Talk:Philosophy/Archive 22

Recent Intro. Changes
There's some stuff I like in it, but the first sentence is overly wordy ("broad" and "overarching" for example). Overall I don't feel it's a net improvement. The new last sentence of the first para. captures a useful idea, though. JJL 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. Here is the diff, by User:Alfakim.  I don't like it for the reasons you mention, so have reverted.  Which was the sentence you liked?  edward (buckner) 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I see it. But that thought is already there in the next section. "... there have been different, equally acceptable divisions at different times, and the divisions are often relative to the philosophical concerns of a particular period. " So no point repeating it. We're trying to cut down things here. edward (buckner) 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it said more-to-the-point that it wasn't merely the divisions that had changed but the actual focus (foci, I suppose) of the subject. That's an idea that's been batted around here and I thought it was well said in this change. The idea is elsewhere in the aricle but was succintly stated there. The rest I wasn't so fond of. Alfakim, this isn't meant as discouragement. There's been a lot of work on that intro. recently so please don't be surprised if people have strong feelings about it! JJL 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was planning to make some other changes but had to leave. I think I was going for a clearer definition of what exactly the word philosophy really refers to - if it was too wordy, I can change the style. But I think the content addition was worth it. -- Alfakim -- talk  15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrasing of the current intro has always given me indigestion. In particular, ethics is about the right way to live - not the best way. Is this any better?


 * "Philosophy is the discipline which studies questions about the right way to live (ethics), the sorts of things which ultimately exist and their essential nature (metaphysics), how we can know things (epistemology), and the correct principles of reasoning (logic)."KD Tries Again 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)KD

Why dont you start out by saying that Philosophy a disciplin about the study about ideas? Then you can subdivide ideas into as many categories as you want. But one of the first of the categories should should be the idea of self conciousness/social conciousness which rules our behavioral patterns. Then when you come to the category of Natural Philosophy being ideas about real physical entities I could contribute to that. WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current repeated what... phrasing but can live with this. I suppose 'right' is more correct but don't have strong feelings about it. Is that which a that? I do prefer the discipline over a discipline. I'd be happy to see 'academic' back in there. JJL 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do not want to see a lot of time spent on the introduction, after the last year of edit wars, I do agree that ethics is about the "best" way to live, not the "right" way to live. I would favor that one word change, if there is no objection. Rick Norwood 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when has philosophy ever been concerned with just 4 little groupings? That makes absolutely no sense. Philosophy is rational thinking and addressing fundamental questions that should arise from experience or curiosity.

Babylonian philosophy - Eastern or Western?
I've just created a section on Babylonian philosophy. Since it is arguably the origin of both Eastern and Western philosophy, which section should it go under? I've placed it under Eastern philosophy for the mean time, but now I'm thinking of moving it to Western philosophy. Jagged 85 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the strong interaction of the Mediterranean peoples, I would put Babylonian philosophy (and Persian philosophy generally) under Western philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the contribution, although I must admit I am struggling to understand it. As far as I know, Keynes' so-called "ordinary logic" is just everyday, human thinking, which is reasonable but which lacks the rigor of formal logic.  Is this really a concept which helps us understand, of all things, the "axiomatic" logic of the Babylonians?  It honestly doesn't help me.  I'm also unfamiliar with this "nonergodic" term, and the Wikipedia article to which it links will be quite impenetrable, certainly to anyone looking for an introduction to Philosophy.


 * Searching for help, I did find this discussionon the web: "Paul Davidson has criticized Babylonian thought as supporting an "anything goes" approach to Post Keynesian economics. This note explains Babylonian thought, not as the dual of classical logic but as another form of logic that is rigorous in light of the nonergodic nature of social systems, and the uncertainty this entails. It is argued that Babylonian thought is one way of understanding Keynes's "ordinary logic," while Davidson's use of the term "axiomatic" appears problematic. But the ergodic axiom is so compatible with the open-systems ontology on which Babylonian thought is based that there is, in fact, scope for broad agreement."  I am concerned that the brief entry on Babylonian philosophy might just represent a fairly obscure line of academic debate.


 * In any case, I am betting only an expert will understand it. Any chance of clarifying? KD

Clearly I misunderstood -- I thought by Babylonian philosophy you meant the philosophy of ancient Babylon as expressed, for example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Evidently it has a modern meaning I have not encountered before. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to see a reversion to a simpler statement about Babylonian philosophy. From further investigation, it seems that the Sheila Dow work relating Keynesian logic to Babylonian axiomatics is a specific theory in economics, rather than philosophy (it also seems to have been inserted in, and then removed from, a number of Wiki articles).  I have no idea if it deserves to be on Wiki, but surely not in the general philosophy article.KD  —Preceding comment was added at 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section about Babylonian 'philosophy'. It is poorly referenced, and the subject matter bears little resemblance to 'philosophy'. Sad to see our friend Ludvikus was blocked again. edward (buckner) 15:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That may very well be your opinion, but the Babylonian section already has a reliable source from a peer-reviewed journal. Jagged 85 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What People are Interested in Philosophy.
Our integrated class is doing a study on what type of people are interested in certain subjects. Where are all these people coming from that are on here researching philosophy.

Is it the great philosophers that strike your fancy. Or is it the fact that people like philosophizing themselves.

I could start philosophizing on what kind of people i think enjoy philosophy but... right now thats not the point.

What is so appealing about philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgeous dorkfly (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to be unwelcoming, but it's against Wiki [policy] to chat about a subject on an article's talk pages.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)KD

Podcast Links
Have you thought about linking in External Links to www.philosophybites.com? There are already 30 interviews with contemporary philosophers on a very wide range of topics including the question of what philosophy is. Oxvox1 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The thoughts a society thinks has profound repercussions on what it does.
I removed the sentence "The thoughts a society thinks has profound repercussions on what it does." because it is a bad sentence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.109.47 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About existencialism
I really wouldn want to mess up the page...by editing this myself...but Kierkegaard actually uses the word existencialism...to be precise...he invented it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.201.132 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Kierkegaard uses the adjective "existential", but I don't believe he calls himself an existentialist or talks about existentialism. I think the point the article tries to make is that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche didn't - couldn't - view their philosophy as being "existentialist".  They were retrospectively dragooned into the movement.  If you have a citation for K. using "existentialism (-ist)", please let us know.  In that case, I'd be in favor of a change.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)KD

Existentialism Section Restored
An attempt was recently made to revise the section, resulting in some lost references, typographical errors,the introduction of unsupported argumentative material (e.g. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were "appropriated as predecessors" by later existentialists), and some simple misunderstandings ("nausea" did not refer to the novel by Sartre). I have reverted and then cleaned up anything else as best I could.

Since this has been a relatively stable section, I think editors would hope to see some discussion here before unilateral changes are made.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)KD


 * I also just noticed the Phenomenology section being introduced by a false statement about the mind shaping the natural world. That has probably been there for months.  I revised it to something more accurate.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)KD

Phílos or philein?
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that philosophia comes from philein (to love) rather than philos (lover). ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Philosophy ) Anyone with any Greek know which one's right? JASpencer (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd think we'd have that right, at least, wouldn't you? Well, I disagree with the suggestion that philein is involved here.  Most sources say philos (eg Britannica ), and you are citing a Wiki article on a 1913 encyclopaedia - which is risky.  However, the article currently renders philos as "lover" or "friend", and I think it's just "love": philosophia, love of wisdom (Latin, by the way, not Greek).  I think the article should be changed accordingly. KD Tries Again

It's interesting that you think that, KD. However, no respectable source will agree with you. Using accentless transliterations for convenience: the infinitive of the verb is philein ("to love"); the first person indicative of the verb is philo ("I love"); the abstract noun is philia ("love"); and the agent noun is philos ("friend, lover"); this last can also be an adjective, meaning "loving". I don't know why you think otherwise, but you do and you are wrong. In some obscure archaic forms, or some other dialects than Attic, things just might be different. But so what if they were? This is all standard Greek. See this excerpt, from [| Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon]:

I. pass., beloved, dear, Il.1.20, etc.; paide philô 7.279; freq. c. dat., dear to one, mala hoi ph. êen 1.381; ph. athanatoisi theoisi 20.347, etc.: voc., phile kasignête (at the beginning of the line) 4.155, 5.359; with neut. nouns, phile teknon Od.2.363, 3.184, etc.; but philon tekos Il.3.162; also philos for phile (Att., acc. to A.D.Synt.213.28), philos ô Menelae Il.4.189, cf. 9.601, 21.106, al., Pi.N.3.76, A.Pr.545 (lyr.), E.Supp.277 (lyr.), Ar.Nu.1168(lyr.): gen. added to the voc., phil' andrôn Theoc. 15.74, 24.40; ô phila gunaikôn E.Alc.460 (lyr.): as Subst.: a. philos, ho, friend, kouridios philos, i.e. husband, Od.15.22; philoi friends, kith and kin, nosphiphilôn Il.14.256; têlephilôn Od.2.333, cf.6.287; ph. megistos my greatest friend, S.Aj.1331; philoi hoi engutatô, hoi engista, Lys. 1.41 codd., Plb.9.24.2; after Hom. freq. with a gen., ho Dios philos A.Pr.306; tous emautou ph., tous toutôn ph., Aeschin.1.47; ph. emos S.Ph.421; tôn emen ph. ib.509; tous spheterous ph. X.HG4.8.25: prov., estin ho ph. allos autos a friend is another self, Arist.EN1166a31; koina ta tôn ph. Pl.Phdr.279c, cf. Arist.EN1159b31; outheis ph. hôi polloi ph. Id.EE1245b20; also of friends or allies, opp. polemioi, X.HG 6.5.48; ph. kai summachos D.9.12, etc.; of a lover, X.Mem.3.11.4 (in bad sense, Lac.2.13); phile my friend, as a form of courteous address, Ev.Luc.14.10, etc.; in relation to things, hoi mousikês ph. E.Fr.580.3; alêtheias Pl.R.487a; tôn eidôn Id.Sph.248a; Chious ph. poiêsai Lys. 14.36, etc.; poieisthai Luc.Pisc.38; ktasthai Isoc.2.27, cf. Th.2.40; philous tithentes tous ge polemiôtatous E.Hec.848; philôi chrêsthai tini Antipho 5.63; hêmas echein philous And.1.40; for Hdt.3.49, v. philios.

To see how this works in compounds, consider another word from the same source:

"phi^losophoklês, ho, a lover of Sophocles, Phld.Acad.Ind.p.55 M., D.L.4.20."

And last, the Greek word for philosopher, from the same source:

phi^losophos, ho, lover of wisdom; Pythagoras called himself philosophos, not sophos, Cic Tusc.5.3.9, D.L.Prooem.12; ton ph. sophias phêsomen epithumêtên einai pasês Pl.R.475b, cf. Isoc.15.271; ho hôs alêthôs ph. Pl.Phd.64e sq.; ph. phusei, tên phusin, Id.R.376c; ph. têi psuchêi, opp. philoponos tôi sômati, Isoc.1.40: used of all men of education and learning, joined with philomathês and philologos, Pl.R.376c, 582e; opp. sophistês, X.Cyn.13.6,9; later, academician, of the members of the Museum at Alexandria, OGI712 (ii A. D.), etc. 2. philosopher, i. e. one who speculates on truth and reality, hoi alêthinoi ph., defined as hoi tês alêtheias philotheamones, Pl.R.475e; ho philosophos, of Aristotle, Plu.2.115b; ho skênikos ph., of Euripides, Ath.13.561a; as the butt of Com., Philem.71.1, Bato 5.11, Anaxipp.4, Phoenicid.4.16. II. as Adj., loving knowledge, philosophic, andres Heraclit.35; anêr Pl.Phd. 64d; to ph. genos Id.R.501e; ph. phusis ib.494a; psuchê ib.486b; dianoia ib.527b; peithô Phld.Rh.1.269 S.; sunesis ib.p.211S. (Comp.); hoi philosophôtatoi Pl.R.498a, cf. IG5(1).598 (Sparta). [...]

And then the later, derivative word philosophia itself is simply the condition of, or the art of, the philosophos. It is the lover of wisdom's love of wisdom.

I have amended the etymology accordingly, and removed the "fact" tag. The meaning is so well known that it would simply clutter things to provide a further citation. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is right, in a way. It just provides what it takes to be a more fundamental form: the infinitive of the verb. Britannica is also right, in its way. But it doesn't break the word down into its two parts, as we do. That's all!

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 10:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming the appearance of heavy sarcasm in the above was unintentional, I'd mildly point out that Britannica, a reasonably respectable source, says: "from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”".  That's all I said.  And as far as I can tell, you yourself think that philosophia, the art of the philosophos, is the "love of wisdom":  "It is the lover of wisdom's love of wisdom.  So stripping away all the etymology, I don't find your point very clear.  Do you really think "philosophia" (not "philosophos") means lover/friend of wisdom?KD Tries Again (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)KD


 * The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (MacMillan) translates "philosophia" as "love of wisdom" (vol. 5/6 page 216). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "philosophy {Gk. filosofia [philosophia]} Literally, love of wisdom.Philosophical Dictionary Every source I find, including the Webster citation given in the article, renders "phlosophia" as "love of" wisdom or knowledge, not "lover/friend of".  The current revision to the article is at best misleading.  I would rather not revert it without discussion.  Am I misunderstanding something here?  Are there any sources which give "lover/friend" for "philo-" in this context?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Absent any response to the above, I've now conformed the sentence to what the citation (3) actually says, and removed a citation to Runes which had no relevance.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)KD
 * O, sorry for being absent from the discussion. Busy elsewhere.
 * KD, Let me just point out that what I changed was your edit which made this the text:
 * "...a compound of φίλος (phílos: love) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom)."
 * No one disputes that φιλοσοφία is well rendered as "love of wisdom". But I had to correct you about φίλος: by itself it does not mean "love", but "lover, or friend". Hence my edit:
 * "...a compound of φίλος (phílos: lover, or friend) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom)."
 * Because people have been uncertain about such details for some time here, I gave some authority for this, above. The article currently has this instead, anyway, thanks to you:
 * "The word is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning love of wisdom or knowledge."
 * That may be the best, since the matter of componding is complex beyond the discussion we have had about it. At least now if editors want to analyse the word into its components they can refer to the source I cite above, from Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: the standard reference on these matters. I supplied this in the first instance because you wrote above, concerning φίλος, "I think it's just 'love'." Wrong: but no problem now!
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 21:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that seems to fix it.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Philosophy is dead?
Just a quick one here and I don't want to edit this myself (I don't want to mess up the page) but maybe a section could be put in about the "Philosophy is dead?" argument. You only need to type it in Google to find a lot of information.

I don't know it might be worth mentioning? Lachy123 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) fdd


 * Why not dumb down some other article?

Nietzsche and Perspectivism
"Nietzsche proposed perspectivism, which is the view that truth depends on individual perspectives."

A perspective, for Nietzsche, is not necessarily the perspective of an individual. It may be the perspective of a state, a culture, a class, or even the forced transcendental perspective of a species. Although perspectivism may now be taken to refer to a crass individualist relativism, Nietzsche's original doctrine had to do with the impersonal forces responsible for the shaping and selection of beliefs, even the belief that a self, ego, or subject, exists.

""Everything is subjective," you say; but this is already an interpretation. The 'subject' is not something given, it is something fabricated; added and projected behind what there is. - Is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even this is invention, hypothesis."

– Friedrich Nietzsche; trans. mine, The Will to Power, (1883-1888)

So, I'm going to change that line, if that's all right with everyone.

Apophrenetic (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you, but the more fundamental problem is the slow shift of that section in the direction of incoherence. I don't believe there is any need to mention Nietzsche's perspectivism at all in this context; all that matters is what makes Nietzsche a precursor of the existentialists, and I don't believe it's his perspectivism.  I have reintroduced some clearer language (I think) from an older version.  It does still need an introductory sentence and a brief and relevant comment about Nietzsche - I will try to come up with something shortly.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Guys what has happened here
The definition of philosophy section, over which there was much blood spilt early last year, has gone. Looks like there was a revert war and something got lost. It looks ridiculous now. As I am not technically supposed to be editing here (I am permanently blocked now) can you please put any discussion on my talk page, thanks. Edward.

Copy edit
Would anyone mind if I attempted a copy edit or is this a controversial page? I've found things like "The thoughts a society thinks has profound repercussions on what it does," which is perhaps not the best advertisement for the rigors of a philosophical training. :) Dreamberry (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that this page needs major re-working, but as you suspect there are those who are attached to certain -isms who will be critical. The opening paragraph reflects a long series of compromises but much of the rest is in desperate need of editing. JJL (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That very sentence could usefully be deleted. JJL is right, of course, although any reasonable person could only be grateful for some copy editing, as long as it really is just copy editing.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)KD

Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg
Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can a new definition of Pure Logic be added here ?

 * Pure Logic defined by my person, is initially all the fields of rational/irrational thought analysis, and all the fields, and scopes known/unknown of logic/illogic, defined yet or not ! I do not have enough money as yet to publish these new writtings. Aiming to unite Science and Logic, without overpassing the Philosophy of Science, or philsophy in Science. (24.86.57.172 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)) (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC))


 * All the best with the project, but Wiki rules strictly prohibit insertion of material which can't be supported by citation of already published sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

Religion vs. Philosophy
Religion: Pre-structured system of beliefs to abide by. Philosophy: Finding the answers to loopholes in one's beliefs.

(?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.161.57 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion vs. Philosophy
I think its important to make a good distinction between the two.

Religion: Pre-structured system of beliefs to abide by. Philosophy: Finding the answers to loopholes in one's beliefs.

(?)

i know, sometimes, here and there i get confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.161.57 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Religion be Identified by Philosophy?
Should religion be identified by philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.28.239 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No Religion should be discouraged by Philosophy, in its idle moments, and by other available means, but thats just my view, and a value judgment.  Why did you ask, and what has it to do with this article? --Philogo 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Socrates and Plato discussed theological cosmology; they even said to honour divinity.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Structuralism and Poststructuralism
I was surprised these disciplines were not mentioned, since they have so largely shaped late 20th century philosophy, so I added a section on them. --Le vin blanc (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to dampen enthusiasm, I am concerned about some of the statements made in this section. It's worth looking at the Wikipedia main articles to which it's linked.  Structuralism didn't begin with Saussure; I am not sure Saussure's project is correctly described here; the notion of language speaking man strikes me as Heideggerian; I don't think structuralists believed themselves to be analysing systems from an "external" standpoint - rather the opposite; and it's a mistake to give the impression that the post-structuralists are a homogenous group serving as a vehicle for Derrida's views.  The idea that meaning is perpetually deferred is specific to Derrida - you won't find it in Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze, et al.  Furthermore, by no means all post-structuralists began as structuralists.  I know this is all negative - I wonder if the editor responsible would care to think about some of these points and take a look at those other articles?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * You are right in saying it isn't Saussure who says language speaks man. The decentering of man was an interpretation of the implications of Saussurean structuralism. You are also right in saying only Derrida (and Barthes) believes in the deferment of meaning. I did make the groups look a bit too homogeneous too, but the reason was that I was worried that if I went into structuralism and poststructuralism in any detail, it would take up too much space. Furthermore, my main concern was with merely making a holding section for them, in the hope someone with more knowledge would fill it in. Anyone reading this article would think structuralism and poststructuralism never existed, when they in fact had a large influence on 20th century though. --Le vin blanc (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the Early Modern Philosophy section
I don't want to change it right away because its backed up by a reference but in the early modern philosophy section that it is "generally considered to end with Kant's systematic attempt to reconcile Berkeley and Hume". He was actually reconciling some elements of Liebniz's rationalist philosophy (as systematised and propounded by Christian Wolff) with elements of Hume's empiricist philosophy. I will change it unless someone tells me I'm wrong and put in a reference to Scruton's 'Kant: A Very Short Introduction' unless someone tells me not to! DannyHuttonFerris (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not backed up at all. The sentence was altered by an anonymous user (who is most likely an know-nothing nuisance, Lucaas)  to include the business about "Berkeley and Hume".  I have restored the earlier version.  Good catch. 271828182 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas
Any objections to removing the thomas aquinas quote which seems kind of random and out of place?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. –Pomte 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Roman Philosophy
I think this " Plato's writings are often considered basic texts in philosophy as they defined the fundamental issues of philosophy for future generations. These issues and others were taken up by Aristotle, who studied at Plato's school, the Academy, and who often disagreed with what Plato had written." Should be reworded as I don't necessarily agree that they defined the fundamental issues in philosophy and there is much critique of these works. I think this section makes them sound too pristine.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand the text here it expresses the common view of most philosophical studies, that Plato defined the fundamental ideas, and that subsequent philosophers may disagree with Plato, but cannot ignore Plato. In other words, Plato chose the subject matter, but was not necessarily right.  In fact, in my opinion, Plato was almost always wrong, but he still laid out the rules of the game. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think by "defined the fundamental issues of philosophy for future generations" and the "basic texts" thing make it sound as if his works are widely accepted whereas in truth, I think, most philosophers disagree with most of what Plato had to say. Not sure he defined all the fundamental ideas either, maybe some.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

could this be useful?
hello guys, i know these pages are full of material but if you believe this could be useful and adapt please add :)

http://maps.google.it/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=it&msa=0&msid=107892646478667659520.0004445545f2b2cffb9ed&t=h&z=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.114.34.24 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it's better to put the link under 'external links' please do... I am not familiar with wikipedia conventions... for suggestions please write here or as a map comment. dario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.121.199.1 (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Word Usage
Here is the first sentence from the Philosophy page:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1][2] The word is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning love of wisdom.[3]

Yipes! "...what counts as genuine knowledge"? We can do much better than that, can't we? The whole *page* needs a revision of grammar, syntax and terminology. I've rewritten some sentences that pertain to the definition of philosophy, but I'm swamped and tired. What we need is a group of folks that are good editors of prose to overhaul it completely. I think the nature of the topic allows for a more robust usage of vocabulary i.e., we don't need to dumb down the phraseology. Is anyone feeling frisky? Supertheman ( talk  ) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, 'genuine knowledge' is a correct way for philosophers to speak about epistemology. Does anyone here even have a B.A. in philosophy? --Jbadge24 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell quote
The quote under Branches of Philosophy states:

"'The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.'"

While I (mostly) agree with this rather acute witticism by Russell, do we really need a blanket dismissal of philosophy as confusing claptrap on the main page of philosophy? Seems like something that would find a better home on Russell's page or some subpage delineating the debates that rage within the discipline. I've spent a good deal of my life trying to convince teachers and administrators of public schools the need for a high school philosophy course, it would be nice if instead we found quotes (even droll ones) that elucidate the need and benefits of philosophy instead of deriding said. Thoughts? Supertheman ( talk  ) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think our ability to laugh at ourselves is an asset, not a liability. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... did you miss the part where I said: "...it would be nice if instead we found quotes (even droll ones)"? Laughing is great, a complete dismissal of philosophy as incoherent garbage that confuses things, ah... that's another (IMO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Supertheman .  It IS funny, but its just a joke.  Its position on the 'front page' implies it is to be taken seriously. Let del or move it to Bertie's page. --Philogo 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Philosophy
The definition of epistemology was far too obtuse. It is far more than simply the "nature of knowledge", it is the study of the nature of knowledge and its origin, its methodology and the limits thereof. Also, logic is concerned with the *correct* principles of reasoning, not simply the principles. I think we need to be careful that the definition of philosophy isn't so truncated as to be basically worthless. The fact that it is about philosophy behooves us to provide the finest definition possible. Supertheman ( talk  ) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, Plato was not a philosopher.
This is a battle that I have fought too often to care to fight it again. I only point out that if, by definition, philosophy is rational, then philosophy cannot consider the question of whether or not rational methods are best in philosophy, any more than you can consider, within trigonometry, whether or not triangles are the best subject for study.

In The Republic, Plato argues against the use of the rational method in philosophy. In Book VII, for example, we find the assertion that knowledge comes not from logic but from the soul: "Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being..." and later this dismissal of mere "cleverness", "Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of the clever rogue..."

So, as long as we agree that Plato was not a philosopher, I suppose the current definition in this article can stand. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the said paragraph and while I would argue for coherence if not rationality it needs to be changed. Why don't you suggest something here.  --Snowded (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several users who believe strongly that the use of logic and reason should be part of the definition of philosophy, rather than a subject discussed within philosophy. I spent countless hours a couple of years ago working with these people for a compromise acceptable to both, and we reached an agreement in which both points of view were put forth in the article. All of that time and effort was wasted because this article changes so rapidly, and because people who would not dream of editing, say, the article on physics, have no hesitation editing this article. I decided that there are battles I want to fight and battles I want to walk away from. To keep this article reasonably good is a full time job -- and I already have three other full time jobs which I actually get paid to do. So, I visit this article from time to time, but trust others to keep it in line on a daily basis. I hope, Snowded, you will be one, and I will not return in 2009 to ask, "Where are the Snowdeds of yesteryear." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK will gird up my loins and attempt an edit in a week or so when I have time. Just finished an exhausting set of battles on the Wales and British Island pages so need to recharge.  --Snowded (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I agree with all Rick's negative points, but not his positive assertions about Plato, who believed, of course, that we could recover what we already (somehow) knew through the rational method of dialectic. Rick's is an extraordinarily selective reading, which overlooks the small matter of Socrates' method.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * One doesn't have to agree with him over Plato to agree that the phrase is a bit restricitive.  I was thinking of making some changes using "coherence" rather than rationality?--Snowded (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

KD Tries Again is right, I've only read about half of Plato (and only about half of Aristotle, but I'm still reading both). It seems to me that Plato's early dialogs are an absolute delight, but that as he got older he fell into the trap that many highly educated people fall into, of thinking he was always right. In fact, he was wrong about a lot of things, and his idea that we attain right ideas by a kind of remembering or by inspiration from some godlike genius (which you don't find in the early dialogs) was one of his bad ideas.

But Snowded is right about the big point, which is that if all philosophy uses logic, this rules out, by definition, all other methods. I love logic myself, but I would like to see logic win the battle on other grounds (pragmatic grounds, it may be) rather than be declared the winner before the fight even begins. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By the dog. An encyclopedia article is not the place for Rick's reflections.  Can we get some sourced claims?  271828182 (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Philosophy
Picking up from the above thread I have attempted to take some of the old material, respect Newbyguesses legitimate reduction is size and use sources and cross references to create something which is hopefully non-controversial. --Snowded (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This page seems doomed to repeat the past (see lengthy discussions of "rationality" from 2007). The way to stem this sterile semantic debate is to apply the policies on OR, NPOV, and V.  For one possible route (as well as a clear demonstration of the POV nature of Rick's suggestions), see this data. 271828182 (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems unduly pessimistic. Firstly one doesn't have to accept Rick's position to argue that the previous definition represented an alternative POV.  My feeling in making the recent amendment was (in the spirit of WIkipedia) to go back to referenced material, in this case the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.  Although I would not support much of Blackburn's position in his papers/books I think he does a good job in the Dictionary of being neutral.  So I don't think the current version is POV, nor does it support Rick's position, but it does deal with his objection.  --Snowded (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 271828182. Is that you, Dbuckner? Welcome back! Rick Norwood (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do to see the point of understand the subject of the paragraph entitled Definition of Philosophy in principal nor see what is acheived by the content as it stands. Is the word philosophy in Definition of Philosophy being used or mentioned?--Philogo 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the sentence beginning with the words "In addition to being a subject in its own right it can also mean...". What does it refer to, philosophy or philosophy?  The sentence is clearing doing the splits! It is hardly an example of the precise and careful use of language.

Proposal to delete paragraph Definition of Philosophy

 * I propose we delete this whole paragraph, as misconceived both in intent and content. Any objections? --Philogo 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The intent is right; work from sources. The content though, at least the bits that just repeat 'philosophy is hard to define' in different words is not very inspiring. Start again, and something better can replace that. --NewbyG (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which do you support:

--Philogo 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the content (and start again) OR
 * Delete the paragraph including title and start again OR
 * Delete the paragraph including title  and do not start again


 * Whatever works. Delete it, and salvage what is worthwhile. Or leave it, for the interim. There may be further comments or editing which may shed some more light on the prospects here. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Things have moved on. The para was renamed and duplicate or irrelevant content removed.  I note there is a whole article called "definition of philosophy"; enough is enough and too much already is too much.  I have never understood the alure of this so called topic, which seems really a dumbing-down topic like the perennial "Is X dead" question, where X is history, god, logic etc.  Do people write articles on the definition of physics/physics or music/music etc.  Is it perhaps really a secret desire to give a stipulative definition?  Or is the topic really "what makes a problem a philosophical problem": that would be slightly more interesting, but nobody would take he slightest bit of notice of it.  --Philogo 03:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition of music is a contested evaluation of what constitutes music and varies through history, geography, and within societies! -- Not very informative, really. There are many articles that needs improvement, under the Philosophy banner. The problem is, some stuff is wrong, other stuff is missing, and editors with real expertise are few and far between. That being said, any editors who can contribute ideas in a civil and consensus-respecting manner, and look for reliable sources is going to do work which will be appreciated. --NewbyG (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I make the general point that two editors working overnight (from a British point of view on time zones) does not a consensus make for major changes. That said I can agree that there was a lot of duplication.  So aside from some formatting changes I have changed the first paragraph from an unsupported statement to one which is cited.  I also think the branches of Philosophy needs some radical editing.  Each of the fields needs one/two sentence descriptions (or possibly none) while Metaphysics and Epistemology are overstated. --Snowded (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I decided to be bold and get rid of the section on branches, putting the couple of missing references into the first paragraph. That way we don't have the overstatement and the relevant article pages can handle the detail.    Oh an having read Definition of philosophy I really think it should be deleted, it adds nothing overall.  --Snowded (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I compiled Definition of philosophy, not as an article, but as a reference source, during the 'troubled' period of this article. People were saying that philosophy was mysticism, Zen buddhism, astrology and what have you.  It was helpful to have a list of what authoritative sources actually say about their own subject.  I strongly favour returning to a previous version and taking it from there - that method worked reasonably well in the past.  Peter Damian (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see this old dispute has blown up again. Can I refer you all to Definition of philosophy which is not really an article, but a list of citations about the definition of philosophy.

1. Most sources agree that philosophy is difficult to define. So why shouldn't that stay?

2. The current introduction (by Snowded - welcome Snowded) is not bad, but reflects a modern, psychologistic view of philosophy, one which I tend to agree with, but which does not reflect the historical view philosophy over its whole 3 millenium history.

3. That the method of philosophy is rational enquiry (as opposed to revelation, guesswork, empirical investigation &c) is generally agreed (except here, I'm afraid, I speak as a veteran of the 'troubles'). Peter Damian (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome. I would have no objection to adding "difficult to define" and it is almost impossible to be neutral in any statement.  That said there is much baggage with the word rational, I don't think you can exclude empirical investigation etc. etc.   The norm in Wikipedia would be to use a citable source rather than opinion of editors per se which I why I went to Blackburn. Improving the definitions article would overcome historical changes.  Mind you I think that could become a section here and the definitions page be deleted.  --Snowded (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, the Definition of philosophy page was intended as a resource only. Lurking around here is also a separate compilation of quotations on the nature of philosophy.  I'll see if I can find it. Peter Damian (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. A lot of useful stuff in there, including descriptions of their own subject by randomly selected philosophy departments (Rick Norwood hated that).  Also at the bottom some remarks by the Oxford philosopher Peter J. King who was  a contributor here briefly before driven off by the general madness.  Peter Damian (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad resource to have linked to a sentence about different views in the introduction --Snowded (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy, busy, busy
The shorter lede is a great improvement.

I think the list of topics that fall under philosophy is still too long, and prefer Durant's list of just five major topics. In any case, a list should have a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the list to the main accepted ones, and, Rick, I have added back the sentence about rationality. Your quotation of Plato above rests on a complete misunderstanding of Plato, by the way. He is generally reckoned to be an extreme rationalist philosopher (though with promounced and idiosyncratic views on the nature of reason).  Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets keep the issue about rationality away from Rick's reference to Plato. That is a red herring.  There needs to be some form of words that says Philosophy is not a simple set of assertions and is based on argument etc.  However "rational" has too much baggage.   How about something around 'coherence'? --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Why does 'rational' carry too much baggage?  It is derived from the Latin word ratio which means all sorts of things like concept, nature, understanding, reckoning.  You like the word 'argument' but 'ratio' was one of the most frequently used words in medieval philosophy for 'argument'.  The form of words 'wedded to reason/rational thinking' were denoted by Peter King during his time here, and I would like to see them stay in some form.  If you don't like 'rational', how about 'reason'?  (Though it means no different).  Peter Damian (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I'm not fond of 'coherent' because it means something rather different. 'Coherent' is just something that sticks together, which is different again from 'consistent', which means actually 'standing together' and so on.  None of the definitions in the standard reference sources uses 'coherent' so why are we using it here?  By contrast, the majority of the sources make some reference to 'rational' or 'reason'.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of coherence in the sense that Thagard uses it which I think has potential. However I agree its not commonly used.   I was about to suggest  "That study involves the application of reason and the development of coherent arguments seeking to avoid unexamined assumptions" but you edited the article while I was writing the comment here.   I do think the history of philosophy would prevent us excluding faith and analogy completely and I don't think that adds anything so I will edit that out
 * Otherwise one thing I think is missing is the degree to which philosophy was synonymous with the natural sciences for much of its history. In recent times the split with psychology in the 19th C was also significant, as is the coming back together of those disciplines with some of the naturalising approaches linked to cognitive science.   --Snowded (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "That study involves the application of reason and the development of coherent arguments seeking to avoid unexamined assumptions" - I think that is a bit of a mouthful! On the extent to which philosophy was synonymous with the natural sciences for most of its history, that would involve a lot of OR.  Philosophy wasn't really synonymous with the natural sciences as we understand them (which involve mostly observation) but rather with armchair a priori theorising.  While the scholastics were generally very good at the philosophy bit, they were hopeless at the science, generally relying entirely on Aristotle as their source.  (Roger Bacon is a sort of exception, though not much).
 * I liked your blog thing on Gaussianitis, by the way. Afflicts many people I work with.  Was largely responsible for the credit crisis, too (Gaussian copula model). Peter Damian (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for, literally, years. Saying that "most" philosophy is rational seems a reasonable compromise. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be like saying most arithmetic is correct, or saying that because not all grammarians write in good grammar, that grammar itself is not about correct syntax. Of course many things done in the name of philosophy are not at all rational - is there any philosophical argument or line of reasoning that all or even most philosophers accept as correct?  The point is that the method of philosophy is wedded to reason.  The fact this discussion has gone on so long, Rick, is mostly because of you, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you (Snowded) have removed philosophy being a method (" It is by its methods rather than its subject-matter that philosophy is to be distinguished from other arts or sciences" - Ayer), which practically all reference works agree on. Also on it being 'wedded' to reason. The point of 'wedded' is to stress the ambition that all philosophers have. And what properly philosphical works require leaps based on faith or pure analogy? Citations please! Peter Damian (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) OK, for a start can we discuss things here not go direct for edits? Also for this phrase there are no citations on either side at the moment and I wouldn't want to wed myself to Ayer. To sort out the issues: Comments? --Snowded (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Philosophy as a "method" is one of those phrases that is sort of OK, but can lead to the assumption that philosophy does not necessary address the issues of (to take an example) right and wrong, but instead looks at the linguistic structures associated with statements of rightness and wrongness.
 *  "Wedded to reason" is a bit florid (and an analogy by the way) but can be lived with
 * not based on faith a substantial body of philosophy takes assumptions of faith and then seeks to working out reasoned assumptions given that core set of principles. I can think of Rahner for example in the modern age and many others.  One does not have to agree with them of course, but it is part of the tradition.
 * or pure analogy I really don't see what this adds. Given that we had already said reason

Happy not to go for edits, but I was simply replacing what was there originally.

1. The idea that philosophy is a method is deep rooted in the philosophical tradition. I'll try and find more citations if you want.

2. 'Wedded to reason' was King's contribution  - see here Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. King by the way was better known under a different account here where he was a respected admin for many years. It is an analogy, but I can't think of a better one. Saying it is 'wedded' to reason nicely fields the objection that so many philosophers are unfaithful to it.

3. On the faith bit - to quote King again "The dualist belief of a Christian isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith; the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief.".

PS I have made an edit, but I trust this will be to your liking. Thank you for discussing this in a 'reasonable' way. Peter Damian (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am uncomfortable with method, but don't see it as a major issue. The faith thing is more serious and you have to remember that we have to include (much as I would like not to) social constructivists and post-modernists of various types!  However I think I am happy with we talk about non-reliance on assertions of faith.  I have made that edit in the hope of a final compromise.
 * PS Your phrase "Scholasticism is not just a method, but also a system of theology and philosophy, and a movement, possibily even a doctrine" on your user page is a good one and summarises my concern on the use of method.  --Snowded (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am comfortable with the edit. Scholasticism is not necessarily the same as philosophy, by the way, but point taken.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A pleasure doing business with you sir, now lets see what happens to it when the night shift engage.  --Snowded (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, and yes, very true about the night shift. Peter Damian (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS was intrigued by the Welsh thing, and looked at .  H.H. Price I knew about, but it seems a stretch to put Russell in that category.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * : More poets than philosophers in Wales and even though there is a picture of me as a baby on Russell's knee (Aldermaston March I was in a pram) I am not sure I would want to claim ownership. --Snowded (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for retaining the sentences about "method" and "wedded to reason" -- but until they are buttressed by sources, filler such as "it is generally agreed" will attract termites. I will look for some good sources as time permits, but Ed, er, Peter has some already linked to above. 271828182 (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead section, some edits
I would also say that "Wedded to reason" is a bit florid (and an analogy by the way) but can be lived with.

A) Are there any alternatives please for 'wedded' -- based on, rooted in, incorporating, making use of, engaged with; reasoning blah blah - -

B) Other than that one word, looking at the last 20 edits, not sure who did what; good work. The article has a more respectable lead section now. The 'Branches' section (it's dropped isn't it?) wasn't really needed. --NewbyG (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of your alternatives I like "engaged with". "wedded" came from Peter so I will leave it to him to defend. --Snowded (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

==It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are wedded to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.== Who says so?!

Most subjects e.g. Physics, Geography, Archeology are "defined" by means of what it is that they study rather than how they do it. It does not seem at all obvious to me that Philosophy is a method any more than Geography, History, or Biology are. Who is the implied majority who "generally agree" that Philosophy is a method, and do they also generally agree that Physics, Geography, Archeology are methods? Suppose we try to define some discipline or field of study as a method, Philosophy of anything you like. Lets take Chemistry say. You look at some chemists, (its the middle ages), and you observe what they do - their "methods". Lets say its boiling stuff in retorts. You define chemestry as "boiling stuff in retorts". Later you see somebody who calls himself a chemisy but he is NOT boilinng stuff in retorts, he is looking through a spectrometer at a flame in which he is holding a piece of metal. Imposter! you cry, your no chemist!: why are you not boiling stuff in a retort! If Plato did not write a dialog on this I can imagine one.... Soctrates: Now Thrasymachuis, what is this military science you admire so much? Thrasymacgus: Why it is the riding of horses, the throwing of javelines and killing people and raping and pillaging as well of course! S: So were I to get on a horse, and throw a javeln at soebody killing him I would be practising military science would I? T: Of course not, it would not in the context of a war. [some pages later] S: So you agree then that Miltary science in not any particlular method, but the study, by any method whatosover, of the theory and practice of warfare. And mathematics is not the method of drawing diagrams but the study by any method whatsover aimed at obtaining mathematical truth.... --Philogo 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Loved the dialogue and I think this remains the weakest sentence. One option is to delete it but agreement could not be achieved on that yesterday.  Now that said most other disciplines have a "Philosophy of ..." so there is clearly an element of method, axioms etc that needs to be specified.  I thought we did well to use reason as well.  Philosophical method does not help much, another weakly constructed stub by the look of it.  Its also difficult to talk about method without writing a mini-essay on history.  Peter was going to try and find a citation and I will try and have a look around today.  --Snowded (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Most fields are defined by their method. In mathematics, for example, the method is logic. If I arrive at a mathematical idea by, say, trial and error, it is just a conjecture. In science, the scientific method is required. If I do chemistry by consulting astrological charts, it's not real chemistry. I would say that the method of philosophy is attempting to see the big picture, and to ask the big questions. Thus chemistry is not philosophy, because it is too concerned with particulars, but the study of induction and deduction is philosophy, part of logic.

This is, of course, original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the question given below so far as I can see only one quotation says that philsophy is amethod, thefore it is not genrally agreed that it is.
 * I do not agree that most subjects are "defined by their method": a subject can adopt a new method but remain the same subject. Does a gors trainer cease to be a horse-trainer if changes the way in whcih he trains horses? Did aracheologists cease to be arcaeologists when they started using carbon dating? Makes no sense!

Is "trying to see the big picture" a method; sounds more like an activity to me. If we open a book which claims to be one of philosophy, I grab the foirst one that comes to hand: It's J L Austin's "Sense and Sensibila". On you criteria to decide whether it is in fact a philosophy book I have to see if it's "trying to see the big picture". Oh dear, first I must decide what "the big picture" is. I know, its the answer to life, the universe and ... everything. (LOL) Oh dear! The book I picked is just about "the unreal scholastic structures of theories of perception. Does not sound like a big picture to me, and certainly not THE big picture. But maybe I am wrong about what "the big picture" is.  Who can help me? Philosphers of course, but I can only tell who is a philosopher if I know who is "trying to see the big picture", and how can I do that if I do not already know what the "big picture" is.  Your a rascal Rick, yu realy had me going there: your trying to make fools of us all by making us chase out own tails! Now be a good chap and go and write Catch-22 revisited, but first delete this awful paragraph.

I am sorry if I sound cynical: it's because I am. It does not stop me being a nice person, I blame that on something quite different. No offence meant and IMHO of course! --Philogo 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)