reviewer will be particularly pleased if I tell them that they have to read 332 page book to verify those 3 sentences on Hegel. I'll go on a little reference hunting to see what I can find. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I found passages to support most of the claims. But we may have to change the phrase philosophy, the aim of which, he claimed, is a self-transparent knowing of what knowledge is unless we can determine what supports this. According to Illetterati & Miolli 2021, maybe we could use something like the following: philosophy, the aim of which, he claimed, is a form of self-knowledge characterized by the identity of subject and object. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just remembered one more point: should we spell out centuries (first century, twentieth century) or use the short form (1st century, 20th century)? The articles History and History of science use the short form. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

a shorter lead
Hi @Phlsph7,

I think the lead needs to be pared back rather aggressively. It's good to remember that lots of people will be reading this on their phones and also, more importantly, that a good TOC does a lot of this work on its own.

Oh, and I see above @chankal suggesting four paragraphs. But I think it is not appropriate to combine Indian and Chinese thought just to meet the suggest paragraph count. Moreover, merely combining paragraphs undermines the purpose of the policy, which is to keep things short and to the point.

Here's a draft for consideration:

The history of philosophy is the systematic study of the development of philosophical thought. It is usually understood as a rational inquiry based on argumentation. Some theorists, however, define it in a wider sense to also include myths, religious traditions, and proverbial lore.

Western philosophy originated with inquiry into the fundamental nature of the cosmos in Ancient Greece. Subsequent philosophical developments cover a wide range of topics including the nature of reality and the mind, how people should act, and how to arrive at knowledge. The subsequent medieval period is focused on more on theology. The Renaissance period saw a renewed interest in Ancient Greek philosophy and the emergence of humanism. The modern period was characterized by an increased focus on how philosophical and scientific knowledge is created.

Arabic-Persian philosophy was strongly influenced by Ancient Greek philosophers. It had its peak period during the Islamic Golden Age. One of its topics was the relation between reason and revelation as two compatible ways of arriving at the truth. Avicenna developed a comprehensive philosophical system that synthesized Islamic faith and Greek philosophy. After the Islamic Golden Age, the influence of philosophical inquiry waned, partly due to Al-Ghazali's critique of philosophy.

Indian philosophy is characterized by its combined interest in the nature of reality, the ways of arriving at knowledge, and the spiritual question of how to reach enlightenment. Its roots are the religious scriptures known as the Vedas. In the modern period, the exchange between Indian and Western thought led various Indian philosophers to develop comprehensive systems. They aimed to unite and harmonize diverse philosophical and religious schools of thought.

Chinese philosophy was more interested in right social conduct and government than in ultimate reality. Confucianism explored moral virtues and how they lead to harmony in society. Daoism focused on the relation between humans and nature. The modern period in Chinese philosophy was characterized by its encounter with Western philosophy—as well as Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy.

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about the length of the lead. I modified and slightly expanded your suggestion. Feel free to make more adjustments. It stands currently at 389 words, which should be fine given the size of the topic and the article.
 * I also agree that having a single paragraph on Indian and Chinese philosophy is not a good idea. To me, it would be most natural to split the lead up in 6 paragraphs: Definition, Western, Arabic-Persion, Indian, Chinese, Others. We could merge Definition & Western to have 5 paragraphs. If we want to bring it down to 4 paragraphs, we could merge Chinese & Others. I'll ping to see what their thoughts are. WP:LEAD does explicitly say 4 paragraphs but it also says that it is "a general guideline—but not absolute rule". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

women in philosophy
There should be a section on this, probably at the end of the current version of Western. (I would be surprised if the other traditions would not benefit from similar discussions, but I don't know enough about them to say.)

The article on women in philosophy looks to be well sourced and probably has everything necessary to write a couple good paragraphs. I would do maybe one on the (rather obvious) reasons for their social exclusion from academic life under patriarchial social structures, noting also a few important exceptions. Then a paragraph on how this has been changing in the 20th and 21st centuries, but that the discipline still skews male and there is more work to be done. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that a full subsection is justified since this belongs more to the sociology of philosophy than the history of philosophy. I don't think any of the overview sources on the history of philosophy I read had a separate section on women in philosophy.
 * But maybe a paragraph in the section 20th century would make sense. The last sentence of the first paragraph already talks about how the academia changed in the 20th century. We could turn it into a new paragraph and add something along the lines: ... these changed affected also the role of women in philosophy ... before there were only few because/for example ... now they are more because/for example ... but it was still not balanced ... Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason that I think it is important is this page purports to present the canon. What counts as canonical, however, is always up for debate and reassessment. My knowledge of critical work in this area is of the second-hand "overhearing the conversation" sort, but it is definitely something that many philosophers are taking seriously, particularly when composing syllabi and making selections for anthologies.
 * I don't want to overstate the problem (witness Irigaray!), but there is something concerning about the 2,5000-year exclusion of women and their experience from a discipline that purports to speak in the universal.
 * That's my philosophical concern.
 * But I'm certainly not suggesting that you need to research and write this yourself. I'm happy for this post to sit here until someone else steps in or I decide to do it myself.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Main studies of thought
Title between this article's 'introduction' and 'Western philosophy'... limiting scope of the article ...Arnbiology (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Arnbiology

The second paragraph in the section Definition and related disciplines
Here is the paragraph at this time: I read quickly all the sources provided except, because I could not find a copy of it yet. I did not find that it was representative of the sources. In particular, more than one of them presented criticisms of the use of history or lack thereof in modern analytic philosophy. Here is an excerpt from : Being neutral does not mean avoiding presenting notorious criticisms found in sources. In simple terms, accessible to a large audience, the issue is that some modern philosophers use history to present their modern philosophy, that is, their purpose is to see their modern philosophy in ancient philosophies, and often they ignore essential aspects of the history in doing so and thus misrepresent it. How do you relate this to the above paragraph taken from the article? Is the idea that looking at the modern philosophy within the ancient philosophies is a way "to assess their validity, and hidden assumptions ..." to make "the philosophical heritage accessible to a contemporary audience and evaluates its continued relevance today"? That might be a view point expressed somewhere in the sources (though I did not see it). In any case, there is a total lack of neutrality if only that viewpoint is expressed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for fixing the source and for your comment. I had a short look at some of the sources:
 * Catana 2013 contrasts problem-oriented approaches that seek philosophical truths with context-oriented approaches that seek historical truths
 * Verene 2008: "There are two ways to comprehend the history of philosophy. It can be regarded purely historically or it can be regarded philosophically"
 * Frede 2022 distinguishes between historical and philosophical approaches to the history of philosophy.
 * Chimisso 2016 contrasts an approach according to which "past philosophical texts were still highly relevant to the modern reader was based on the assumption that philosophical writings investigate timeless questions" with an approach according to which "ideas are relative to the time and culture in which they emerge, or receive their meaning from their position within a grand narrative".
 * I'm not sure how relevant the passage you quoted is to this paragraph. I would assume that rational reconstructions are more closely associated with the philosophical component. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also think so and I think we should be able to find sources that confirm that. In fact, just reading the sources you mention more thoroughly might be enough to clearly see that link. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph, because nothing has been done to improve it. The role of history in philosophy is a big big issue. There are those who think that history in a philosophical perspective is only a tool that can be used to illustrate the modern view, which hold independently of history and is at the top of history in the same way that modern science is way above ancient science. There are those who, on the contrary, think that philosophy without history is wrong philosophy. The paragraph that I removed was a support for the first view point and it completely ignored the debate. The paragraph claimed that those who emphasize history are are simply doing history, not philosophy, but that is one of the two view points. The other view point is that those who think they can do philosophy that is not also history are doing bad philosophy (and usually a horrible history also). The fact that one of these views can be verified as shown by the bullet points above is besides the point. Of course, it is a view that is very often maintained by philosophers, especially in the last decades in American universities. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this well-sourced paragraph has NPOV issues but I'm not opposed to mentioning the discussion of whether the history of philosophy is an integral part of philosophy so I added a short explanation. Please let me know if you know of more sources that discuss this specific topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to suggest that because the paragraph is well sourced, it should not be removed, but this is, of course, a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rule. The article is clearly not about the debate regarding the role of history in philosophy. It just presents the history of philosophy. Wikipedia articles do not have to cover all aspects related to their subject.  Otherwise, article would become too long and it will be an invitation to POV pushers to include their view in all articles, because every thing is related. For example, Marxists see marxism everywhere, feminists see women issues every where, etc. Therefore, it is optional whether that debate is covered or not. However, what the article cannot do is to push one side of that debate in a non neutral manner. This paragraph, if we insist to have it, should be  a neutral link to sources that discuss that debate, without pushing one side more than another, because, within that subject, the philosophy-as-history side is well represented in the literature. You either cover the subject by presenting that view in due proportion or you do not cover the subject. This  paragraph very much violates NPOV, because it basically presents one view and only add a short sentence to present the other view as a controversy. It will be best to remove it and not cover that subject. The article will still be very complete, covering all philosophies, western, Indian, Chinese, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to expand on the view you see as underrepresented but since you have not mentioned a source, I'm not sure if this is the treatment that you would like to see. As far as I can tell, the paragraph is faithful to the sources it cites and aims to balance the different views. It would be preferable to keep the paragraph, but if it is beyond fixing, we may have to remove it after all. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)