Talk:Philosophy/Archive 24

A sense of proportion
Reference the above suggestion. The sheer number of significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources is vast, to summarise them a major enterprise. This has in part been attempted in the various Dictionaries of Philosophy. My proposal is to take two/three of those (possibly more) in short form together with a prefix to the effect that there is no clear agreement. So far we have two from Oxford (Blackburn and Quinton) and one from Columbia. There are in all (I think) no more than half a dozen such books so using one or two sentences from each would be appropriate to an encyclopaedia. If Peter wants to write a text book fine, I might even buy it but this is not the place. --Snowded (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy to do some work on it. All I am asking is that you accept, as per above that "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each ".  If you disagree, then the process is pretty easy from there: we take it to mediation.  Peter Damian (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit] At the moment I disagree with your proposal on the 3 sources mentioned. These are a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT.  Peter Damian (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter I am not playing word games with your statement.  I do not think it is viable for the editors of this page (let alone one of them) to summarise all the views of history without demonstrating a POV.  I thus propose citing authoritative published sources.  One of those was your suggestion, one you accepted a couple of weeks ago, one you said you liked.  Please.  --Snowded (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this one of the nine proposals, or an additinal one, or nothing to do with the lede? --Philogo 12:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

elaborating
OK here is my draft, references to be cited properly in the final formatting not perfect

''The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[5][6][7] There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one. The following quotes represent perspectives from various Dictionaries on the subject


 * "the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth etc. In philosophy, the concepts by which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry."  Blackburn, Simon (1994). "Philosophy", The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


 * ... philosophy is thinking about thinking. That brings out the generally second-order character of the subject, as reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking - formation of beliefs, claims to knowledge - about the world or large parts of it. -- Quinton The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, p. 666 (1st ed.)


 * Philosophy is the attempt to give an account of what is true and what is important, based on a rational assessment of evidence and arguments rather than myth, tradition, bald assertion, oracular utterances, local custom, or mere prejudice. Columbia history of Western Philosophy''

I have removed the list of branches as that follows in the next section. There are a few other dictionaries, but not many and I would not object to them been listed as well. By providing these citable summaries we provide a resource to people coming to this article that indicates the range of thinking. We also use sources from established publishers using multiple authors with high reputations in the field, This is preferable to attempting a summary of sources ourselves. --Snowded (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose the three you have given per WP:WEIGHT, which is one of the most important policies to be applied, but you explicitly oppose here. I do not disagree with any of the three quotes, but you have given two quotes that support the 'second-order' view of philosophy (Quinton and Blackburn) and only one giving the 'distinguished by rationality'. This does not represent a balanced view of the subject.  It does not represent the view held by a significant number, if not the majority of sources, that reason (or rationality) is a 'mainstay', 'distinguishing feature' and so on.  You also miss out the main branches which most introductions to the subject mention (see Definition of philosophy for this).  So I definitely do not support this.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also suggest calling in some administrator help on this one. Peter Damian (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And have done so here. I will abide by whatever decision is taken.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I have done here is to take cited authoritative sources from groups of academics paid by reputable publishers to summarise the field. This is preferable to you or a couple of editors on this page attempting to so the same.  I have researched two, and also taken one you found.  Why not track down a couple more and put them up?  I am not arguing that those three should be the final set, I am putting together a sustainable approach consistent with Wikipedia Philosophy.  And please attempt consistency of your views over time .  You introduced Quinton, you accepted Blackburn, you liked the Columbia one.  The approach I am suggesting allows some additions as we find them.  You can put this up for mediation if you want (and can gain consent from other editors.  --Snowded (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this one of the nine proposals or a tenth one?--Philogo 12:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The nine proposals were for alternative sentences to follow the Blackburn quote. Peter having originally supported that quote is now saying it is a POV.  So I am suggesting a different approach.  We take Option 9 as an opening sentence, then follow it with several "Philosophical DIctionary" definitions.  --Snowded (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I suggested one (Quinton), I agree with another (Columbia), I agree with Blackburn. Indeed, I introduced the Blackburn a few years back.  This was defeated in a major edit war.  This is why I am saying WP:WEIGHT is essential.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, then find a couple of others that balance and we will have something we can use. --Snowded (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But I'm fundamentally not agreeing to the idea of sticking a bunch of different quotations together in the way you suggest. That is madness.  Again, WP:WEIGHT.  That is Wikipedia policy.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Using a limited set of authoritative quotes to establish balance is a sensible policy. It entirely supports WP:WEIGHT and it is clearly not madness.  Please stop venting off like this it is in breech most Wiki policies.  --Snowded (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ah so you finally agree with WP:WEIGHT? You said above that you didn't. That is fine.  That is all I wanted you to agree to. Peter Damian (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter I refused to play your word games with your motherhood and apple pie statement. I did not reject WP:WEIGHT.  For someone so set on the critical use of reason you sow a remarkable tendency not to read what people say.  As to your new proposal one glance says that a materialist would argue it was a POV. You really think that you can do a better job than the editors of various Philosophical directories?  --Snowded (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then show you mean it and give me a reliable source to say which 'materialist' would disagree with which parts of the introduction. And we can't do a better job without taking one, and only one verbatim.  Your proposal to put all the different possible views would be impossible. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] Typically materialists would reject the Realist idea that there are fundamental philosophical truths.  But that is catered for.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I have proposed above that the first sentce shall be as option 9, i.e.

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations Is this agreeable with all? --Philogo 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Nowhere is that sentence to be found in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations.  Please also note moving it to a subdirectory of the main article will result in it being deleted (not by me - see the message).  Peter Damian (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bit better would be: There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see talk:Philosophy/Quotations --Philogo 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy to refine it, lets see if we have agreement to the overall approach
 * Philosophy/Quotations duly created by copy from Talk:Philosophy/Quotations Idea is after agreeing on the first sentence we can disuss if further sentences are needed and desirable and if so what they should be. (Crack a big rock by cracking it into smaller rocks and crack each smaller rock in turn)--Philogo 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My proposal is to keep to the one sentence, not add further ones that we compose, but instead quote authoritative sources. Look at the entry in italics above it is a proposal for the full introduction.  --Snowded (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood, but do you that the first sentence shall be as option 9, i.e.

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations --Philogo 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be the second line after the reference to the linguistic origins, and then followed by some sample summary quotations from authoritative sources. Peter is pursuing another line which assumes a NPOV summary can be achieved.  I don't think he can, but engagement with him given the inconsistencies is energy sapping and I have to decide if it is worth the energy.  --Snowded (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New proposed introduction
New proposal below. It reflects most of the major views that philosophers have held about their subject, starting with Aristotle. Each section can be cited many times over. Most importantly, it reflects WP:WEIGHT. Every major view is represented, without giving undue weight to any (e.g. the Blackburn view that philosophy is about concepts is mentioned, but in the context of a division of views).

I have mentioned the contrast with religion, but in a way that does not disparage it (indeed, Aquinas can be cited).

The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Traditionally, philosophy is the search for fundamental truths that are not derived from other truths: the 'first causes and principles of things'. [Aristotle Metaphysics 993a]. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of approaching the same questions (such as mythology, mysticism, religion) by not accepting any authority higher than reason. [Licet ea quae sunt altiora hominis cognitione, non sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda, sunt tamen, a Deo revelata, suscipienda per fidem - Aquinas]. Its most distinctive feature is the use of a systematic, critical approach to problems (as opposed to scientific experiment or mystical intuition). Philosophers are deeply divided on whether philosophical truths concern (i) the nature of reality (Realism) (ii) the concepts by which we approach the world (Conceptualism) (iii) the language we use to talk about the world (Nominalism). The main branches concern the 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).

Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Objection 1 (from Snowded) - materialists would regard this as POV. Reply: (a) citation required for this (b) materialists are typically positivists, and positivists typically reject varieties of philosophical Realism. Peter Damian (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatted and referenced version in draft here: Talk:Philosophy/Definition. Peter Damian (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Objection, this is Peter's take on the history of philosophy, it is close to original research and I stand by my original proposal to include a set of cited sources from authorities in the field rather than attempt to replicate the work of leading Philosophers commissioned by reputable publishers. I have struck through Peter's objection 1 as he is taking a sentence in isolation from an earlier post.  I object to the approach of attempting to draft a text of this type  --Snowded (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: (1) taking a set of cited sources is just as difficult because of the problem of not applying undue weight. All the sources are cited and I can provide a massive set quotes to support each and every statement.  I have started  here.  To call this a 'take' on the history of philosophy is a bit extreme.  I took the second sentence from Stace's magisterial history of Greek philosophy, so it is not my take.  Neither is any of the rest.  It is an attempt to balance, per WP:WEIGHT, a large number of different sources.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowded's actual words were "As to your new proposal one glance says that a materialist would argue it was a POV." Peter Damian (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter you are impossible. Full quote "Peter I refused to play your word games with your motherhood and apple pie statement. I did not reject WP:WEIGHT. For someone so set on the critical use of reason you sow a remarkable tendency not to read what people say. As to your new proposal one glance says that a materialist would argue it was a POV. You really think that you can do a better job than the editors of various Philosophical directories? "  The last sentence is the most important.  You can create any paragraph on philosophy in which each sentence can be cited in isolation.  --Snowded (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, taking what you regard as your most important point. I have looked at the following articles: History, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Politics.  None of these take the unusual and idiosyncratic and plain daft, in my view, approach, of selecting a bunch of different sources and stringing them together.  So I am rejecting it flat out.  Please examine with your expert philosophical eye my proposal, which is a fair and balanced reflection of the different sources, and give me your critical reasoned judgment.  And don't call me impossible. Peter Damian (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Impossible was affectionate Peter and its fairly mild in comparison with some of the things you had said. I don't think it will be possible to formulate a set of words that will define Philosophy hence my suggestion of multiple citable sources.  I love the way you reject someone else's idea and then expect them to go along with your latest proposal.  Sorry Peter I am "rejecting it flat out" at least for today.  I am very very weary with the manner of your engagement here.  --Snowded (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking your points in order, by sentence. The first sentence says you are affectionate towards me, that's OK. Your second sentence says it is not possible to formulate a set of words defining (or let's say characterising philosophy), my reply is that I have just done it above.  I also did it last year with an expert philosopher from a highly-regarded university, that version was stable for a long time.  Moreover is the version Trinity College Dublin used for their departmental website.  What I find most frustrating about your approach is your point-blank refusal to discuss reasons or content.  It was nice when you made the point about materialism, I thought for a moment about that and checked some sources and replied.  I wish you could adopt a similar approach i.e. give reasons and argument without (it seems) taking things personally.  Your third sentence says I reject other people's ideas and expect them to go along with mine.  Well, I always give reasons for rejecting proposals - the latest reason was that having looked at a number of flagship articles, none of them use the multiple-citation approach.  Your fourth sentence says you are 'rejecting flat out'. Fine, but give reasons.  Take each sentence one by one and say what the problem is.  That will be fine by me.  Your fifth sentence says you are very weary of my manner of engagement.  YOU are weary?  I've just spent half of the nicest day of the year cooped up in front of a computer screen. I was mad to try.  Well, it's tiring, no doubt.  But why not reach for some books and read some of the sources I have provided, rather than getting weary or upset?  That would be a more constructive way of carrying on.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: leave it for today, print out my version, compare it to the sources we have in the subdirectory. See how many of the sources support what is in my version, and how many do not.  Then reply in itemised format.  That would be a really constructive way of getting ahead.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Matthew 7:5 --Snowded (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very unkind. I ALWAYS give reasons. And if you don't think they are sufficient, ask me.  For example above I tried to address each point you had made, sentence by sentence.  I've given a specific reason for rejecting your proposal. The logical way would be to address that reason with a reply, and so on.  That last remark (via Matthew 7:5) was really vicious.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion Peter. I quoted 'rejecting flat out' straight back at you. Your reasons given were e "I'm fundamentally not agreeing to the idea of sticking a bunch of different quotations together in the way you suggest. That is madness".  You dispense sweeping judgements with perjorative language and then require critical engagement with your POV in return.  Sorry, but Matthew 7:5 is accurate.  I am leaving this for a day with a view to deciding if I have the energy to engage with someone who agrees something one day, changes their opinion the next and is unprepared to engage with ideas other than his own. --Snowded (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * History, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Politics Peter Damian (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposed introduction seems to have merit; it deserves some further scrutiny though in case some inadvertant defect becomes apparent with the wording. I am going to thank again User:Peter Damian for providing expert attention to this article. I would like to ask Peter if, through having given such expert attention to the body of the article in recent times, it is perhaps no longer appropriate for the 'expert attention' tag to be in place at the top of this article? --NewbyG (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag is still appropriate. None of the changes discussed here have been implemented.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Newby - the main point of disagreement is whether we use only citations in the introduction, or not. See Snowded's suggestion. That needs to be agreed. I have argued that we should not, because there is no precedent for this (that I know of) in Wikipedia.  And many other reasons.  Quotes strung together look clumsy.  There is still the difficulty of deciding which quotes, and so on.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Briefly, are there any major problems or sore points anywhere within the body of the article i.e. problems other than with the introductory paragraph(s)? --NewbyG (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The section on Realism and nominalism needs some work. The other sections need reviewing for balance.  Some obscure schools of philosophy need trimming, possibly, but I'm not an expert and can't advise.  Also, I really think the non-Western philosophy sections should have separate treatment worthy of their status.  This article is clearly about 'Western' philosophy.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems then we know where we are when the lead section is sorted out. --NewbyG (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag will be appropriate if we adopted this new proposed introduction.--Philogo 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Variation on a theme

 * Could the lead section begin :

"The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” The main branches of philosophy concern the 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)."
 * and then continue as per the draft? --NewbyG (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Call for consensus
I propose that the first sentence of the lede shall be

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations --Philogo 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a sardonic comment here. Once enough people agree on a definition of a subject (OR its method) rather than arguing about it, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes a new subject. Science springs to mind as an example (which used to be natural philosophy). Philosophy is all about discussion and disagreement, even about its definition. 70.92.74.178 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are being sardonic, I think you are being accurate. The nature of the subject means that any definition or summary of the field will be (i) supported by citations but will remain (ii) a POV.  Its why we can't treat the introduction in the same was as other articles.  Any summary text will have so many qualifications and variations it will be meaningless.  Best to acknowledge reality and reflect that by providing some of the diversity in the introduction.  Hence my earlier suggestion.  --Snowded (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Philogo and Snowded are falling prey to a version of the continuum fallacy (a nominalist favorite): because there is some fuzziness or disagreement about a definition, therefore the concept is indefinable. Look over the list of definitions Peter Damian has collated.  Only an obstinate tree-seer would miss the shapely forest they define.  (And yes, I like the proposed introduction, though the introduction of the realist-conceptualist-nominalist split so early is overly technical.) 271828182 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiresome but typical. Philosophy as a subject has coherence and some common understandings and can therefore be taught.  But that description requires some recognition that you cannot reach a summary statement for an article like this which is other than POV.   When others of greater repute than Peter attempt it in Dictionaries, Peter is happy to say that they are not balanced but not to worry he can come along and create a shapely forest (not his words) which will achieve what others have failed to do.    Do you really think that the realist-conceptualist-nominalist split summarises all perspectives on philosophy?  Your opening phrase suggests that the perspective of those against a definition is "nominalist", so you are immediately saying that there is a perspective on philosophy which differs.  POV good friend, POV.  You may like it, Peter may write a good book or article with it, but its POV.  --Snowded (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See History, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology, Politics Peter Damian (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
 * : Two fallacies for one here. 271828182 claims that your argument is a version of the continuum fallacy (which it certainly is).  You reply with a restatement of the continuum fallacy, see also Loki's Wager, while at the same time failing to reply to 271828182’s objection of continuum fallacy (Straw man), or possibly Ignoratio elenchi.  Peter Damian (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tedious Peter, playing common room games. 271828182 makes an assertion which does not represent any reasonable interpretation of what I am saying.  I reply by restating the case and obviously failed to communicate any difference.  I will respond overall in the next day or so when I have time, and then determine if further investment is worth the time.  Giving you a 101 lecture in modern materialism may or may not be worth the effort (and that is from someone who studied Aquinas by the way)  --Snowded (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowded, I await your clarification, since I have re-read your reply to me several times and still perceive in it no argument substantively different from the following:


 * "Experts disagree about the definition of philosophy; therefore, all definitions of philosophy are POV."


 * The implicit premise is very dubious, I hope you'll agree. Also, the extent of the disagreement in the premise is, I would argue, being much exaggerated.  Don't take it personally, but this line of argument reminds me of creationist tactics to argue that all scientific thinking is inherently "POV". 271828182 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hard not to take that personally and a pretty silly example that gives me little confidence in going forward. Your statement of my position is a strawman.  --Snowded (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then. Please set me straight by correctly stating your position, and showing how I have misstated it. 271828182 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please state your position and show how 271828182 has misstated it. The biggest obstacle to progress at the moment is that any comment I make on any of Snowded's assertions, and he replies I have misstated or misinterpreted it.  Even when I use the exact same sentence he says I have quoted the sentence out of context.  So it is not unreasonable for to ask Snowded to explain what his position or argument is, so we can comment on it.  Peter Damian (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) As I have said several times I am taking a short day or so wikibreak to think about this and come back with a considered position. Having invested a week of my time in a one to one dialogue with Peter to no great effect (and one of the worst experiences I have ever had in the wikipedia) and I reached the conclusion that an emergent discussion is impossible with you (Peter) and it requires a more considered and formal statement of a position. I'm going to do that and then take a position on what I do thereafter These latest set of sniping remarks indicate some of the issues this group has. I am also checking back on edits as I think we have a diversity issue here. Too many logicians and one inconsistent and temperamental medievalist (joke peter). I had not realised that was the context of a discussion and I need to frame my thinking accordingly. --Snowded (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a nice break. This article has a flag saying that the attention of an expert is required.  I wonder if there is a wikipedia flag saying, "This article has the attention of too many experts." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that 271828182. On the realist/anti-realist distinction, the main reason for bringing that in so early was as a concession to those who point to the endless disagreement between philosophers about the subject-matter of philosophy.  There is a long history of disagreement between those such as Ockham, Hobbes, Mill, the logical positivists generally, and the ordinary language philosophers, who see philosophical truth as being essentially about language, and realists such as Aristotle, Aquinas, and those in the realist modern tradition who favour a ‘return to metaphysics’ of some sort.  On whether this split is reflected in the European tradition, I don’t know.  I looked at the introductory chapters of Being and Nothingness and it struck me how dated it was – a strong nineteenth century phenomenological flavour – and perhaps you could argue that phenomenology is the modern equivalent of conceptualism.  Also I am currently working on a translation of Scotus, an early work that may not be by Scotus at all, since it belongs to the group of misattributed works that Heidegger studied.  But now I have strayed into OR.  I know of very little of the European tradition since 1900 and I’ll try and keep my mouth shut, given my lack of knowledge.  Peter Damian (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree that the r/c/n distinction is a useful way of organizing the whole of western metaphysics. Phenomenology starts off as a (highly unstable) form of realism with the Logische Untersuchungen, only to rapidly decay into Kantian conceptualism in the Ideen and its epigones like Sartre.  Heidegger, as usual, wants to have it all three ways: though his rhetoric militantly invokes realism, his arguments are very Kantian, and his conclusions are effectively nominalist.  But "this page is not a forum for discussion about its topic".


 * My general worry about your proposed lede is that it is too technical overall (and not just in the sentence we've been discussing). In large part, as you point out, that is due to the carping on this page, which is unfortunate.  Maybe all parties should take a break and try again in better faith, or with additional input from other expert editors.  It is demoralizing to see how little ground has been gained over the previous go-round on this lede.  271828182 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you go back a week then there was general optimism that we had improved the article and there was only disagreement about one sentence. That ground has shifted, but it would be nice if we could get back to agreement.  More editors would certainly be useful and few less patronising remarks (not to mention throwing out a creationist label) would help ease communication and consensus.  --Snowded (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine; let's be civil. N.b. I did not label you a creationist, I merely pointed out that your argument above relies on similar fallacies.  Naturally, you disagree.  Okay, I could be wrong.  But you have yet to show that, despite repeated dismissals of my criticisms. 271828182 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit I can't see any logic in your interpretation, so I have made a couple (repeated is exaggeration) of attempts to restate a position. Now its obvious that I am not succeeding in this so as I said to Peter I am going to take a few days out, think about it and come back.  I also think that we need a silent period for a bit as its got heated.   I must admit that in all the pages I have edited this has been one of the most frustrating in terms of the nature of the participation. --Snowded (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I would like to give a more detailed reply to Snowded’s main argument, which I think is this: We should give list of quotations about philosophy, rather than the standard form of words used in all other Wikipedia ‘flagship’ articles, because the form-of-words approach is inherently POV, whereas the list-of-quotations approach is not. Since a number of Snowded’s objections above have been that I have misunderstood his arguments, or have not read them, or have quoted them out of context, can you confirm, please, that my representation of your argument is correct? To be absolutely clear, my representation of the argument is given in bold above. Snowded, if you think that is wrong, please say so and submit an amended version that represents your objection. Note the bold sentence has two parts. The first part is your recommendation about what we should do. The second part is the main reason you give to support this. Peter Damian (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow Peter at the earliest. I have two full days of teaching Tuesday and Wednesday in London and Warwick with a lot of travel between.  Today is my only preparation day. --Snowded (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Actually I asked as a first step if you could confirm that the bolded sentence immediately above is a fair representation of (1) your claim and (2) your reason for making the claim.  I am taking the unusual step of asking you to confirm this because of your habit of accusing me of the fallacy of quoting out of context. We don't want that.  I am making every effort to be precise.Peter Damian (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And given past experience I am not happy for you to take sentence in isolation. Given past misinterpretations and game playing I want to think thorough at attempt to explain a common sense position to you.  Current approaches are failing. --Snowded (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The above may be fascinating but not entire clear who if anybody suport my proposal that the first sentence of the lede shall be

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Philosophy/Quotations Would folks please say "Yes" or "No" below? (for clarification, especially for 271828182, if you read the proposal carfully it says that There is no agreed definition; it does not say the concept is indefinable. Attention to detail please! --Philogo 12:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. (Philogo, your parenthetical "clarification" is a distinction without a difference, especially in this context -- "there is no agreed definition" of mathematics and psychology by your captious standard.) 271828182 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is as plain as a pike staff that the proposal says, A: "There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy..." and does not say B: "the concept is indefinable". :271828182 says suggests these words are "a distinction without a difference".  I had no idea that the phrase A was either synonymous with the phrase B, or that A entailed B.  If that is the problem I would be happy to rephrase my proposals so that it cannot be construed in this way  but I would need some assistance because in the dialect of English I speak could not be so consrued.  I could propose:

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations, which is not to say that a definition is necessarily impossible Sounds a bit awkward to me, but we should be clear; any alternative suggestions on how to phrase it so it cannot be thus misconstrued in other English dialects? --86.27.137.42 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a distinction without a difference in this context as it utterly abdicates the responsibility of an encyclopedia article to explain its subject, merely owing to the existence of disagreement. (Under pressure to defend your position you are now narrowly interpreting your claim as "People disagree about the definition of philosophy", which is trivially true; but for your position to have any force in scrapping the lede of a major article, you are tacitly advancing a much stronger claim, that it is futile to try, i.e., that it is operationally indefinable.)  As Peter has repeatedly pointed out, you could apply the same reasoning to claim that "there is no agreed definition" of mathematics, psychology, politics, or any number of other fields.  This is a damning reductio of your position that you have done nothing so far to gainsay.  271828182 (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And we would also be abnegating our responsibility to WP:WEIGHT, as I have frequently commented. "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner."   Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, while it's clear philosophers have huge disagreements on certain points, they are pretty much in agreement on others. One of the sources says 'Philosophy is thinking clearly and logically about big questions'.  This is a down-to-earth way of expressing some of the key points of agreement.  Philosophy is thinking, i.e. it doesn't rely overmuch on experimentation (except thought-experiments).  It is clear, i.e. it aims for elucidation and analysis.  It is logical, i.e. is guided by the canons of rationality.  And the questions are big: i.e. they are fundamental or 'prior' in the Aristotelian sense.  Is there any 'significant' minority of philosophers who would disagree with that?  They would disagree on other matters, for sure.  But "Even philosophers who proclaim the limitations of reason all adduce reasons for their views and present difficulties for opposing ones. " (Nozick).  Peter Damian (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I.e. here Portal:Philosophy. Well, this says "Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask.", so emphasises philosophy's concern with the big or fundamental questions. So what's the problem? I think the definition from the philosophy portal is quite good, since it discusses the difficulty of defining philosophy and different usages of the term. 70.92.74.178 (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I.e. here Portal:Philosophy. Well, this says "Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask.", so emphasises philosophy's concern with the big or fundamental questions. So what's the problem? Peter Damian (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask.
I like "Philosophy ponders the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask."

If the anthropomorphism bothers you, we could make that:

"Philosophy is the study of the most fundamental questions humankind has been able to ask."

Then we could have the list: epistemology and so on.

Then tip our caps to reason: Philosophy is distinguished by clear thinking and an understanding of the major thinkers of the past.

And finish off with a snappy quote.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of 'an understanding of past thinkers', but none of the sources mentions this. Why do you not mention the word 'rational', given that nearly all the sources do? Peter Damian (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Call for consensus on first sentence
My proposal is that the first sentence of the lede shall be

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

My proposal neither states nor implies, nor is intended to state or imply that there should be no further sentences. The proposed sentence neither states nor implies, nor is intended to state or imply that a definition is necessarily impossible. The proposed sentence is evidenced by all the quotations shown at Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. Editors are of course free to add further quotations to that list. --Philogo 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea, indeed a version I wrote about 2 years back had almost exactly that opening.  It lasted 2 days but was shot down in a drive-by killing, by a non-philosopher editor who objected that it was 'lame' to open an article in that way.  No other article had an opening like that, was it not beyond the wits of the community to come up with an appropriate, balanced, intro?  I replied that philosophy was a little different. While there was some consensus on a general suitable vague definition like 'clear and logical thinking about big questions', there was little else.  This was of course howled down with derision.  Apologies, Philogo, for misunderstanding your earlier point about no agreed definition not being the same as no definition possible.  You understand there are many cross winds going on here.  I looked at your contributions on philosophical logic and they are good.  Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A point in favour of my proposed first sentence is that no editor has denied that it is true. The  main attempts seem to be to say that it means something different from what it says and then attack the that other meaning.  Well, that would be sort of be OK in a very freshman course on informal logic, giving examples of common fallacies and crooked arguments lesson two the "straw man" strategy but I should think its chances of succeeding on this talk page are somewhat remote.


 * Might I encourage you to support my proposal in the hopes of agreeing one sentence - which as I have pointed out is evidenced by all the quotations that others have acummulated? I think we need have little regard for subsequent criticisms that use inprecise terms like "lame".  We need only point out that...

philosophy and the editors of this talk page lay considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. These who cannot support their case by precise and careful argument should do as Clint Eastowood might suggest. --Philogo 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

--Philogo 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the first argument is simply the practical one that any change should not be vulnerable to drive-bys. I'm not sure how much experience you have in editing major flagship articles like this.  It's one thing on the smaller articles which hardly see much action - compare those to a small provincial town in Ireland during the Second World War, and compare this one to Stalingrad or something similar.  You do need to understand that.  But I'm all for brokering a deal, which is how this article is edited.  Would agree to something on the lines of the first part of the sentence, my argument against the second part (despite many attempts) being that it should be fairly obvious that if there has been no agreed definition of philosophy in its 3 millenium history, then there must have been many attempts.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit] I would prefer some qualification, also. Quinton says 'Most definitions are fairly controversial, particularly if they aim to be at all interesting or profound'. My emphasis.  You also need to avoid implying that because no one is agreed on all points of the definition, therefore they disagree on all points.  All definitions have parts, some parts are more controversial, some are not controversial at all.  Agree? Peter Damian (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit] Also, and here we necessarily leave the realms of all logic, because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, there is an implicit understanding that this is a bargaining process. I'll agree to your bit if you agree to mine.  Also 271828182 has to agree to any of this because he is a mate.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A raison d'etre for the "despite many attempts to provide one," as an excuse for the following see "Talk:Philosophy/Quotations" which is intended to tempt the curious reader to click. No matter how riveting a lede we come up with, the reader would learn far more by reading some of the quotations. Those whose life is not complete unless they have said or quoted some profundity on this subject would then have the opportunity to add their words of wisdom by adding to the quotes list, rather like writing on a lavatory wall.  (I was about eight when I notioed in a pub gent's that the landlord, despairing of cleaninng off graphity, put up a sign board saying "If you must write something write it here". The first contribution was "Please do not bite the woodwork while straining."   The inevitable contributions from Ayn Rayns (or is it Ann?) will accumulate their like flies on fly paper, where they can be pruned at leisure.  If you think that is a fair ploy we might even make it more tempting with something like:

During its 3 millenium history there have been numerous attempts to define philosphy  see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations; so far none has received universal agreement. There is the rest of the lede, remember, indeed the rest of the article to follow up the opening, and indeed an article on metaphilosophy where we could really let rip. IMHO, for this article's lede it is more important that we make clear what it is not, that is what is called philosphy in the vernacular, as in outllok on lfe, or the meaning of life the universe and everthing. We must make clear (as the University of Cambridge does in its undergrad prosepectus) that as an academic subject philosophy "lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument". A lecturer opined once that the best way to find out what philosophy is, is to do some. When people ask me I usually say go read some Plato; its all the same whether they like him or loath him; if neither then its not the subject for them. --Philogo 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What is it about "no" that is so hard to understand? This proposal was put to a vote, and all of the votes were negative (all three of them!), two "no" and one "sounds a bit awkard".  Time to move on. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was noted and agreed some while back that the use of votes was only allowed in exceptional circumstances and that the attempt to acheive consensus is the wiki way. Naturally on this talk there is considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument, and we look forward to heri yours against the current proposal. Is it beacause you think that it expresses an untruth, or that although it expresses a truth we should not say it? Or neither?--Philogo 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I still have at least two reservations:
 * The claim itself needs to be sourced, or it is OR (and thus will be especially subject to drive-bys), regardless of how many cites we can add. Peter has already offered a helpful source from Quinton, and there are most likely even better ones to be found.
 * I am still inclined to say the via negativa is the option of last resort, especially for the first sentence. There is considerable dispute over the nature of mathematics, but the current article on it manages a decent lede without starting with lack of agreement.  Even if there is no agreement on a definition, there is agreement that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are philosophy.  271828182 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the sentence has to be a quote? The proposal would not disallow that that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics are philosophy. It is quite common for there to be agreement of what are examples of something but yet there being no agreed   definition of that something. (why is that troubling?) Most of Plato's dialogs spring to mind. Or think of words like irony, musc, poetry, torture, sentient being.  It would be easier to agree on examples of these than to define them. It might be that the examples exemplify a family resemblance and are used in this manner, and not the same way as terms like density, acceleation, quotient, kilogram. The assumption that every meaningful term must have a definition like the latter and if only we could try hard enough we could either discover it or usefully stipulate it is a position, but one that would have to be argued for.  Would it be useful for some international body to lay down a definition of, say, joke.  If someone "discovered" or "proved" the definition of the word "joke" would we accept if and find it helpful?  Wolod we comply with it?  Would we insist that comedian told no non-jokes? Now ask the same questions but substituting the the term philosophy, or poetry or torture or irony or Justice. --Philogo 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Philogo, I am quite familiar with and in agreement with everything you bring up here. I empathize with your inclination to view the issue as sterile.  However, don't forget that there are good reasons why Plato (and many others) thought that the lack of clear definitions for important ideas was troubling.  At least one of those reasons applies here, viz., that as a practical matter, we need to help others recognize what the subject is, and observing that there is no agreed definition is, as I've said before, trivial -- a point you reinforce here by pointing out that lots of common concepts lack clear definition.  Explicitly placing the lack of agreement so prominently at the start of the article, coupled with your persistent objections to most other lede content, is implying -- informally -- a stronger claim of the sort I've criticized before, that philosophy is somehow indefinable.  (No, you don't explicitly say that, but, as Ludwig teaches us, you can show things without saying them.)  As you say, we should try to avoid the vulgar notion that philosophy is vague talk about worldviews -- but by shying away from any substantive lede, I suspect you are taking us in that direction.  And no, I don't mean the sentence has to be a quote -- it needs to be backed by a verifiable published source, as any such claim on WP does.  271828182 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is constructive to try and define a term, even if you never arrive at a definition. Thats why I always suggest people read Plato before anything else. And I think that applies to philosophy as well as jokes. Of course if we were content with a stipulative definition, then that's no problem. If on the other hand we want to try and discover what all jokes, philosophical problems &c. have in common that can be a good learning process and we might come up with an answer and we might not - who's to say?  We could finish up with such definitions of jokes1 and jokes2,  and the like. We might even decide there is an ideal joke somewhere whcih all joles resemble in one ay or another.  The point I am making is that it is useful to try but not to tell.  Hence my suggestion that directs the reader's attention to our list of quotations  the reading of which might result in thinking.  If it is the position as the first sentence, that is  is not really very important.  As to citations I of course agree we should have no OR. But do you really not think that the list of quotations is not a good citation in itself? Suppose I said in an article on dogs, that there was no agreement on what the best breed was and in support provided 10 quotations from prominent dog breeders all claiming that a different breed of dog was the best. Would those citations not support the sentence? And suppose nobody could provide a ciation to support the contention that there was an agreed best breed; would that not be extra support? Well can anybody produce a citation from a respectable source which claims that there is an agreed definition of philosophy?

Naturally if you show that "There is no agreed definition/best breed"->"There can be no agreed definition/best breed" then you claim the citations are inadequate. And if you say that the proposal  means that we cannot have other sentences suggesting some useful definitions can you argue that the proposal means we should not be helpful by quotaing some. But that really is setting up a straw man to kick. I could say "There is no agreement what is the best breed of dog (see xxx: list of competing claims) ; but a majority of breeders agree, however, that the best all-round dog for a family pet is a blood-hound. (see xxx)" could I not? --Philogo 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To call for a vote and then ignore it and call for a consensus is a waste of time. There is, clearly, no consensus in favor of this first sentence. Yes, it is true. Not every sentence that is true is a good first sentence for an article. The first sentence of an article should offer helpful information to the curious reader. "Philosophy is the study of the most profound questions that mankind has asked," is a good first sentence. "Philosophy is the study of the relationship between man and the world, the nature of knowledge, and what virtue consists of," is a good first sentence. There is no shortage of good first sentences, if we could only agree on one. You need to let go, Philogo, and move on. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The call for a vote was disallowed: see above. Time you moved on, and give reasons for your views. Colourful language and rhetoric are rarely persuasive especially on a talk page such as this. It is better to address the issues straight on., eg by answering "Is it because you think that it [the prosed first sentence] expresses an untruth, or that although it expresses a truth we should not say it? Or neither."  Your failure to answer says more than your colourful language.--Philogo 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Which main elements should go in?
Before we agree on the order of the sentences, would it not be sensible to decide which are included at all? Most introductions or definitions have the following


 * The etymology
 * Sometimes added that this is not helpful
 * The main 4 branches (logic, metaphysic, epistemology, ethics)
 * clear/critical/logical thinking about big/fundamental questions
 * No universal agreement about the precise definition
 * it does not rely on empirical evidence, nor on revelation or authority.

Can everyone say which of these they would NOT like in the intro? And add any they feel SHOULD be in. If we could agree on that, we could then agree on the order. Peter Damian (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above but:

IMHO &c: --Philogo 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To avoid loose talk, endless disussion, and a result that sounds like a "puff"  I would sugegst either dropping all together the "about big/fundamental questions", part or proceed with extreme caution.
 * We should proceed with similar caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". Are we using the term rely carefully and precisely? If anything that made use of empirical evidence was  said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing.  The whole of ordinary language philosophy for example and, I suspect, most of Plato's dialogs.
 * It would be helful to add, I suggest, some remarks concerning how, over time, issues which had been considered philosophy are now subjects in their own right, e.g. what was called mental philosophy, natural philosophy &c.
 * We should include a link to metaphilosophy where a number of these issues are explored in some depth, and we should avoid in this article anything that disregards that article or becomes a kind of ladybird potted version of it.
 * Th lede in particular should exmplify and not fall far below the clear/critical/logical thinking that the subject itself demands.


 * I'm very good about answering questions, briefly and to the point, as I answered yours above. What you call "colorful language" is simply substance combined with brevity.  Many people could communicate twice as much if they said half as much.  You repeatedly call for clear thinking, but I sometimes fear that you do not proofread your own posts.  Clear thinking is usually rethinking.


 * To repeat my answer to your question, because you requested it: It is true than many philosophers disagree about the definition of philosophy and about every other subject under the sun. It is a bad lead sentence because it is trivial and uninformative.


 * Turning to the six starred items on the list above, it seems to me that only three are important enough to go into the intro: the four main branches, the etymology, and clear thinking about critical questions. I would not object to the last point going in, though I'm not sure philosophers never experiment.  Aristotle did.  The other two items seem trivial, and true of most subjects.   Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything in Philogo's reply that referenced the sources. Is there a fundamental problem about WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT.  To take one example he says "If anything that made use of empirical evidence was said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing".  This is plausible, and possibly true (although I have read and translated large tranches of medieval philosophy, and not noticed any appeals to empirical evidence, except where cited by Aristotle).  But not the point: what do the sources say?  Read the Russell, for example, and there are a number of others.  The policies about original research were designed to make this sort of decision easy.  Rather than rely on endless discussion and OR on the talk page, the policies require simply collecting and arranging the sources, coming to a decision about the appropriate balance (which could be achieved by statistical means) and then summarising appropriately (only the last requiring any degree of intellectual capability).


 * To Rick: I agree with your judgment, but again, it seems to be your judgment, rather than a balanced view of what the sources say. If we could least agree on the above two policies, this would be a lot easier.  Peter Damian (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are a few sources which emphasise that experiment and observation are not integral to philosophy. No I don't want your philosophical objections and original research.  I want you to locate sources that explicitly argue that philosophy DOES rely on observation and experiment.
 * Philosophical problems involve questions about the meaning, truth, and logical connections of fundamental ideas that resist solution by the empirical sciences (Woodhouse)
 * A philosophical proposition must be such as can be neither proved nor disproved by empirical evidence. (Russell)
 * [Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; they are solved, rather, by looking into the workings of our language. (Wittgenstein).
 * Its method for discovering the truth is rational argument (as opposed to scientific experiment or mystical intuition). (University of York)
 * Unlike science it doesn't rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought. (Nagel)
 * A brief but quite accurate description of philosophical method is that we do not observe or experiment, we construct chains of reasoning. (Cahn and Eckert) Peter Damian (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Peter Damien about the necessity for sources. I already said that I like Quinton as one source. Durant is good on the four branches. The OED is standard for the etymology. We could stop there. The thing about experiment has to do with weight. Most sources don't mention experiment. Neither should we, at least not in the introduction. Later, we can talk about how "natural philosophy" turned into science and philosophy followed a different path. All of your quotes above are talking about philosophy today, the introduction should be quite general, and include ancient as well as modern philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "We should proceed with similar [i.e. extreme] caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". By caution I mean we should make clear whether we/it means (a) It never or often does not make us of empirical evidence (b) It never needs empirical evidence. (c) it is not integral to philsophy.  Peter this was one of your suggestion: what precisely does "it does not rely on empirical evidence" mean?  Does it follwo Witgenstein in excluding "looking into the workings of our language" from "empirical evidence"?  I feel this is a metaphilsophical issue which it is unrealistic to resolve on this talk page, or to be decided by weighing sources.

Peter, can you summarise fairly which of your starred list at the top have been ascented to (with or without caveats)? --Philogo 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will comment, as requested by user:Peter Damian above, that the main elements listed at the top of this section are appropriate for the lead sectt. and could/should be in. The four main branches, the etymology, and clear thinking about critical questions are the crucial elements, I would say, respecting the sources, as well as the discussion(s) pursued here. --NewbyG (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. But the others have to recognise this, i.e. this is about respecting the sources, not personal views about philosophy.  I think we are a long way from that. Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is all a fascinating discussion, which I would love to be drawn into. But this page is not for philosophical discussion, but for collating sources according to WP:OR. I will reply to Rick's point on how "how 'natural philosophy' turned into science", however. The Greek conception of "science" was somewhat different from ours. True science, i.e. knowledge, was of the a priori, literally, from what is prior, from first principles. Also, natural philosophy was not the same as 'first philosophy' or metaphysics. It is the latter which this article is about. On Rick's point that 'most sources' don't mention philosophy being a priori, well don't confusing not mentioning X with mentioning not-X. A significant number of the sources say, in effect, that philosophy is about the a priori, and many more imply it. E.g. Aristotle's dictum that philosophy is not about derived truths, but per se truths, the logical positivist quotations also, which I have not mentioned. So, Rick, could you go through the sources (I will add some more when I have time) and pick out those which support the idea that philosophy is not essentially a priori? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Going through the quotes in order.


 * Aristotle holds that philosophy (i.e. first philosophy or metaphysics) is the science of first principles and causes.
 * Aquinas says the same thing.
 * The Cicero and Descartes and Hobbes are epigrammatic and not particularly helpful. Descartes elsewhere, as we know, tries to build up a system of philosophy based on reasoning from first principles.
 * Kant says that philosophy 'the science of the highest maxim of the use of our reason' whatever that means.
 * Ueberweg also says that philosophy is a science of first principles or 'first elements'.
 * The Bradley quote I fail to understand. He says the essence of Philosophy is confined to intellectual activity. But then it is a 'a one-sided and inconsistent appearance of the Absolute'.  Don't understand.
 * Russell twice defends the idea that philosophy is not empirical, i.e. it is a priori. "This brings us to a second characteristic of philosophical propositions, namely, that they must be a priori. A philosophical proposition must be such as can be neither proved nor disproved by empirical evidence."
 * Wittgenstein says that philosophy "neither confirm nor confute scientific investigations", that philosophy is 'conceptual investigations'.
 * Ayer says that philosophy is distinguished by its method of rational investigation.
 * The quotes from philosophy departments mostly emphasis the method of philosophy and the need for training in logic and critical approach.
 * Quine, as is well known, thought that philosophy is in some sense 'continuous' with science. This is the one point of view that goes against the idea of philosophy is completely a priori.
 * Peter King says that philosophy is not a set of propositions (i.e. the positivist view).
 * Lewis says that it is not the job of philosophy to undermine pre-existing opinions, but to order them systematically.
 * Nagel explicitly says that philosophy "doesn't rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought.".
 * Nozick says that philosophy relies on reasoning.
 * The Warnock emphasises clarity of thinking.
 * Woodhouse says that philosophy investigates the questions that resist solutions by empirical means
 * Cahn and Eckert say that philosophy does not observe or experiment.
 * Warburton says that philosophy is an activity, the analysis and clarification of concepts.
 * There are three other sources that I need to put in, supporting the idea that philosophy is a priori, non-empirical &c.

Overall, the great majority of the sources either explicitly say that philosophy is a priori or not-empirical, or they implicitly support that view, or are consistent with it. Apart from the Quine (which I regard as a 'significant minority' view) I see no reason to leave out this important characteristic of philosophy. Indeed, I see it as fundamental and essential, but that is a personal POV. Here, I am talking about the sources only. Peter Damian (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * re-entering briefly on this point (a more detailed contribution later. You can say that a significant part of the history of philosophy (especially your period Peter) is a priori and non-empiricle.  However A significant component of modern philosophy of mind is entangled in the same people and experiments as a lot of neuro-science.  It is also true to say that for long periods of time when natural science and psychology were the same thing as philosophy experimentation was a part of the field.  Yes you can get lots of quotes to say that it is non-experimental (you can get lots of quotes for any theory in Philosophy).  However even the above do not necessarily all exclude experiments (Nozick, Woodhouse, Warburton).  If you want balance here, you cannot take a position that is POV.  --Snowded (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is not to what extent philosophy shuns experiment. The question is, is that a point important to make in the introduction. As I said, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

Peter Damian, I think you exaggerate the opposition to crafting the introduction from primary sources just as Philogo exaggerates the opposition to the truth of his statement that philosophers disagree about the definition of philosophy. Everyone accepts both statements as true, as far as I can tell, and everyone except Philogo has said that the latter doesn't belong in the introduction. It seems to me we are very close to agreement, and it remains only for someone to write an introduction along the lines Snowded has suggested. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Western philosophy and Islamic philosophy
According to the lead while the philosophers of North Africa and the Middle East, because of their strong interactions with Europe, are usually considered part of Western philosophy but as Henry Corbin and some others have explained western philosophy doesn't have any relation with post-Averrosian philosophy of North Africa and Middle East. Where do you put Ibn Arabi and Sufi metaphysics or Mulla Sadra and Transcendent theosophy? I propose making a separate part for Islamic philosophy and adding it in the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Current proposal, if any?
I've done by best to catch up with the frantic activity of the month, but with the best will in the world, I can't work out to what "along the lines Snowded has suggested" specifically refers... There is a problem (and it's inherent to Wikipedia) about trying to wring a satisfactory introductory opening statement from countless authoritative sources. Although the sources Peter Damian has listed carry weight, it is a narrow and tendentious selection from what is out there. All the modern sources represent a certain (very broad) school. I could start listing some alternative views - Deleuze held, for example, that philosophy's purpose was to invent, not to clarify, concepts. But it will just lengthen the list and get us nowhere.

Call it "OR" if you will, but I remain convinced that the only solution is to craft a sentence (or two) in the most general terms. Someone above mentioned a preference for the terms "reasoning" or "discursive reason". I suggested way back that what was truly distinctive about philosophy was that it claims were primarily supported by argument (and I'd be happy with any modifier along the lines of "reasoned argument" or "reasoned and critical argument"). I think this (rather than reason as such) is what truly distinguishes philosophy from other entirely rational disciplines. Yes, you'll find "argument" in other disciplines, but I can't think of any other discipline where argument is the main support for the truth of its conclusions.

Now, if I knew what actual proposal - if any - is on the table, I could perhaps make my comments relevant to it...  Anyway, it seems I won't write anything better than my comments on Kant from February 2007; maybe I should cut my losses. (Funny to see my old classmate Warburton being cited...) KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Hi KD (note you will be familiar with me under a different name, was Renamed user 4). I'm glad you've turned up.  To forestall the inevitable confusion I proposed above that 4 main points should be included in the introduction, namely (1) the etymology of 'philosophy' (2) something about it being clear/critical/logical thinking about fundamental questions (3) its main branches (4) its reliance on a priori reasoning, rather than empirical evidence. There is some sort of agreement about the first three, there is less about the fourth.  The sources you see directly above were in support of (4).   In addition, Snowded has proposed a quite different approach, which is not to have an own-words introduction at all, but a handful of sources in quotation marks.  I don't agree with this, because it has all the difficulties of an own-words introduction (namely which sources do you pick).  Very much grateful for any help here.   Best. Peter Damian (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The which sources you pick problem applies to your solution as well Peter ... --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to qualify that a bit Peter. I think there is agreement on the etymology.  I am less sure on the three branches.   metaphysics/ontology certainly, epistemology certainly and ethics/politics are there.  Logic is another matter; one might add rhetoric, but you can't confine philosophical reasoning to logic alone, metaphor is a part of human reasoning for example.  Assuming that a NPOV phrase is possible (and I am not convinced it is) then it might be better saying it is concerned with fundamental issues relating to the word and its nature, the way we know things, how we behave and issues of perception might be better (the latter then includes aesthetics). (those are not the right words but you get a sense of things.  Using argument (your suggestion below) may be a compromise.  However I think at the end of the day you are going to end up with two or three sentences that are potentially as controversial as those of Blackburn.  --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS And Nigel was a student of mine, to boot. Peter Damian (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PPS thinking about your point that philosophy is the only discipline where its claims are supported primarily by argument (emphasis on primarily, rather than argument), it strikes me we could bring this in to replace the disputed 'a priori' point. To say something is primarily supported by argument is very close to say that it is supported by a priori reasoning (using a priori in its original Aristotelian sense), and thus we would have. (1) the etymology of 'philosophy' (2) It is mainly concerned with 'fundamental' questions, though essentially unrestricted (3) it is distinctive in approaching these questions primarily by argument (4) its main branches are x y z.  How does that seem?  Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that "primarily by arguments" differentiates philosophy from other disciplines? Couldn't Euclid. e.g., claim that his theorems were supported entirely by arguments?  Similarly regards a priori? --Philogo 19:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did consciously think that emphasizing argument would help with the a priori point, which I too found problematic as previously stated. I am not expert in math or geometry, but I should have thought Euclid, like the average mathematician, established his points by demonstration. Certainly formal logicians use, or purport to use, demonstration, but I still say most philosophy proceeds by advancing arguments.

I agree that a very simple statement drafted by editors is preferable to cherry-picking quotes.19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * In reply to Phil's point: if we add 'interested in big/fundamental questions' to 'primarily by argument' you get pretty close to philosophy. That is to say, both mythology and mysticism are also interested in the big questions, but the differentia of philosophy is its exclusively logical and critical and argumentative approach to those questions.  On the other side, mathematics is interested in logical and argument bit, but doesn't address the fundamental questions.  As soon as you start asking what are numbers, or whether sets exist, or what really makes mathematical statements 'true', then you are into philosophy.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] or put it in set-theoretical terms. If A is the set of those interested in the really big questions, and B the set of those interested in an exclusively logical approach to their question set, then the intersection of A and B gives philosophers.  The intersection of A not B gives theologians.  And B not A gives the mathematicians.  OK that's very crude, but it is an answer to some equally crude objections, and it has a grain of truth.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Slowly but invetitably we move towards what characterises philosophy is not how it is carried out, but the sort of issues it addresses. Whatever methods  philosophy uses, were those same methods applied to a problem that was not a philosphical issue, say the angle sum of a triangle, then you would say that it is not philosophy.   And saying that the characteristic of a philosophical issue is its being   "big"  or "fundamental" or "basic" just will not do, will it? --Philogo 22:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is helpful to think about what being big/fundamental/basic means? Perhaps saying that an issue is big/fundamental/basic means that while other disciplines may also address it, they do not generally cover it in its entirety, or as broadly as philosophy does?  It can be difficult to differentiate between (say) sociology and the philosophy of sociology, at least for a non-expert, but that seems to be the crux of the complaint here.  70.92.74.178 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be very helpful to think about what being 'big/fundamental/basic' means. It help to think: what would make us decied that an issue were nt a philosophical issue after all.  Think of an issue where you are not sure whether it is or is not, and consider what would make you go one way or the other.  Could discoveries about how the brain works solve any philosophical problems concerning the nature of the mind, will,beliefs, moral culpabilty, the nature of beauty, the diffecne begween music and noise. (Look mum, rock 'n' roll is NOT noise, look at this electrocardiogram!)  If so would they still be philosophical problems and if not why not? --Philogo 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I agree with the point I think you are making. I would definitely agree there is a kind of problem that philosophy investigates, which science cannot address. E.g. what makes a brain state 'about' Julius Caesar?  I don't see how neurophysiology could possibly answer that question. But Phil, we are not here to be discussing our own opinions about philosophy.  Can't you get that?  We are writing an encyclopedia based on other sources.  If the sources say that black is white, that's what we put in the encyclopedia.  Got that? Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, Peter, but the fact is that nobody can come out with a citation to establish that there is an agreed or definition of philospohy (because there isn't one) so citing sources is proving fruitless. We are left with the choice of either (a) making no statement that says anything about what philosphy is (my firs suggestin whicih was rekected) (b) making such a statement backed up by a selected citation or citations (which has been criticised as OR or (c) saying what we appear to agree to be true, i.e. that there is no agreed defintion of philosophy, backed up by nurerous citatiosn to show it to be true) which was rejected. That leaves  (b) [or varioations thereof] and that will continue to be criticised as OR. You can write hear untill the end of time, like the fly in the fly-bottle, citing sources to support one view or the other about what clothes the Emperor's is wearing  but your selection will always be criticised as OR.  And we cannot fudge issues by using the words like 'big/fundamental/basic' if we cannot say what on earth we and/or ourcited sources, mean by it. Can't you get that? --Philogo 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See below from WP:NPOV. What you say is simply wrong.  You have to agree first to accepting the community-agreed process for resolving disagreements of this kind.  What you are saying is ignore policy.  There is a clear procedure for doing this, could you please agree to follow it.  Otherwise.  Peter Damian (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically on your option (b) above. You say it 'has been criticised as OR'.  It has, but that does not mean it is OR.  See WP:OR for the definition of OR.  You are still very much not getting this.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And let's take this very slowly. The part of the policy referenced below is addressing a specific case where 'multiple or conflicting perspectives exist'. Does that case exist here? It certainly does? OK, what does the policy say? it says 'each should be presented fairly'. I have emphasised the word 'should'. There is a moral imperative to treat each of the sources fairly. Note, it does not say, as you are suggesting, that we should just leave the introduction blank and do nothing because 'multiple or conflicting perspectives exist'. It certainly doesn't. And it gives some suggestions about how the different views should be presented. So, in answer that doing this constitutes OR in the Wikipedia sense, no it doesn't. I have quoted the relevant policy above in support of this. Is that slow enough? Peter Damian (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes sense to me, in line with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD, is that the lead state that there are varying definitions, and then a section in the article discuss the varying views and aspects of different definitions (to satisfy WP:NPOV. Not that "there are varying definitions" isn't the sort of definitive statement as "there is no agreed definition", which would really need a source for that actual statement. The definition of "philosophy" is too complex to really do any justice within the lead. SamBC(talk) 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that was how the article originally was, in fact.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its pretty close to what I proposed Peter, except that I wanted to cite those alternatives. Maybe we do that with some narrative thread?  Snowded (signed by User:Peter Damian - can you remember to sign your posts, thanks.  Peter Damian (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC))
 * The alternatives go in the article body, where they can be given space to do justice. IMO. SamBC(talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'm turning in for a drink, now. Do I get a sense that people are generally agreed with having a suitably general intro on the line of etymology, branches (logic is traditionally controversial, but this can be stated), something about 'big' questions, and about philosophy's approach using argument/criticism marks it out from, say mysticism or sitting cross-legged chanting (joke).  Then a (short, please) section outlining main areas of disagreement.  And some sources on philosophy of mind/materialism, please.  Peter Damian (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this different if at all from your proposals many words back as follows:


 * The etymology
 * Sometimes added that this is not helpful
 * The main 4 branches (logic, metaphysic, epistemology, ethics)
 * clear/critical/logical thinking about big/fundamental questions
 * No universal agreement about the precise definition
 * it does not rely on empirical evidence, nor on revelation or authority.

PS Try to avoid sounding condescending, Peter.--Philogo 23:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd endorse Philogo's last comment. As far as I am concerned you have agreement to attempt to draft something along those lines, but you do not have agreement as to the approach.  I'm going to wait and see if you can achieve a miracle and be the first person to summarise philosophy in its history without taking a POV.  What do you want a source on Philosophy of mind/materialism for?  You are not referencing anything there that I can see.  --Snowded (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A draft of the sort Peter proposes would not have to be a 'miracle' that is without POV (or OR), at least not in the sense of POV used in Wikipedia. To wit:


 * We do not need to come up with a definitive definition of philosophy. We do not need a definition everyone agrees with.  That is a strawman.  We need to draft a lede that reflects prevalent points of view, weighting them to indicate their significance, relying on verifiable (preferably secondary) sources. 271828182 (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes quite. I'm sorry if I am sounding condescending, but this point seems so obvious I am having to resort to explaining it in language normally used for three-year olds.  Peter Damian (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No Peter, you think that people who disagree with you are three year olds, its different and you frequently don't bother to read in context. --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Let's take the fundamental point of disagreement. "You do not have agreement as to the approach. " Duh. The approach I have outlined is policy. Where did you guys (meaning Phil and Snow) have agreement to an approach that is wholly inconsistent with policy? And when did I ever suggest an approach that was other than consistent. Again, sorry if this is sounding condescending, but the policy is VERY clear on this. Peter Damian (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, whenever you disagree with someone you say they are breaking Wikipedia policy. This is irritating and as you say very condescending.  I am suspending belief as to your ability to create a description that satisfies policy.  Pending that you do not have my agreement to your summary of your current attempt as I think its inadequate. --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On why I asked for a citation on modern philosophy of mind, it was because Snow made the valid point that some modern philosophers of mind don't agree with the traditional view that philosophy is a priori in the Aristotelian sense. Happy to incorporate something about this, but need a source. I was trying to meet you guys in the middle. Peter Damian (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] Found this from the Aquinas I was working on this morning. "just as the power of an imperfect body is strengthened by the neighborhood of a more perfect body --for instance, the less hot is made hotter by the presence of what is hotter; so the intellectual power of an inferior angel is strengthened by the superior angel turning to him: since in spiritual things, for one thing to turn to another, corresponds to neighborhood in corporeal things."  This nicely illustrates the way that philosophy does often 'rely' on empirical investigation.  Aquinas uses the example of physical heat to illustrate how angels can strengthen the intellectual powers of one another.  In that sense, he does 'rely' on facts in the real world.  But has he established the properties of the angels by means of scientific investigation and study of angels?  Of course not.  It's a thought experiment.  In that sense, he does not 'rely' on scientific observation or experiment.  It was all conducted from the comfort of his armchair, if he had an armchair.  Peter Damian (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't include a statement that Philosophy has to be a priori then there is no need of a citation. I don't see any point in saying "some people think it is, and some people think it isn't" as if you start down that route you will end up with an essay.  If you want modern references then Freeman is probably an exemplar, but there are a whole bunch of eliminative materialists who could be cited. --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Peter, whenever you disagree with someone you say they are breaking Wikipedia policy. " No you have got this the wrong way round. If someone breaks Wikipedia policy, then I disagree with them. Just read the policies quoted above, read what you yourself have written, and see whether they are consistent or not. Peter Damian (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] Indeed there are bits above where I actually quote the policy in bold, and you disagree. We have reached the point where you are saying Black is White.  Peter Damian (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit] Here's an example. On 8 June I say " The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each " which is a direct quote from the policy.  You then immediately opppose.  It really is like talking to three year olds.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one disagrees with the policy Peter, some of just don't think you are going to be able to write anything which achieves it, and your current version doesn't - hence the above comment. Patronising name calling will not move it forward.  --Snowded (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. You said above "As far as I am concerned you have agreement to attempt to draft something along those lines, but you do not have agreement as to the approach."  You specifically say it is not the draft you disagree with, it is the approach.  And here again it is the approach and the policy you oppose, nothing else.  This is trolling, and bad faith.  Now of course you are going to say I have quoted you out of context, i.e. the very words you have used have a different meaning in the context, i.e. the words "you do not have agreement as to the approach" mean, when you originally used them, that you were agreeing to my approach, but now, quoted out of context, mean the opposite.  This is an excellent way of arguing, I must remember that little manoeuvre.  Thus, if you quote my words "you are trolling" I will reply that the meaning of the words has changed by your quoting me out of context.  Madness.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And as a matter of fact my draft is perfectly consistent with policy. I have outlined different views about the nature of philosophy, supported by the sources I have given in Philosophy/Quotations.  You are going to object that other sources disagree. Very well then provide the sources.  I will be perfectly reasonable, so long as you do.  Peter Damian (talk)

11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter I advised you to try to not sound condescending, but I do not think you are trying very hard. With the greatest of respect some of your remarks do not read like talking to a three year old, but by a three year old. I am sure that there is a Wiki policy against such remarks which show no respect for other editors’ views, and in any case do absolutely nothing whatsoever to make a useful contribution to the discussion. Please practice what you pretend to preach and respect Wiki policy and your fellow editors who manage to advance views no less considered than your own and with reasonable arguments instead of petulance. I hope this is polite and clear: we want to hear your views but given calmly, politely and maturely. --Philogo 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No I have really f---ing lost it. Stop trolling.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look we have a policy. Do you agree with it or not?  If not, f--- off.  If you do, provide sources for your claims.  It is very f---ing simple.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [trying to stay reasonable] Look I am just pleading with you guys to provide sources for your views. Why is this so difficult? Peter Damian (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit] Snowded writes "What do you want a source on Philosophy of mind/materialism for?" This is immediately after he has claimed that the introduction is POV because there is no reference to modern views on the philosophy of mind. This is obvious and blatant trolling.  It is absolutely impossible to have a reasonable argument with people who constantly shift ground, who constantly make objections with no basis in sources, who refuse to provide sources on the grounds it is impossible to meet agreement, who demand sources then deny having demanded them, who reply to any objection that they are 'quoted out of context' as though words magically change their meaning outside of any context but the quoted one.... Peter Damian (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter does not appear to agree with, or be capable of complying with, the policies which proscribe childish remarks such as the above. See top of this page: Be polite, No personal attacks, Assume good faith.--Philogo 12:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter you are not being reasonable you are being intemperate. The above quote clearly illustrates that you are simply not reading what people said.  I did not advocate the inclusion of a phrase about philosophy of mind, I suggested removing the a priori assumption.  For that reason I asked you why you needed the citation but gave you a reference anyway to Freeman.  I have quoted sources for any view I have advocated.  Please stop this intemperate assumption of bad faith and name calling which is in clear breech of policy.  Some of you above comments fail to acknowledge that I said I would suspend belief as to your capability to produce a balanced statement.  Your current version fails on that, I am waiting to see your next, I don;t think you will manage it, but lets see.  So please stop name calling, calm down and lets see if we can move forward.  It would also be nice if you stopped editing this page from time to time to let other people get a word in edgeways. --Snowded (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise, I lost my temper. I shall try and keep it. In return, would you agree to the approach I outlined above, and which was summarised by 271828182?  Peter Damian (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Logically either (a) this represents policy, or (b) it does not. If you think (a), then will you agree to this approach? If (b) then explain why you do not think it represents policy. What alternative is there? Peter Damian (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also you did say "As far as I am concerned you have agreement to attempt to draft something along those lines, but you do not have agreement as to the approach." Peter Damian (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have suspended belief to see if you can come up with something. I agree there is no need to come up with a definitive definition.   A balanced summary at the start (following your quotation) would be ideal if it can be achieved. I think this is what Blackburn and others have attempted without success hence my earlier (currently suspended) suggestion that we quote a few.  Given that several editors think a summary is possible I am prepared to go along with it for the moment.  Hence my engagement on the issue of a prior.   I suggest you start a new section with what you think is current agreed or controversial and see where we go from there. --Snowded (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter does agree undonditionally to comply with the Wiki policies at the top of this page: Be polite, No personal attacks, Assume good faith. He only agrees to comply if we agree to the approach he outlines above.  --Philogo 12:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets all assume good faith and move forwards --Snowded (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes please.--Philogo 12:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)