Talk:Philosophy/Archive 19

Useful tag
edward (buckner) 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This was from User:Rosenkreuz's page. One of the best and funniest editors around. See e.g. this edit. edward (buckner) 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenology section
Started work on this. Consider it "in progress". I will source it from Woodruff Smith's new book on Husserl. I have redescribed phenomenology so it doesn't sound like just any account of human experience, but I will improve the description. KD Tries Again 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Second draft. I tried looking at the Wiki entry on Husserl, but unfortunately it's not up to scratch - it pretty much ignores Logical Investigations.  I tried to summarize the main points of phenomenology, but it may still be unintelligible in such a short space.


 * By the way, the stuff on hermeneutics is not mine, and it doesn't begin to explain what Heidegger meant by hermeneutics - unlike Gadamer, Heidegger is not primarily concerned with texts. It would take a few sentences to try and clarify it.  Shall I do that, or is something we want to lose as insufficiently notable?  If we deal with hermeneutics, why not structuralism, post-struc., deconstruction, etc.? KD Tries Again 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * I think that recent stuff (post-1960s) shouldn't be included, or at least, not included in the level of detail as the sections currently in place. This would include struct, post-struct, deconstruct, Rorty's neo-pragmatism, etc. Their histories aren't done yet. Poor Yorick 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, but it leaves structuralism up in the air, arguably semiotics too. What about hermeneutics, though?  I don't feel strongly that it should be in or out, but it's awkward where it is.  Yes, Heidegger leads to Gadamer and Ricoeur, but it doesn't accurately say how or why, I don't know if the explanation deserves the space.  KD Tries Again 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Existentialism
Just started thinking about this. Nietzsche needs only a passing mention. I think it should be structured as beginning with Kierkegaard (using his opposition to Hegel to characterize his complaints about "objectivity"), and then showing existentialism as inherited by many religious thinkers. Most well-known existentialists were concerned with religion: Marcel, Buber, Tillich, Unamuno, Shestov, Beryaev, etc.

Then develop the Jaspers/Heidegger roots into Sartrean existentialism, which is atheistic and which became the most famous branch. Mention Camus and we're done, no? I don't mean to make it much longer, but that structure makes more sense to me. Thoughts? I can source it from the Macquarrie book on existentialism, maybe from William Barrett. I'll see what else I have. KD Tries Again 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Will Barrett uses the common structure of "The Big 4": Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre, which is standard in many existentialist anthologies. The SEP entry uses this standard. Heidegger is already mentioned in the phenomenology section, so only K, N, and S are left, and they get a sentence or two each. For a short section in the philosophy article, the Big 4 structure is enough, I think. The details must go in the actual existentialism article, but which is a mess. Poor Yorick 06:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always argued that the Philosophy article should be a set of links connected by a coherent thread. On this view, the section on E. should be a summary of what's in the main article.  Don't know enough about the balance between the big 4.  On the Existentialism article, I see what you mean.  A lot of the detail looks roughly right, but the overall style, and the introduction, are awful.  edward (buckner) 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


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

Feb 21 draft: I just posted a revised draft of the section. I don't think there's anything there which will be hard to reference. No objection to reincorporating the lost point about existence preceding essence - it just didn't fit my flow, and I am not sure how clear it is without some explanation. I reduced Nietzsche to a parenthesis for the reason given, and omitted further exploration of existentialist literature: both decisions based on length only, and I am happy to expand if that's the consensus. Heck, I'll add Colin Wilson if any wants me to. KD Tries Again 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Interesting draft. I've made some changes for the reasons stated:

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

Community action review on Ludvikus
Regular editors of this article may be interested in participating in the following discussion: Community noticeboard. Best, Sandstein 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No! We've finally gotten past the personalities and started discussing philosophy.  This action has nothing to do with the topic of this page, and threatens to start up again what has at long last died down.  Rick Norwood 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations to Edward(Buckner) and K D Tries Again for improving the article. Rick Norwood 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who User:Skomorokh is but he (or she) has done a lot of work in the past few days on Existentialism. I'm not an expert but this diff looks like a very good explanation.  I mean, it tries to explain what something actually is, rather than get bogged down in detail, or lists, or nonsense.  As I've said before, it's the quality of the articles immediately underneath this one, which are what counts.  Perhaps we are finally getting somewhere.  (And thanks also for the compliment Rick).  edward (buckner) 14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks ditto. I have some notes with which to spruce up the phenomenology bit later today, and I'll take note of the comments on existentialism too.KD Tries Again 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)KD

Prominence of logic
I started to tidy up the beginning of that section, so it flowed into Phenomenology, then ended up making a number of corrections. Logic seems to come out of nowhere in the discussion of phil of maths, though. I hope somebody can do better with the contributions of Frege and Wittgenstein at the end of the first para. Personally, I would lose the last sentence about Popper; it needs explaining, but why do we want to get into philosophy of science here? I think the section as now written ends with Carnap et al's use of symbolic logic, although it could certainly continue with subsequent developments in logic - not my field. KD Tries Again 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * The logic section was an early attempt at introducing Analytic philosophy. Better to have a short section analytics, mentioning the importance they gave to logic, and no more.  I think we are generally agreed we want to keep away from the level of detail this page has aspired to in the past.  edward (buckner) 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the article?
Hi all. I'm a brand new user just coming to grips with everything, so please bear with me. I found the section entitled 'Philosophical Doctrines' to be somewhat unsatisfactory. As far as I can tell, the sections 2.5-2.8 ('Pragmatism' through to 'The analytic tradition') don't actually feature a clarification/definition of what the doctrine is actually about. I read right through the existentialism section, and found a detailed description of which thinkers founded, developed or influenced Existentialism, but no where did I find a concise sentence explaining exactly what existentialism is. Perhaps each of these sections should begin with a concise definition of the subject matter of the doctrine, followed by relevant material? I know you guys have been working on shortening the article, so perhaps each heading should simply contain an explanation of subject matter (and relevant figures), and leave the detailed subject history for the separate article sub-page? Stringman5 05:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS - OK, so the 'Pragmatism' section does feature a concise definition - but it's not the first line of the section, as it is on the sections above (2.1-2.4). Maybe it should be shifted up a bit? Stringman5 05:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Ok, I've attempt to add a thesis sentence to the beginning of the article to help explain; and tried to shorten the history from the sections. Any comments would be helpful Poor Yorick 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks great, I like it. I am worried that we may have just helped make the article LONGER though, not shorter, but one thing at a time. Stringman5 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As some of KD's recent edits attest, and as some of the recent vandalism indicates, it may be unworkable to try to synopsize all philosophy (western, eastern, north-northwestern, analytic, continental, 4-wheel drive) at the level of detail this patchwork often attempts. The fix would be to have very succinct summaries with links to separate articles on each sub-field, historical period, etc. (Of course, most such articles are almost as dire as this one, but that's a long-term problem: and maybe some of the current sub-sections can be spun into the separate articles.) Does anyone have any clever ideas about large-scale proposals to shorten this article, and get its sub-sections treating subjects at a consistent level of detail? 271828182 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can certainly see what you mean. As things stand, the logic section basically stops in 1928.  Meanwhile, the phenomenology section, which I admit hardly does more than gesture at Husserl's work, already seems to give him more prominence than most philosophers on the page. KD Tries Again 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * I'm all in favor of shortening the article, and standardizing the sub-sections so "favoritism" is minimized. Poor Yorick 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with all of this. The advantage of sub-articles is that they do not attract cranks.  In terms of practical suggestions, why not just delete some stuff?  Removing obvious bad writing is an uncontroversial way to do that.  Also, given that Indian philosophy is already a sub-article with nothing in it, and since there is a long essay on the subject here, why don't I move that now?  edward (buckner) 12:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I've moved the Indian philosophy to Indian philosophy, and deleted the Persian philosophy section as there is already plenty of material in other parts of the encyclopedia. I've left Chinese philosophy for the moment.  edward (buckner) 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:SIZE for useful information on how to trim articles down. (A note to anyone reading this, in case of concern: NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN DELETED.  Juat moved to appropriate subsections.  edward (buckner) 12:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've completely changed the Medieval philosophy section, which was badly written and inaccurate. A brief summary of what it is about, then a swift link to the appropriate page.  Note I have widened the scope of Medieval philosophy to include the Middle East and Byzantine traditions.  This is consistent with Hyman and Walsh's treatment.  I haven't dared suggest any major philosophers.  Academic consensus view, based on length of treatment, is  Aquinas, Ockham, Scotus, Maimonides, Averroes.  edward (buckner) 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I have removed one bit, which was the introduction to the history section. I've left in the bit about being divided into three periods, which is fairly uncontroversial.  edward (buckner) 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is improving to such an extent that maybe some of the warning tags can be dropped. One thing I would suggest is that when you move a section to a subarticle, you move the appropriate references as well.

Aquinas, Ockham, Scotus, Maimonides, Averroes sounds about right to me. Roger Bacon actually came earlier than William of Ockham, but he was philosophically part of a later group of philosophers, I think, and was not at all Medieval in outlook.

Rick Norwood 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest improvements
The work on Existentialism has greatly improved on what was there before. However the contrast between the other parts of the article only becomes more glaring. Also the question of how to balance the different parts of the article becomes even more difficult. The bits on existentialism and analytic philosophy occur in the large section called 'Metaphysics'. Whereas these sections partly belong in the history section, partly to 'Schools of philosophy', and what they are really doing is setting the background to 'philosophy in the twentieth century'. I wonder if the phenomenology and existential bits couldn't be put in the Continental philosophy article, which would be written in parallel with Analytic philosophy. Having completed these, we could then make a judgement about how much goes in here. Remember there is still nothing on Idealism yet! Apart from some very strange things, that is. edward (buckner) 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'Prominence of Logic', inasmuch as it belongs anywhere (probably the bin) belongs in the Analytic philosophy article. I'll tidy up and move at some point.  The real difficulty is in summarising all these points in a way that is balanced with the rest of the article.  That is precisely why Wiki is v. good at small articles on matters of detail, but awful at handling very general articles.  But we are equal to all of this, are we not.  edward (buckner) 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that the structure is odd. Why should existentialism not be under ethics, for example?  I am very open-minded as to where the stuff ends up; just thought I'd throw it at the wall while I had the chance.  I do owe sources on the existentialism bit, but won't get around to that until next week.  Shouldn't be difficult.  KD Tries Again 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Of the (famous) 20th century existentialists, only Simone de Beauvoir attempted at all to derive an existentialist ethics, i.e. The Second Sex and The Ethics of Ambiguity, yet they were also classic feminist texts, as well. Existentialism, esp. Sartrean version, as a whole is deeply metaphysical (existence precedes essence, bad faith, etc.), as well as epistemological when discussing Christian Existentialism. Poor Yorick 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it's not a big deal, as the question is where the write-up should go, but I thought Sartre and Camus said quite a bit about 'how to live' - to put it crudely. Camus is pretty thin on epistemology.KD Tries Again 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)KD

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

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

Re; Kebra Negast
I removed the sentence that claims this is a work of philosophical & religious importance. Perhaps it is in Rastifarian circles, but from my research in Ethiopian subjects for Wikipedia (& having slogged thru this difficult work), it has no special religious or philosophical importance. It is an essay that justifies the claim of the Solomonic dynasty to the throne of Ethiopia, & from the comments of a few Ethiopians on Wikipedia I understand this work lacks even notable religious value (I'd say about the level of St. Augustine's The City of God might for the average Catholic); it has a unique historical & cultural value -- but nothing more.

However, I expect some Rastifarians to insist on restoring this edit. I would expect that they provide verifiable cites for their claims of its philosophical importance -- but I doubt it. I made a serious effort to find any secondary literature on this work, & it was slim pickings: I could find less than a half-dozen published works on the Kebra Negast. -- llywrch 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and Science

 * " It is a commonplace view that once a branch of philosophy fully starts following the norms of science (i.e., use of the scientific method), it is no longer termed "philosophy", but "science". "

One possible citation for this is in the introduction to The Dream of Reason. I might do it myself later, but I don't have time at the moment. -- Calion | Talk 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Radical changes
I've renamed the section on Idealism, Rationalism &c and brought it up the page. I've mostly added. Beefed up the section on rationalism, including Parmenides and Plato. A new section on nominalism and realism which are strangely not mentioned anywhere else. A paragraph on Berkeley, who is now recognised as the originator of Idealism. A whole section on Hume, in the section on scepticism. This section is now much too long, and needs judicious pruning. edward (buckner) 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Three comments. a) The paragraph on Hume would be best framed as a discussion of external-world skepticism. b) Also, I'm not confident that the list-of-three is giving us paradigmatically skeptical arguments; maybe it would fit more comfortably in the Empiricism section. c) The sentence "Fortunately, though reason is incapable of dispelling the clouds, a few hours of company and a good game of backgammon make his sceptical conclusions seem ridiculous." is witty, which makes it probable that it won't last another hour on Wikipedia. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph needs soem work - the list of three, as you spotted, belongs in the empiricism section, but I put it in late at night. The backgammon part is more or less directly from Hume himself.  As you say, it is probably best removed.  edward (buckner) 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I've moved the 'three problems' bit to the rationalist subsection, though it still looks a bit awkward. and I trimmed down scepticism.  I removed the bit about induction scepticism, because that is covered by the but on Hume, and moved a paragraph that clearly refers to modern replies, to the end.  I was going to remove the backgammon bit, but then lost heart.  edward (buckner) 08:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: skepticism pruning: good stuff, I think I was overzealous with the writing. Perhaps some quick rejoinders to skepticism might be in order: I'm thinking esp. contextualism, which is (to my mind) the most interesting and plausible response to the skeptic's challenges.
 * Somebody will (justifiably) remove the backgammon sentence eventually or clock it with a "sounds unencyclopedic" tag, but I will do nothing since I try to err on the side of funny. An actual quote from Hume, though, would be more likely to last. I'll check the Enquiry. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly good quote (once we trim it): "And though a Pyrrhonian may throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections are mere amusement" (the Enquiry, SXII, Part 2) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good quote, but it's too long. I think I'll just remove the backgammon thing as it does not fit anyway.  If you keep the quote safe, we can put it should into the scepticism article, where it belongs.  edward (buckner) 08:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I've solved this by summarising Hume's position, then adding a footnote to the quote, and even found a page reference to the 1777 edition! edward (buckner) 08:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Idealism: Should Kant be in this section? He is unlike Berkeley and the other Germans in that he didn't believe the first sentence of the section. He certainly believed that what was real exceeded "mind".  But then, if we go back to a "From Kant to Idealism" structure - which would be easier - then the Berkeley material would be out of place.  Aside from this question (to which I don't have a ready answer), I'd suggest that the move from Kant's view to Idealism began with Fichte and Schelling.  They both lopped off the noumenal, and Hegel followed in their shoes.  I could re-jig that bit (although it doesn't help with my first point).KD Tries Again 17:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)KD
 * It is unhelpful to talk about Kant in the discussion of idealism, because he isn't the paragon of the view -- part of the point of the CoPureR of course was to refute (mainstream) idealism. But his views are enough of a hybrid that he has been referred to as a "transcendental idealist" (though usually in the context of being called an "empirical realist"). He uses these terms to describe his own view in the critique (A370) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Branches of philosophy
I've completely rewritten the section on branches, and boldly removed the clean-up tags. I haven't put too many references in, on the assumption that everything I have said is incredibly verifiable, but feel free to challenge it, or to add references. edward (buckner) 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PS I haven't removed the top cleanup tag as there is plenty more to do on this. I have already mentioned the 'Identity of philosophy' section which I do think needs a little challenge here and there.  It seems a little disconnected and fragmented.  If I were trying to summarise what it says, what would that be?  Also, some of the references do not support what is there.  For example, the citation of Ducasse (an essay, rather dated,that I read with interest) does not obviously connect with anything in that section.  edward (buckner) 09:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are probably in a better position to add references than anybody else. If you use the inline format it is very quick and easy. As it says somewhere in Wikipedia, if something is incredibly verifiable, then it should be easy to add a reference. Rick Norwood 13:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

edward (buckner) edit
I've enjoyed reading your edit, and agree with the removal of some of the flags.

I note that Aristotle contradicts himself (do I contradict myself, very well, I contain multitudes) in saying that metaphysics is primary and precedes all other investigation, and then saying that logic precedes all philosophy. Poor Aristotle. So much to write, so little time. He always begins well, and then he keeps breaking off -- like Galois the night before his duel -- saying in effect, no time, no time.

In your references, a publisher and an ISBN would be helpful. You can find them on amazon if you don't have the book handy.

Rick Norwood 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All in good time. edward (buckner) 16:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "concerns itself"
It is a telling failing of this entry that it begins with the line, "Philosophy concerns itself with..." Should the entry not begin by indicating something about what philosophy is before proceeding to the question of what it concerns itself with? I might concern myself with the very same things that philosophy does, but that does not mean I am philosophy. I am I, but what is philosophy? FNMF 15:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is quite correct, and I agree with you.  But that was the version arrived at by consensus.  edward (buckner) 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The opening I argued for was this:


 * (literally 'love of wisdom') is an academic discipline whose subject matter is the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality, whose goal is to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates, and whose method is rational enquiry.

which does say what philosophy is.


 * I like saying what it is and also like the 'academic discipline' part. After that I prefer the ethics/metaphysics etc./logic description, more-or-less as is. I don't think breaking knowledge and reality theory into ever more fine distinctions (as with adding ontology) is useful in the first paragraph. JJL 18:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also support re-inserting the "academic discipline..." bit. (But doubtless that is just an Aristotelian hankering for a genus on my part.)  However, I can see how this might have generated fruitless controversy ("how dare you imply that only professors can be philosophers", etc.). 271828182 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt it was arrived at by consensus, but in that case the consensus was to avoid the question of what philosophy is. Which is why, if it is a failing, it is telling. I don't claim to know what philosophy is, but if those intending to author an entry on philosophy lack confidence about this question, what does it suggest? The difficulty is obviously the disparate nature of what has been called philosophy—can this diversity find unity under a single definition? Thus, for instance, if philosophy is called an academic discipline, is Socrates then a philosopher or not? He had his own disciples, perhaps, and he practiced his own form of discipline, but is it not stretching things to suggest he had (or belonged to) an academy? Which then raises the possibility: could defining philosophy as an academic discipline mean defining what philosophy is but not what philosophy was? Perhaps it can only be defined as something like the name given to a diverse set of writings and teachings concerned with problems such as what is truth, how to live, what exists, how we can know, etc. Such a definition might not add that much in terms of substantive content, but at least it does not obviously evade the encyclopaedic responsibility to define the thing under consideration. Philosophy may be elusive, but it is surely not impossible to find a form of words which give it a general characterisation. FNMF 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Philosophy page, FNMF. You don't know what a bag of worms you are suggesting we reopen. After months -- months! -- of reverts and rereverts of the introduction, we are finally making some progress on the article itself. This is not the time to revisit the introduction. Come back in a year, when the body of the article is in better shape. Rick Norwood 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rick, no doubt you wish to improve the body of the article, but your suggestion that I "come back in a year" seems to be continuing the evasion manifest in the opening line (and it also seems to indicate that your "welcoming" me to the philosophy page is somewhat disingenuous, but that's by the by). However fraught the editing of this entry has been, I don't believe the problem of the opening is unsolvable, and make a suggestion about the way to go in the above. To simply refuse the attempt seems unwise and unnecessary. FNMF 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FNMF, you say "if those intending to author an entry on philosophy lack confidence about this question, what does it suggest". No one here lacks confidence.  Those who have an academic background in philosophy are all very confident about the definition of philosophy.  But there are a number of editors here with little or no academic background, and they are also very confident about the definition.  But unfortunately these two groups do not agree (the non-academics do not like 'academic discipline', e.g.).   So it's not lack of confidence.  On the contrary, there are two sets of opposed and quite entrenched views that we had to accommodate in the opening.  As Rick says, it took months (if not years).  Remember, this is Wiki: every editor has an equal right to edit the article, and to have a view on it.  All views are the same, and academic credentials count for nothing.  So, unless you have a form of words to put forward, I suggest it is left as it is.  edward (buckner) 08:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Edward, I absolutely understand what you are saying, that if anything it is over-confidence combined with under-qualification (not necessarily in a credentialist sense) that causes problems. I don't doubt it for a second. Even so, to have an opening that simply reads "Philosophy concerns itself..." as a default/consensus position is a display of collective lack of confidence, insofar as it is a default position. That said, I note that the opening has been changed, precisely in order to address the problem I pointed out—it now at least attempts to say what philosophy is: an academic discipline. Now that said, I cannot help but notice that my comments have attracted a number of responses, not one of which addresses the substance of my comments. I further point out that I did suggest a form of words, not necessarily a final form, but a form for discussion (see the text in bold above), but that this form of words has not been discussed. Nor has there been any discussion of the remarks I made about whether it is a good idea to define philosophy as an academic discipline (see the above remarks on Socrates). Perhaps my remarks were unworthy of response, but I am not convinced that is the reason they have received none. FNMF 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes I see it has been changed. Well, obviously I agree with the change, but of course that is the equivalent of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated or whatever, setting off a huge edit war of immense proportions, the lights of Europe going off one by one &c.  Let's see what happens.  edward (buckner) 11:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Syllogism: Philosophy is an academic discipline. Socrates was not an academic. Therefore Socrates was not a philosopher. Are we happy with this? FNMF 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Invalid. You have mixed tenses.  If Socrate IS not a philosopher, or if philosophy WAS an academic discipline (at the same time Socrates WAS a philosopher) then it is of course valid.  edward (buckner) 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am unsure of your point here. Are you conceding that philosophy is an academic discipline but that philosophy used to be something other than an academic discipline? That seems to be what you are saying. If so, then to begin an entry on philosophy with the words "Philosophy is an academic discipline..." seems to be very partial at best, ignoring what philosophy was. This, of course, was my point: what does the word philosophy mean such that it can cover both what you are saying philosophy is and what philosophy was, if these two are different? How is it possible to be happy with an opening definition that appears to exclude Socrates from being a philosopher? The point here seems fairly basic, and I am truly surprised that none of these points has been addressed. On top of which, I note that the entry is back to beginning with: "Philosophy concerns itself with..." This is clearly inadequate, for the reasons I indicated in the above comments, and I reiterate the form of words I proposed for discussion: Philosophy is the name given to a diverse set of writings and teachings concerned with problems such as... FNMF 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the point was simply that the syllogism was invalid. But of course I concede that philosophy was not always an academic discipline, though it was always, I think, a discipline.  Can I be happy that it means something different now that it used to a long time ago?  (And I mean a long time ago – Plato and Aristotle made it into an academic discipline, and nearly all philosophers after that worked within some sort of academic framework.  Notable exceptions were Hume and Spinoza of course, but because they weren't academics for most of their lives does not mean they were not pursuing an academic discipline).  Yes.  It's the discipline that is academic, not the people who employ it.  I don't like 'Philosophy is the name given to a diverse set of writings and teachings ...'  because philosophy is not just a set of writings and teachings.  It's a technique that must be learned, a method.  It is not a set of claims or propositions (as 'teachings' suggests).  It is not just 'writings', though it has that meaning.  In short, the opening does not exclude Socrates being a philosopher (or Hume or anyone else who practised outside an academy).  And the alternative suggestion is not accurate, indeed is misleading.  edward (buckner) 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well for the record I think you are wrong to speak as though the fact that Socrates lived "a long time ago" made a difference to the question of defining philosophy. And I think your argument defending "academic" is in general tortured. Academic means an academy. Other examples could be cited. Nietzsche, for instance, for whom becoming a philosopher meant withdrawing from the academy (and who, by the way, is utterly neglected in the entry, as are others, despite his and their importance). Nor do I agree that the word "teachings" suggests "a set of claims" rather than a technique or a method: techniques are taught. Nor did my proposal state that philosophy was "just writings." But for all that, beginning with "Philosophy is a discipline that..." is at least acceptable. I do think you are overly concerned with "saving" the technical or methodical aspect of the definition from the threats of wishy-washy "diversity," and that this tends to diminish another important aspect, which is this: philosophy may be a technique, yet it is not one technique, but rather a constantly transforming technique, even the technique of transforming technique. But that is a question not worth getting into here. Your newest version is certainly an improvement, and should be preserved in favour of the alternatives. FNMF 18:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it might be obliquely helpful to see how equivalent Wiki articles begin. Physics, biology, botany are defined along the lines of:
 * "is the science of"
 * "is the study of"
 * "is the scientific study of"
 * Psychology and sociology are both:
 * "the academic and applied discipline of"
 * Theology, startlingly, is:
 * "reasoned discourse about".
 * We should be able to do better than just "Philosophy is the discipline...", I agree. But it can't be defined as "academic", "academic and applied" is not quite right.  I also don't like the "body of teachings and writings" - as I've said before, it needs to be distinguished in some way from literature, poetry, yoga, Zen, etc.  As a purely strategic matter, I'd prefer to keep working on the body of the article.  It's nothing to do with confidence: any one of us can go and find a serviceable version of a definition  without much trouble.  It's just a recognition that achieving consensus on any one substantive definition has in the past proved impossible. KD Tries Again 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)KD


 * Surely it's academic. Somewhere an unemployed person is trying to create nuclear fusion in his bathtub, but that doesn't change what physics is. Although phil. can be applied (e.g., bioethics), it's a study conducted in an academic manner even if it is being done by a non-academic. JJL 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. 'Academic' strictly means an institution, but has a wider sense that implies scholarly standards.  Indeed 'scholar' and 'scholarly' use to have that exact meaning before the rise of the modern universities: careful research, citation, a certain dry style, general care and attention.  One can be academic or scholarly without working from within an institution.  The contrast that needs to be drawn here is between philosophy as it is popularly conceived ("my philosophy of life ...") and the sort of philosophy that is taught and studied in institutions, but was once carried on outside them (Hume, Nietszche &c).  edward (buckner) 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In relation to the above two remarks: (1) philosophy and physics are very different, and to treat them as analogous is false (an "unemployed person" is certainly potentially capable of doing philosophy—Socrates for example); (2) the word "academic" and the word "scholarly" do not mean quite the same thing, and if by academic one means scholarly then why not just define it as a scholarly discipline?; (3) just as "academic" implies an academy, "scholarly" implies a school (in some sense at least); (4) it is a fudge to say "is taught and studied in institutions, but was once carried on outside them"—clearly the institutional aspect is not essential to the definition in that case; (5) it is fine to want to indicate a contrast in order to preserve what you understand "real" philosophy to be, but one must not do that in a way that then excludes "real" philosophy from the definition. I note again that there has not even been one attempt to address this question, which I raised via the example of Socrates. Not only did Socrates not have an academy, nor a school, nor an institution, but philosophy was defined (for him as for other Greek philosophers) by opposition to the Sophists, who precisely did have schools, academies, and institutions. The objection was to the instrumentalisation of the use of wisdom, logos, etc, the rigidification of content and the fact that a comfortable living was being made from their positions (and thus this is a "philosophical" critique potentially applicable to today's academic philosophers). However much one might wish to protect the definition of philosophy from contamination by pseudo-philosophy, the fact is one must have a definition open enough to be capable of application to all "real" philosophers: to Socrates, Anaximander, Augustine, Nietzsche, Cioran, Quine, Heidegger and Deleuze, because whichever of these one personally feels may or may not be a philosopher, an encyclopaedia is not the place to exclude any of these from the definition. The wish to protect today's academic philosophers from this contamination is obscuring sight of what direction the opening must go in, if it is to be generally legitimate. (6) More generally: academic, scholarly, discipline, technique—each of these words is different. They should not be conflated, and if one or other of them is thought to be pertinent to the opening line, it needs to be justifed. I think some of these words are relevant, but saying that philosophy is a matter of technique, or a discipline, is not the same thing as saying it is academic, nor that it is scholarly. (7) Re scholarly, for instance: I do not know whether Nietzsche's style can be described as dry, nor did he feel compelled to cite his sources. No doubt he had discipline, no doubt he had a kind of technique, but most of his writing could hardly be called "academic" in style or content, nor even "scholarly," at least according to the criteria suggested above. Yet it would obviously be wrong to deny him the status of philosopher.FNMF 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Historical section
This needs work, obviously. That includes work on the sub-articles, of course. I have done Medieval philosophy. I'm also happy to take on Ancient Philosophy (and tidying up the pre-socratics article). That leaves early modern philosophy, and whatever comes after.

Does anyone have expertise in Early Modern?

On what comes after, there are two 'odd ones' in the 'ism' section, namely Phenomenology, and the Analytic tradition. I suggest these really belong in the historical section on twentieth century and contemporary philosophy. Any thoughts? edward (buckner) 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kant & Idealism
I've just noticed the question about whether Kant should be in the section on Idealism, given he didn't believe in the opening sentence of the section. Is there any way of rewording the sentence so it would include Kant? Presumably if there is subjective I., transcendental I, absolute I., there must be something they have in common? edward (buckner) 11:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it some more, as I raised it. For me, German idealism starts after Kant, when Fichte and Schelling get rid of the noumenal.KD Tries Again 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)KD