Talk:Philosophy/Archive 10

Introduction
The opening lines, "Philosophy is a field of study in which people question and create theories about the nature of reality," concerns me because, at least within some post-Heideggerian circles, philosophy may not necessary address the "nature" of reality- I am basing this off of the rejection of totality of beings (which would have originary nature) and Dasein, which implies something different about reality. It is unclear whether philosophy needs to be done by "people," as well as whether it is an act of "creation." I only bring this up for the first sentence's instructive capacity if it means to explain philosophy in general.

Philosophical Topics
Why does this section include virtually nothing from the 2000 years of western philosophy before Descartes? For instance, what about the metaphysical discussions of Aristotle, the post-Aristotelians, the Neo-Platonists, the Arabic and Jewish philosophers, and the Scholastics.

This article has a bias I see often in the study of philosophy today (and I say this as a PhD candidate in philosophy) because it only mentions the 20 centuries of philosophy before Descartes as though they were not philosophy but only the history of philosophy. That's a strong bias and should not be present in an encyclopedia article.


 * Well actually, the structure of the article used to be a lot better, but then all of these topics were treated under the heading "History" (you may have noticed the awkward gap in the historical overview of Western philosophy between Francis Bacon and the Analytic Continental distinction; you may have noticed too that what falls under the heading "philosophical topics" is more or less in chronological order). Anyway, the heading "History of philosophy" apparently offended someone. So they changed it this way and, in my humble opinion, ruined the good structure of the article.
 * Now I see no reason why the topics dealt with in the article can't be arranged chronologically the way they used to be and put under the heading "history of philosophy". When I pointed this out (see here) I was told that "The history of philosophy as such can be understood the placement of key publications and events within the greater social and biographical context. The 'topics' section doesn't try to do that. True, it does list movements chronologically, but this is nothing but a stylistic choice." Of course this is completely false. This is not what the history of philosophy is about (I know, I am a Ph.D. candidate working on Ancient Philosophy. And anyway, anyone who doesn't believe me can check out journals like, say, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Phronesis or Ancient Philosophy.)
 * One can write about the history of philosophy as history and one can write about the history of philosophy as philosophy. Virtually all "historians" of philosophy do the latter and are not concerned primarily with placement of key publications and biographical context (although they may be sensitive to the dangers of anachronisms). An example of the latter -- i.e. writing about the history of philosophy as philosophy -- would be to go through the history of philosophy explaining along the way the concerns, problems and arguments of philosophers in history and sheding light on their influence on one another.
 * Now, the section from Descartes to Wittgenstein -- currently under the heading of "Topics" -- reads like a blend of the two - and, in fact, a little bit more like the history of philosophy as history than as the history of philosophy as philosophy due to it's conciseness (summarizing theories and ideas extremely briefly and mentioning quite a few key writings in the history of philosophy and the reasons why they were written, but placing little emphasis on e.g. arguments and counterarguments). So "history of philosophy" as I understand it would actually be even more philosophical in nature than most of the "Topics" section is anyway. And that's all the more reason to put most of the "Topics" section back where it belongs.
 * The bottom line is that the section on the history of philosophy once read nicely through from the ancients to Wittgenstein, but doesn't anymore. And, as you point out, the "Topics" section lacks many topics from before Descartes. Now I don't think it was right to fix the problem of the lack of discussion about the major areas of philosophy by ruining an already succeful section by way of transplanting material from the historical section into the topical section. Rather, the article should have just been expanded to meet the need. I suggest that what was taken from the history section be put back there and the topics section be re-written if necessary. --D. Webb 08:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was thinking about putting in a discussion here about the metaphysics of Plato, Aristotle, and others, especially the Scholastics. Do you think this would be out of place? It seems like you would think it would be fine, but others would have a problem with it. From your background, you know well of the metaphysical elements in the West going all the way back to the natural philosophers, let alone Plato's Republic and Aristotle's discussions of the four aspects of being, etc. For example, I think this section on "metaphysics" loses much when there is no discussion of ousia, form/matter, the four causes, the distinction between essence and existence, and act/potency.


 * Absolutely, it would be good to have some discussion about Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics. Now, I think the article would be structurally better for having the section dealing with Descartes to Wittgenstein and some of the stuff under the heading "ethics" put back in the history section (and, anyway, most of it reads more or less like history as history) but Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics could certainly be viewed as philosophical topics of contemporary interest no less than the other topics. --D. Webb 08:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a lot more mentioned about before Plato and after Plato. There does seem to be a great bias in many Wikipedia articles that reject or ignore a lot of philosophical ideas and books before the 1800's. This is a rewriting of historical ideas and words that are often rooted in ancient Greek and Latin. The importance of the etymological definitions of so many words seems to be greatly overlooked in some of the articles in Wikipedia. Read the introduction to truth to find a lack of open mindedness about great agreements and not mere perspectives about the what the idea of "true" is all about. Science is impossible if there is not at least some correspondence theory that actually works because reality is being described very accurately using math, logic, experiments, sense data, demonstration, etc.

--joseph 06:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Early modern period
[For the confused: I am moving this back because the discussion is primarily about the relation of Aristotle to the early modern philosophers such as John Locke. Dbuckner 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood writes "you may want to correct the following paragraph from Aristotelian logic":


 * There was a tendency in this period to regard logical inference as trivial, which in turn no doubt stifled innovation in this area. Immanuel Kant thought that there was nothing else to invent after the work of Aristotle, and a famous logic historian called Karl von Prantl claimed that any logician who said anything new about logic was "confused, stupid or perverse." These examples illustrate the general tendency during the period between the 13th century and the 19th century to accept without question the work of Aristotle. He had already become known by the Scholastics (medieval Christian scholars) as "The Philosopher." The dogmatism created by the Scholastics in favor of Aristotle took a long time to disappear.

It is beyond correction. It betrays a complete ignorance of anything that happened between the 17th and the 19th century. Which was why I slapped the warning template on that article. One could correct it, but there is so much of this stuff it would be pointless. Wikipedia seems to be good at some things, bad at others (philosophy in particular). Dbuckner 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If I suspected for a moment you really believed in what you say, then you would have long since departed. But since you're still here, I should say it's useful to have a critical eye on the text, so thanks for that. Still, if you can't bring yourself to fix it, then someone else will be happy to. Lucidish 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle."

Unfortunately, this does not make the paragraph more accurate. Quite the opposite. Here is an early modern source that will give you an idea of the early modern view on Aristotle. Dbuckner 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer."
 * My knowledge here is quite slim, and so my knowledge-base is quite likely not enough to aid in making the repairs. I've contacted the original author of the text, and hope he will show up here shortly.
 * On the subject, the only thing that I personally know of that broke with the Aristotelian tradition is on the topic of infinitessimals and the continuous. John Bell writes: "The early modern period saw the spread of knowledge in Europe of ancient geometry, particularly that of Archimedes, and a loosening of the Aristotelian grip on thinking". Do you have other things in mind as well? Lucidish 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that the early modern period represented a complete break with the scholastic or Aristotelian tradition is something most undergraduates will learn if they are studying the early modern period. Any textbook dealing with Locke will cover this.  For example, the first page of Pringle Pattison's introduction to the Essay:


 * "We still meet in his [Locke's] pages the attitude of mind familiar to us in Bacon and other pioneers of modern philosophy, the same disparaging criticism of scholastic philosophy and the Aristotelian logic, the same revolt against tradition and authority in all its forms".


 * What you and the author you mentioned need to do is to read some elementary books on the history of philosophy (or enroll at a university or similar institution that deals with these matters, if you are sufficiently interested). What you shouldn't be doing (if I may suggest it) is trying to write encyclopedia articles on the subject.  Dbuckner 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My edit was not one which was meant to assert much, but rather to quell what I saw as the most glaring of absurdities (having to do with 18th and 19th centuries, in which the development of calculus was a prime example). The original author, again, has been invited to defend their position, out of charity. If they do not, then a full and complete edit may be done.
 * Your suggestion in this particular vein has been noted and discarded, mostly because you obviously didn't understand the point of the edit. Your suggestion, taken in a more general vein, has long been made, and long been discarded. You have a tendency to engage in POV pushing, even after having been presented with evidence which emphatically refutes you on your own terms, as with the Blackburn affair; or cogent counter-arguments are present, as with the "racism" affair. Ignorance is excusable, but a systematic disregard for reason is not: the former may have its errors mended, while the latter commits itself to error out of a love of it; and the latter is, of course, the real and lasting threat to any educational resource. Lucidish 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited again. Still waiting for Charles Stewart. Lucidish 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what are you going on about? Your edit said "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle. "  I commented that not only was this wrong, it was very wrong.  I'm also moving this back to the the philosophy talk page.  It is relevant not to Aristotle's logic but to the whole early modern thing.  Dbuckner 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Point to the part that confuses you and I'd be happy to clarify Lucidish


 * On your claim that Charles Stewart wrote the original. So?  Dbuckner 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So I'm waiting for his reply, out of charity. As I said. Read the full sentence, not just the colorful part. Lucidish


 * And by the way ignorance may be excusable, but not in those who would write encyclopedias. Dbuckner 19:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. But for those who seek to edit the encyclopedia in response to problems arising from what others had written, it helps if the critic supplies more than the underside of their nose to the task. Lucidish 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Still baffled. In what sense have I missed the point of your edit?  I merely said that your edit was wrong, big time, and encouraged you to do some elementary reading on the subject, or enroll at the appropriate institution and study the subject properly.  In what sense is this 'missing the point'?   What in fact is the point of making edits that are stupid and wrong?  Dbuckner 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To minimize those statements which I knew to be absurd, and to leave the rest out of charity. Read. Lucidish 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done a more recent edit, though Charles is still welcome to make his case if need be. You are invited to examine this most recent edit, and if it still contains absurdities, to either personally edit it to your satisfaction, or inform other editors who will do it for you. Lucidish 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we having fun yet? Rick Norwood 00:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Your contributions are also of the variety that need to be discouraged, in that they show complete disregard for the facts of the matter.  Qualified philosophers will never contribute to the Wackipedia when they constantly have to justify quite elementary factual points all the time to people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter.  Life is MUCH too short.  Dbuckner 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What's interesting about this statement is that "justification" is tagged in a hostile way, as if it were a contemptible exercize. I had no idea that anti-intellectualism was so rampant in certain sections of the academy as that. Lucidish 15:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is the same as yours. Life's too short. When a debate degenerates into name calling ("stupid"), it is time to move on. Just scroll up and look at how long your debate with Lucidish has gone on! Rick Norwood 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point is not the same as mine. My point - read it - is that suitably qualified philosophers will never contribute to the Wackipedia when they constantly have to justify quite elementary factual points all the time to people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter.  You are one of the people whose arrogance is in direct proportion to their ignorance of the subject matter.  Unless that really was your point.  Dbuckner 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, my point was that calling people names is not a valuable way to spend your time. Rick Norwood 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not calling you names. It's the edits which were stupid.  The stupidity lies in not understanding that you can't write sensibly about subjects about which you are self-confessedly ignorant.  Somebody needs to say these things.  Or can you suggest a way that would persuade you to stop this silliness?   Dbuckner 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Rick shouldn't worry, because I didn't interpret your statement that way. And indeed, by my own confession right at the outset, the edit was ignorant of much of the details.
 * However, first of all, enough was repaired to disregard and dismiss a very obviously false claim. If it was replaced with a claim that is still false, and which the editor is not himself confident in, then there is a duty to either contact the original writer and suss it out, or to go back to primary material. I did the former.
 * Second: my purpose in the edit was tentative, not absolute. Tentative edits are required by any and every editor when there is an obvious lapse in the quality of writing even from the perspective of a dilettente, and not just from that of an expert. We must pick up the reigns of the task despite a lack of overall proficiency because you (for example), who are ostensibly more competent in this area of philosophy, simply refuse to do what's necessary.
 * A note on the social climate here. In formal settings, the huffing, "good riddance to bad rubbish" attitude might pass as a standard, because academia has a certain rigorous set of filters which both intentionally manage the riff-raff, and unintentionally provide disincentives for participation until exhaustive research. That is very effective in that context. But in this particular institutional setting, that is, of "Wackypedia", due to the lack of barriers, while you may expect a decline in quality, there is also (conversely) no excuse for a lack of participation. This means that, in the former, absurdities must turn into dogmas, and serve to suppress real intellectual development; while in the latter, absurdities are as easy to scrap as the click of a button. If your preference is for the former, and not the latter, then you may escape to the nearest ivory tower and stew away. But that's all the worse for the dissemination of truths, and an injury to us all, whether we know it or not. Lucidish 21:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in arguing with Dbuckner. He may come around, but if so, it will because he figures it out for himself. Argument puts him on the defensive.

As for the social climate here, I like it, or I wouldn't be here. In fact, even in academia, I often suffer fools gladly, up to a point. Some people are actually capable of learning. Rick Norwood 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you are one of the fools.  Dbuckner 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I missed the part where name-calling helps produce a better article on philosophy... Ig0774 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If it puts off patently uninformed and potentially troublesome contributors, then it helps produce a better article on philosophy. Anyway, in answer to the objection that I am simply criticising without contributing, you should know I stopped working on WP some time ago, due to this sort of nonsense.  It's all yours.  Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.  Dbuckner 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now that Dbuckner has engaged in his monthly bout of catharsis, I trust we can get back to the topic. Is the paragraph on the early modern period now adequate, or does it still contain objectionable phrasing? Lucidish 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert
That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

See here here.

And don't forget Larry Sanger's article excellent article here. Dbuckner 11:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The impression I get from the past few months of talk pages is that the Wiki system is regarded as being to academic philosophy as a sucking chest wound is to a man's health. For any who feel the same way that Prof. Buckner does, I'd appreciate it if you went to the WikiProject page to share your thoughts, albeit in a more measured way. I have posted my outlook on editing policy, including an explication of how tentative edits are justifiable under the Wiki system. This bears directly on the above worries. It's not at all appropriate to have the discussion on this page, and likely won't get the appropriate scope of attention here anyway. Lucidish 23:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also added my thoughts along this vein at the Wikiproject, on the subject which directly affects Prof. Buckner, namely, willful professional incompetence.
 * In a more light-hearted spirit, I'd also like to laud Mr. Sanger, and express how glad I am he wrote an article that did not require generations of copyedits by Wikipedian editors to make readable. Lucidish 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a 'tentative edit'?
In this case (see above), it seems to mean an edit where a claim is made that has no kind of evidence or support. Doesn't this contravene WP policy anyway? No potentially controversial statement should be made without either explicitly backing up by some authoritative reference. At they very least, the person making the statement should be aware of a reference or citation that would support their claim. But by the author's own admission, he knows next to nothing of the claim he was making. Here is the 'tentative edit' he is talking about.


 * "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle."

This is a stupid statement (I am not name calling, I am simply stating a fact). Even Wikipedia itself, rather surprisingly, could have shown him it was stupid. E.g. search for Early modern philosophy, which in turn directs you to 17th-century philosophy which right at the beginning says "17th-century philosophy in the West is generally regarded as seeing the start of modern philosophy, and the shaking off of the mediæval approach, especially scholasticism." If the editor in question knew what Scholasticism was ( a medieval philosophy that was highly deriviative of Aristotle]] he would immediately have seen that his 'tentative edit' was highly stupid.

Of course, there is a mitigating factor, because if he didn't know (as he probably didn't) that scholasticism is almost by definition a philosophy that is derivative of Aristotle, then the Scholasticism page will not help him here. I did try to correct this problem, but immediately encountered the 'skeleton warrior' problem (see above) – there is a person who guards that page who has a daft theory about Scholasticism, and I wasn't prepared to go through the long round of tedious argument that would persuade him otherwise (if indeed it would persuade him – probably not).

On whether this discussion belongs here, I propose that it does. I've looked at some of the theoretical Criticism of Wikipedia, but this is theory. Let's locate the discussion on the talk page of what is unarguably the worst page in Wikipedia (that is quite something) so people can put the theory into practice. Remember, the person here who is arguing the theory of 'tentative edit' (i.e. edits made in the full knowledge by the editor that he or she hasn't the faintest idea what they are talking about) is one of the principal architects of this page. The other is Mr Norwood, who, by his own admission, is unaware of the difference between a statement and an inference. Also the man who said that Aristotle was an Idealist. (And who was part of an editing team who, last year, claimed that philosophy was the same thing as alchemy – this was the point where I stepped in and said enough is enough).

For some more really bad pages, see Medieval philosophy, Ontology ("Ontology thus has strong implications for conceptions of reality"), Objectivist philosophy – actually the last one is really bad.

Why am I whingeing on instead of trying to change things? Well, I tried, and I have given up. Also, there is now considerable interest in whether Wikipedia can deliver the goods without some change in its editorial policy, and it may possibly help for someone to give a concrete example of where it's going badly wrong. Dbuckner 07:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, first of all, for putting thought into your post.
 * A 'tentative edit' in this context is one where the attempt is to minimize falsity, and leave the rest out of benefit of the doubt -- especially when treating the writing of non-anonymous users, and especially when said user purports to be an expert in the field. Thus, all of the above remarks, which you hope to be leveled at me, actually end up being attacks on Charles Stewart.
 * Your analysis of Scholasticism's connection to Aristotle points out obvious enough facts, which I was aware of, and were nevertheless irrelevant. For what I wasn't comfortable weighing in on in the edit was the notion that this carried over to the history of logic of the time, which was the only significant issue in the edit.
 * It is amusing that I am credited as a "principal architect" of this page. I did not appear until late last year, mostly because of your critiques. Besides, you surely don't do yourself enough credit, nor Rick, KSchutte, Mel, Ig, and especially Lac.
 * One of your troubles has to do with the nature of philosophy and its inclusion here with an emphasis on etymology, "love of wisdom". However, you have shown yourself to be absolutely, irrationally livid on the subject of not admitting metaphilosophical naturalism (of which this etymology is a reflection). Indeed, I have shown that you were systematically ommitting actual reference material in order to press your views. I have no choice but to consider that particular series of edits that you made to be professionally incompetent. This is not an attack on you, of course, but an attack on your behavior, and the grossly misleading propositions which your behavior generated at Definition of philosophy.
 * Rick has been one of the main forces which made this page verifiable. That alone affords him far more respect than you give him.
 * Again, the more appropriate page is the philosophy Wikiproject, since the difficulties here seem to be unique to the philosophy section. Some of this discussion has leaked over to there. Lucidish 17:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research? "What if everbody did that?"
"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

Kant strikes me as the silliest of philosophers, and I recommend a little book called "The Critique of Impure Reason". In particular, the categorical imperative leaves no room for human diversity. But, sigh, this is original research. Rick Norwood 16:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I observe nothing but diversity — not to mention perversity — in the maxims that many-splintered humans will will to become universal laws. Jon Awbrey 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RN: In the news today was a move by conservatives to outlaw birth control using Kant's universal imperative. After all, what if everybody did it? Rick Norwood 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Extended the links on topics of philosophy
Hey people, I thought that the list of philosophy subjects needed to be a bit expanded, so I did that. Tell me what you think. Please reply to me either on here, or through my personal Talk Page. --Lord X 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

History
History section mainly describes "history of western philosophy". There are several big regional branches, so I think History section should be divided into two or three (maybe more) sections, like 1.History of Western philosopy. 2. History of Eastern Philosophy. etc. Janviermichelle 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jagged 85's edit
Good work, Jagged 85. Rick Norwood 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Responses_to_Objectivism

If you wish to participate, I ask that you carefully read the commentary to get some idea of what's going on. I'll say no more, as you need to make your own decision. Al 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand and cults.
There is a dispute on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) on the matter of whether Ayn Rand's Objectivism qualifies for the category of Cult. This may be of interest to editors of this article. Al 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Causility v.s. the existence of God
So how is thee concept of causility or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricist, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not actually the place for this sort of question, but since I find it interesting, I'll try to give an answer. First, one might understand that Hume himself seemed to have been aware of the difficulty of assuming cause and effect from an empiricist standpoint — one simply cannot "see" cause and effect. However, cause and effect is, to some degree inferable — to quote Thomas Aquinas: "When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause." Putting aside, for a minute, the metaphysical claims implicit in this idea (e.g. the temporal priority of the cause or the necessity of the cause being included in the effect), what Aquinas seems to mean is that we can, in a very practical sense, conceive of something that is immediately perceptible having a cause — that is, we can infer the cause from the event (this process is known as inductive reasoning). But what allows us to do this? Quite simply direct observation. To use Hume's famous example: "The first time a man saw the communication of motion by impulse, as by the shock of two billiard-balls, he could not pronounce that the one event was connected: but only that it was conjoined with the other. After he had observed several instances of this nature, be then pronounces them to be connected. What alteration has happened to give rise to this new idea of connection? Nothing but that he now feels these events to be connected in his imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other." In other words, the predictable repetition of a sequence events (the striking of one billiard-ball by another followed by their mutual motion, in this case), gives credibility to the idea that there is a connection between those events. From this standpoint, of course, one cannot be sure that one has observed an instance of cause and effect; however, if cause and effect do seems to be the most plausible explanation which accounts for the observed sequence of events, then, even given a notion of radical empiricism, one seems justified to conclude that "cause and effect" is the best possible explanation for the observed phenomena, at least until a better explanation comes along, if it ever does.
 * Now, it can easily be pointed out that by this same inductive argument, one could reason that God exists. And, in fact, this is precisely what Aquinas suggests with his famous five ways. So why do some people regard God as a less valid hypothesis than causality? Well, one possible reason is that God is generally held to be a supernatural, that is, God is an entity whose cannot be explained simply as some sort of first cause (at least, most modern conceptions of God). Instead, God is imagined as some sort of person, with likes and dislikes (Righteousness and Sin). In short, there is additional metaphysical baggage to most conceptions of God (it is, in fact, putting aside this metaphysical baggage which lead some to accept the tenets of pantheism or deism). If God were inferable in the same way that cause and effect is, then it would be quite hard to say how such a God is different from no God at all (unless one accepts something like Spinoza's identification of God with nature.
 * Finally, the short summary: the hypothesis of cause and effect, while nothing more than a hypothesis, can be inferred from observable phenomena and has a certain amount of explanatory power; the hypothesis of God that can be inferred from observable phenomena does not help to explain anything at all, unless, perhaps, certain arguments are true. iggytalk 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Confines of philosophy
Somehow, the article should try to make it clear what makes philosophy different from i.e. science, wild speculation and New Age/religion/Zen, or perhaps more neatly put, what seperates it from pseudophilosophy. If there is an overlap or no sharp dividing line, this should be mentioned. This question is mentioned briefly in the paragraph "Branches of philosophy".


 * I'm afraid that such topics would inspire endless and mostly pointless debates. Look at this archives to this page to see what I mean. Lucidish 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Two other sciences that philosophy could be separated from, are rhetorics and psychology. Lucidish: If it's impossible to define at all what philosophy is and what it isn't, the entire page should be replaced with the sentence "Every question is a philosophical question". If one agrees that this isn't good enough, one has to define "philosophy" as spot-on as possible, just as one defines everything else in an encyclopedia. I think that a discussion of what philosophy is agreed not to be, or at least what different people (such as the logical positivists and Socrates/Plato) claim it is not, is important. Whether or not the debates become endless or pointless is beside the point. At least the relationship between science, New Age and philosophy should be outlined.


 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudophilosophy", as I think it's more or less relevant to this discussion: A portion of the article right now reads "while significantly failing to meet some suitable intellectual standards". To make the article more objective (and thus less readily attacked by ignorant relativists), it should be made clear precisely which intellectual standards are violated (and, if necessary, mention criticism of these intellectual standards). Some hints of standards that most people would agree on: vague, non-defined or ill-defined concepts, mixing together two different concepts that share the same term (in fact, a frequent error), heavy use of concepts with strong connotations, lack of locical consistency, texts being more emotional than factual (too much pathos compared to logos, see modes of persuasion - an example may be philosophy presented as a novel or a poem), etc. [In fact, I think that these are different formulations of more or less the same problem]. These very intellectual standards should perhaps be collected on a page of its own as well. See also the article on pseudoscience, which I find very factual and informative, of course in part because the scientific method is so easy to define. -More on this may be found here: Logical positivism and Plato, for example in the dialogue Phaedrus (Plato).


 * Followup: The use of rhetorical tricks or terms that sound very sophisticated, elegant or complex but still are vague or ill-defined are sometimes a hallmark of pseudophilosophy. Also, I would like to emphasis that the importance of logical consistency, precise definition and correct use of concepts often is seen disputed by relativists and semi-relativists, but still it's an essential part of philosophy and the philosophical tradition. It seems some people want to define philosophy as a discipline where "anything goes", but this isn't and has never been true. If necessary, this very dispute should be mentioned in the article.


 * I've added "Confines of philosophy" as an own paragraph. If it's going to be objective, I guess it has to quote different philosophical directions' views of this, arguably plus mentioning what every philosopher seems to agree on (arguably, logically sound arguments, for example). It's very crude as it stands, but I hope it's appreciated that it's added and that it can be refined over time.
 * It's not impossible to define. Rather, it's unlikely that people are going to agree.
 * The most generic, and positive, treatments can already be found in the opening paragraph. If you want to define the subject negatively, that's fine, but it would probably be better suited at Pseudophilosophy, not here (since that article is necessarily defined as a negative). And even still, nobody's going to agree on it, but at least you'll have the opportunity to spell out the particular points of view in more detail than you have the opportunity to do here. Lucidish 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've made an outline which I feel has a NPOV. Feel free to disagree&discuss&edit&remove. :)


 * You've certainly gotten to the heart of a number of pivotal discussions in that edit. Some of the edits you made are begging the question -- i.e., that science as science stops being philosophy -- but you're not far off base, I think. But in order to do justice to any of them, it would require a bit more space. I really think that, if we're to have a section like this, it ought to be a short summary (as is currently in the intro), with a link to Metaphilosophy (where these topics are and may be discussed more fully). [Moreover, the "Definition of philosophy" wiki should be merged into the Metaphilosophy wiki.] Lucidish 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll accept any changes, and I see that the paragraph I added fits rather awkwardly into the rest of the article. I feel the need to emphasis, however, that an encyclopedia article about "philosophy"'s primary goal must be to define what philosophy is. Hence, it feels strange that "Definition of philosophy" needs a separate page, shouldn't it read precisely the same as the "Philosophy" article? For this reason, no articles exist that are named "Definition of sociology" or "Definition of psychology". You simply go to "Sociology" or "Psychology" to find them. Or am I missing something?
 * You've got the right intuition. I certainly think that, if philosophy were undefinable, it would be meaningless gumbo. As it happens, it has a wealth of definitions. Some of them are broad enough to fit pseudo-sciences like alchemy, some are not; some are restricted to the second-order consideration of abstractions, some which care about the first-order particular implications of ideas in action; some which include science proper, some which don't; some which include symbolic logic, and some which have exported formal logic into mathematics departments; some definitions which regard it as mere language games (and a kind of therapy for the rational), and some which regard it as the prerequisite to anything serious, meaningful, or worthwhile in life (either act or idea); some which demand clear thinking, some which accuse rationality of being a form of tyranny. Needless to say, all of the above, and probably more, would take a wiki of its own to draw out. In the end, the best we could do is emphasize that philosophy is about argument over important things.
 * Also, it's certainly true that in most disciplines, you have a pretty clear-cut idea of what's being studied, and what the limits are. Philosophy is not especially obedient in this regard. Lucidish 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aey: what do you mean?
[I have posted this also at Aey's own talk page.]

Aey, you recently substituted this for something that most of us, I'm sure, thought was quite sensible:
 * Nietzsche, whose contributions to philosophy extend beyond existentialist thought, developed complex aesthetico-philosophical premises, based in part upon the concept of the will to power; existentialists tend to see Nietzsche's thought as one characteristic of a self-defining paradigm.

Now, I don't want an edit war. But you came in claiming that this amounted to "Correctives to misinformationist edits". That edit summary tells us very little, and (may I say) is barely literate. Please explain:


 * 1) What was wrong with the information you replaced?
 * 2) What are the "complex aesthetico-philosophical premises" of which you speak? (Why do you mention them, and why do you label them in that obscure way?)
 * 3) Which existentialists are they, who think that way about Nietzsche?
 * 4) What is a "self-defining paradigm"? How can Nietzsche's thought be reasonably considered "one characteristic" of it?

Thanks. I look forward to enlightenment! Noetica 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that my summary there had a typo (I was in a hurry). To put it briefly, the original had information that suggested Nietzsche's project was about developing some "superhuman race" or whatever, which is simply a Nazi reading or what have you. The "premises" I mention aren't obscure at all: he very clearly defined them as aesthetic and philosophical in nature. And, generally speaking, all existentialists (by dint of definition) read Nietzsche in the way I described. Existentialists are those that characterize his thought as a "self-defining paradigm", which means exactly what it says: any individual "defines" his or her "self" (not to say I agree with them, or anything alike). I can clarify the last point in the article if needed. Aey 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aey. I strongly advise that you do indeed clarify all of your proposed contribution, and that you reflect carefully about the value of what you propose to replace. "Self-defining paradigm" is unlikely to be understood in the way you intend; it looks more as if some sort of a paradigm is somehow supposed to be defining itself. I will intervene, and I suspect others may also, if the result is not an enhancement, or not easily understood. Noetica 07:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, after that other person came in and fixed up a lot of stuff, I really didn't have to do much. Please tell me if there are other problems or anything. Aey 08:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed that edit. Not really sure, but doesn't existentialism hold individualism to be true? Poor Yorick 08:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's how you can put it. According to Sartre, all are "condemned to be free". Aey 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (By the way a fine example of an unanalytic, but pretty, claim). Narssarssuaq 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy on Wikiversity
Want to pat self on back, encourage others to participate I like philosophy, so I started the Department of Philosophy in the School of Humanities. Join in! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pragatism vs Pragmaticism
Two problems in the section devoted to pragmatism: first, there is no mention of the disagreement between Peirce and James about realism and truth; second, I am fairly certain that the term "pragmatist" does not apply to Santayana. In fact Santayana is considered to be one of the non-pragmatist philosophers of that era. this should be clarified.