Talk:Philosophy/Archive 29

Logic vs. empiricism
I'd be happy to see an acknowledgement that inquiries made into the general and fundamental problems mentioned in the opening definition are logical rather than empirical. That's the main difference between philosophy and non-formal sciences. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In what aspects does philosophy fail in qualifying as a formal science?
Maybe philosophy is more of an art than a science. Which of the two are philosophers closer to being: scientists or artists? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you describe your comment as formal science or an artistic statement? TFD (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you're doing there. I'm trying to gain a holistic image of all branches of study by throwing each into either of two categories: the logical and the empirical. The former could be made synonymous with formal sciences—if only philosophy fitted into it.
 * To actually answer your question, I think these comments might, if you stretch it hard enough, be recognized as having traits of both. EIN (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think philosophy can be categorized into the two, because it evaluates the other types of knowledge. Relgion cannot fit the two types either.  TFD (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should just break the logical branch of study into these two: (1) formal sciences and descriptive philosophy and (2) ethical philosophy. I classify religion not as a branch of study, but as a branch of culture, along with customs, etiquette, art, entertainment and mass media. Theology fits under philosophy, but it goes on into anthropology, which is a social science, empirical. Add the business world and the world of politics, and these are all of society's functions. EIN (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not how mainstream sources see it. Philosophers evaluate the knowledge claims of formal sciences as well as every other type of study.  TFD (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article lump ethics and political philosophy into a single section?
Sure, they're related—very—but there's personal ethics and there's collective ethics. Political philosophy and jurisprudence are branches of the latter. EIN (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a traditional lumping, and as you say, they are inter-connected. In fact you can not really think much about one without the other. So putting them in one section seems no problem. Or are you saying that the article makes no distinction between them at all, or somehow confuses them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not at all, I'm not making accusations of anything of the sort, but it's a very broad branch and it is the longest subsection in the section “Areas of inquiry,” so I think that there would be no problem dividing it or splitting some of it into a sub-subsection if that was desirable. Another thing that might be useful to note is that even though ethics is defined as dealing with morality in general, ethicists predominantly prefer to turn their gazes to collective morality, of which political philosophy is of course a very big part. Anyway, I have no plans of editing this article, so don't be led into feeling as if you're competing for something. EIN (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I had read today someone naming what s/he considered the main branches of philosophy, with ethics being separate from political philosophy, so that's probably why I noticed this issue in the first place. It's not a big deal really. EIN (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

wider use of the term 'philosophy'
i'm not a native english speaker and wonder if someone might consider a small paragraph in this lemma about a wider use of the term philosophy. example:


 * Confinement Philosophy

... in a classified, wikileaked document about military prisoners -. every political party has a "philosophy" which is merely a set of more or less pragmatic rules and wishes. i recently heard a plumber talk about his philosophy how to lay out tubes and pipes in a house. Maximilian (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps worth mentioning this derived meaning. A similar thing happens with some other philosophical words such as reason and nous, and I do think readers would want to know this. I have added a short sentence in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * great. i added a few lines (mainly in the subnotes) in the german wiki. Maximilian (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

no personal attacks
this includes attacks of peoples religion and race. Wikipedia is a fair, neutrl and understanding site that deals in facts and not petty insults. thank you.152.91.9.153 (talk)

I see no personal attacks in this article, could you please be more specific? I'd love to help establish NPOV if you point out these personal attacks. Zer0n888 (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I think the opening sentence in its current state is too ambiguous and also, only referenced by one, basically unknown introduction book. I think the lead sentence would be more accurate, less ambiguous, and more authoritative by using the reference Anthony Quinton, in T. Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 666... As it stands, the lead sentence is basically saying "Philosophy is the study of everything". Voyaging talk 18:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence has been the subject of much debate--it's proven very difficult to get people to agree on what phil. is, let alone what the lede should say about it. The current version enjoys consensus and stability. That doesn't mean it can't be looked at again, but be aware that it's likely to generate much debate. JJL (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More debate would be good, because the agreed upon version as of now is, in my opinion, very weak, barely sourced, and in disagreement with basically any academic definition of philosophy. Voyaging talk 19:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to an archived discussion of "Ten Textbook Definitions of Philosophy". It may or may not help shine a light on previous reasons for what the lede definition should be. Matt (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the list of areas considered in phil. is motivated by []. This might not occur in a textbook, where the author assumes he has many chapters in which to develop the material, or in a dictionary, which might have less space than WP:LEDE suggests. What is the Oxford defn. you're suggesting? JJL (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. " Obviously should be more concise. So in my opinion the lead sentence should reflect first the three main areas (reality, knowledge, and values) and also make mention of the methodology. Voyaging talk 00:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually the reference for the second sentence, and appears in full in the notes: []. (It's also at Outline of philosophy and at Outline of the humanities.) So, the lede is intended to reflect that idea, rephrased and combined with other sources. JJL (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue I find, though, is that it only mentions the fact that the reference explains the method of rational argument. It does not mention what philosophy actually studies. "General and fundamental" problems, I think, is far too ambiguous, and the specifics that come after don't do much to cure the problem. Voyaging talk 18:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current lede looks like a pretty straightforward rewrite of that reference. In addition to mentioning rational argument, it does list the same three topics (as well as some others), and I see no huge gulf between "general nature of the world" and "general and fundamental problems."  So I'm not sure what big change is being proposed.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I take issue with two aspects of the opening sentences: Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It's true that philosophy studies fundamental problems of reality, existence, mind, and language.   And sometimes it does so with a systematic, critical approach and rational argument.  But the intro suggests that philosophy is "distinguished" in this approach, as compared to "other ways".  This is partly true.  Other fields of study such as science and linguistics also study those fundamentals with a systematic, critical, and rational approach.  Thus, philosophy may not be particularly distinguished.
 * 2) To the first point, these "other ways" referred to are not listed, or at least easily found by the reader.  What is philosophy distinct from in its systematic, critical, rational approach?  Science?  Religion?  Mythology?  Probably some of these.  The reader may benefit from examples of non-philosophical, "other ways" to study fundamental problems. I didn't find these in the article.


 * Its properly referenced and has been extensively debated in the past. You may have a point on 'distinguished' and 'characterised' might be better.  On the second point I think you have to find a source which is reliable and relevant and discusses the point Snowded  TALK 06:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Topics of Contemporary Philosophy
I've deleted this section (twice now) as it is not based on a third party source. Instead its original research and/or synthesis from some book lists and web sites. I know of no source which would make a definitive statement on the subject anyway Snowded  TALK 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting into an edit war but i have tagged the section which has been inserted again by our edit warrior. The Searle quote is to a paper of considerable value but which does not represent a source which surveys the field of contemporary philosophy.  It is one philosophers's opinion and very much linked to its consideration of science and philosophy.  This new section needs to be deleted  Snowded  TALK 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First there is no edit war. I find your approach agressive and hostile and I'd prefer not to read so many imperatives on my talkpage. I have the feeling that you have an ideological stand point that a list of contemporary topics should not exist and should not be included on this article. With that attitude, I doubt there is anything an editor could do to satisfy your stance. You really ought to relax and calm down before considering this an edit war to begin with. It's not. I've conceded two of your points already. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please (i) stop making personal attacks and some rather silly assumptions, (ii) respect WP:BRD and (ii) address the points made above.  Snowded  TALK 19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never encountered anyone whose messages were so disagreeable and whose attitude was so confrontational, who states their opinions as fact and who harasses other users. Never. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then take it to ANI if you think you have a case but you might be surprised at the result.  All you have to do is engage on the talk page when you are reverted, not edit war and make various comments about other editors rather than addressing the content issue.  WP:BRD is there for a purpose and its not to difficult to follow  Snowded  TALK 21:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowded's position on whether the material should be included, but I also agree with Shabidoo that Snowded would have done well to make his point in a less confrontational manner.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If an editor does not respect WP:BRD then s/he must expect a 3rr warning. Rather than edit war I tagged the section and made the content argument here and on Shabidoo's talk page.  Actually I think I've been fairly mild given some of the imputations as to my motives above and the complete failure to respond to the arguments on content.  If there is a specific comment you are concerned about Maunus point it out   Snowded  TALK 21:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be productive to discuss this further. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to help close the case, while hoping to make the world better and all that, I will note that I agree with Maunus on all three points: Snowded's judgement on this edit OK, Shabidoo's judgement of Snowded's style not wrong either, and thirdly it does not seem worth spending too much time on this particular case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was over, but if you want to keep it open by those comments feel free. At no point does Shabidoo engage on the talk page on the content issue,  Instead Shabidoo ignores WP:BRD twice and then makes various allegations as to my motives here.  Its the pattern of a disruptive editor.  As I said to Maunus Andrew, if there is something specific then tell me but general comments are unhelpful.  Also please note that Shabidoo is not a newbe but an editor of over two years standing; I checked that before I placed the 3rr warning on their user page  Snowded  TALK 06:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No wonder people find Wikipedia cold and unfriendly, and editors confrontational, judgmental, and narrowly-focused on their own agendas and delicate egos. Keep the stereotypes alive, Snowded! 68.52.185.12 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your third edit, or at least the third under that IP. Pull the other one its got bells on it  Snowded  TALK 06:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

position of etymology section
IIRC this was discussed before, but having just browsed through the article I feel that because section 1 is so long, section 2 (etymology) is now too far from the beginning. Etymology is always a side issue, so I feel it should be near the beginning or deleted? (Or maybe even just merged into the lead completely?) Personally I think the etymology of philosophy is worth mentioning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Put it directly after the lede? Snowded  TALK 11:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sound right to me, because actually I notice it covers quite different information to the basic etymology whichnis in the lede. In fact maybe it needs a differnent title such "Historical use ofbthe term"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe just incorporate the text into the lede? Snowded TALK 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That was what I was thinking at first, but it seems to go pretty far into details (I think interesting ones) for a lede? Please have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6] Its first use has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras,[16] based on a passage in a lost work of Herakleides Pontikos, a disciple of Aristotle. "Philosopher" was understood as a word which contrasted with "sophist" (from sophoi). Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and not professionals. In more casual current day use the "philosophy" of a particular person can refer to the beliefs held by that person.

At the end of the opening Snowded TALK 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that proposal. In any case it seems uncontroversial compared to the current version to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012
Mention that by repeatedly clicking on the first link in the body of any wikipedia article you end up at the philosophy article.

Fucker1234asdf (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No need to add that the article, even if it were true. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is true that it has worked for me every time, Not very professional to add it to the article, I'm not advocating it. But I think it says something about Philosophy the subject, not just the Wikipedia page, that so much links here.70.102.48.34 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)DO

It's just a sign of proper generalization and linking, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.80.230 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is almost always true, but that isn't within the scope of this article. Captain cornflakes (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What is philosophy?
The lead sentence of philosophy introduces the topic with:
 * "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

This description would seem to encompass just about everything. This sentence is followed by two citations providing definitions:
 * "Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate, abstract and very general. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose" Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans


 * "The aim of philosophical inquiry is to gain insight into questions about knowledge, truth, reason, reality, meaning, mind, and value."  A.C. Grayling

The first definition emphasizes the abstractness of the discipline; the second is vague beyond all comprehension. Neither really helps to differentiate philosophy from the sciences. To help discuss this difference, suppose we look at the question of Free will both as a philosophical and as a scientific question.

As a scientific question, the study of free will involves determining whether or not neurological events related to mental processes can explain the sensation we all share that we are free to make up our own minds, at least on occasion. Its methods consist of looking at things like PET scans, and determining (for example) that addiction is related to dopamine production and its effects upon the brain's reward system. It may search to compare brain function at a neurological level between people receiving psychological counseling and those who do not.

How does philosophy look at this issue? The purpose of a philosophical analysis is not to replicate the scientific approach, but to supplement it. For example, philosophers can raise the issue of the Hard problem of consciousness, of qualia, and by considering hypothetical situations like the brain in a vat can cast some light upon the applicability of neurological methods to this problem. Philosophers also can examine possible definitions of free will and how they relate to hypothetical functionings of the Universe.

In no case do philosophers consider that their goal consists of validating particular experimental results. Rather, like mathematics, philosophy deals with definitions, axioms and their cross-connections. Whether a particular philosophical analysis has application to the real world and can be verified by scientific means is a matter for science: the philosopher simply provides a web of meanings and their relations that may or may not apply. The philosopher attempts to examine more deeply the preconceptions of the scientific approach to see whether it is embedded in a more profound matrix, or if in fact, with the progress of science it can (in principle) lay claim to every aspect of the Universe.

I find that both the introduction to philosophy provided here, and also in many philosophical articles on particular subjects, there is a tendency to digress into scientific subjects as though they were essential to the philosophical undertaking. The distinction between these two activities is inadequately observed.

In order to revise the various articles along these lines, it is important that the field of philosophy be introduced more carefully in Philosophy, distinguishing its methods and goals from those of the empirical sciences, so this article can be used to point out this distinction in other articles. Brews ohare (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your criticism of the first sentence is not really taking account of the second sentence? Anyway, I strongly disagree with your remark that philosophy has any kind of "purpose" of supplementing science. Natural science (what you call science) is a branch of philosophy, or if you agree with Francis Bacon, it is the most pure philosophy. But in any case philosophy does not bound itself, and that is pretty much what defines it. Consider all the words you use such as deep and profound, these are all metaphors for something which does not have bounds, right? Philosophy is questioning without a boundary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You do not address a difference between philosophy and empirical science, but suggest philosophy includes science, knowing no bounds. That makes philosophers mere dilettantes when they cross into science, having only a poor grasp of its theories and their bases, and bringing nothing in the way of special expertise to their intrusion. I do not think that to be the case: if they wish to comment upon science it is not as scientific specialists but as experts in a different realm; allowing themselves to range beyond the empirical sciences and to ask questions that empirical science cannot address because of its methodology based on established fact.
 * Can you see no difference in subject, goals or methods? Brews ohare (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of study of free will is somewhat restricted to a narrow school of thought - both in neuro-science and in philosophy. There is an increasing fusion between Philosophy of Mind, Neuro-science and aspects of Psychology at the moment.  Making a dichotomy between the methods of philosophy and those of natural science is also naive and ignores a large body of literature and thought from scientists, Philosophers and the many people who are both.  You may think Grayling  " vague beyond all comprehension" but he represents a more reliable source than your opinions.    Snowded  TALK 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Ever notice that scientists can comment on philosophical issues (as did Hawking, Schrodinger, and Bohr) but the philosophers all sneer at their lack of philosophical background? And likewise, the philosophers venture into the meaning of physics, conjecturing about uncertainty and relativity, and are sniffed at by the scientists as dilettantes. Apparently, just because scientists and philosophers dilly-dally in each others provinces, that doesn't mean the subjects have a common goal or share expertise. The fusion of Neuroscience and Psychology is a recognition that science informs both (for example, in the areas of addiction and long-term depression), while the Philosophy of mind remains philosophy, and remains outside neuroscience. For instance:
 * ""Epistemically, the mind is determined by mental states, which are accessible in First-Person Perspective. In contrast, the brain, as characterized by neuronal states, can be accessed in Third-Person Perspective. The Third-Person Perspective focuses on other persons and thus on the neuronal states of others' brain while excluding the own brain. In contrast, the First-Person Perspective could potentially provide epistemic access to own brain...However, the First-Person Perspective provides access only to the own mental states but not to the own brain and its neuronal states."[1]"

- Georg Northoff


 * [1]


 * Brews ohare (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Science follows the scientific method and is concerned with developing theories that can be tested, not explaining reality etc. In the case of free will, while science can develop theories that predict human behavior, it cannot address the issue of free will.  Of course scientists, whether Richard Dawkins or intelligent design scientists, may make philosophical statements while philosophers may draw conclusions based on empirical science.  TFD (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Brews, I'm sorry but I don't buy your various dichotomies, not your scientism (in the Midgely sense of the word). There are different views on this subject, you are asserting one.  Please respect/learn that there are other positions.  If you have a  concrete, references proposal to change the article which is not original research or synthesis then make it and we can discuss.  Otherwise you are wasting people's time.   Snowded  TALK 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)   Snowded  TALK 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Four Deuces: It would seem that we are in agreement that science and philosphy are different, although I am unsure that you agree that we agree. Brews ohare (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Snowded: Apparently you are not interested in actual engagement over this issue of whether the two disciplines are different, but wish simply to assert that philosophy encompasses science. Of course there are lots of opinions, especially on WP, and I am just testing the water. Brews ohare (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You really like either/or statements don't you. Please don't make assumptions that judge other editors opinions as falling within your own paradigms, it generally creates confusion.  As I said if you have a proposal for change which is properly referenced fine, otherwise the talk page (per wikipedia policy) is not a place for general discussion of the subject.  Snowded  TALK 21:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @Brews, when scientists comment on philosophy in an challenging way then I guess they are broadening their view and being philosophical right? Words like philosophy and science are not defined by university degrees or areas of technical proficiency. That's the point. These are both ways of living and asking questions. Many of the greatest scientists were quite obviously philosophers also, and that is the normal way that people speak and write about this subject. Your approach is not the normal way. You are re-defining words that have widely accepted meanings that do not match your preferences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Historically, philosophers wrote about all branches of knowledge which was referred to as philosophy, hence the term "natural philosophy". But generally the term philosophy refers to metaphysics, theory of knowledge, ethics, logic, etc., which is the subject of this article.  But what does that have to do with the discussion thread?  TFD (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew Lancaster: You argue that the everyday meaning of philosophy is so broad as to include everything people talk about, and does not fit a narrower definition. That introduces a very broad subject: 'What is a WP article for?' and 'To whom is a WP article addressed?' I suspect there are no short answers and no unanimity about these issues. All I want to do is what is described by The Four Deuces above, namely, to point out in the article Philosophy that philosophy is about metaphysics, not about physics or other empirical sciences. So, for example, a discussion by Stephen Hawking about Model-dependent realism is metaphysics, not physics. The quote from Northoff above suggests certain mental phenomena, by their very nature, escape the scientific method based upon the detached observer. That is metaphysics, and discusses the logic (not the empirical facts) behind why neuroscience may be inherently incapable of explaining certain mental phenomena. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, philosophy pretty much by definition respects no boundaries of subject matter. It is defined more by the way it acts, than the object of its attention. There is certainly no consensus for saying that philosophy is limited to metaphysical subjects or logic (two different things) and indeed I am finding it hard to imagine you have read much philosophy? Anyway, you are making no concrete proposals, citing no sources, and apparently only making these assertions as a way to argue indirectly for something more WP:FRINGE about neuroscience which I think is even further from any consensus. This discussion is verging on being a forum discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew: It would seem that you want a specific proposal. I'll try to put one together. It will not suggest that philosophy is limited to metaphysics, of course, but will try to point out that in areas where philosophy borders on science, as in metaphysics, it differs from science, apparently a view you disagree with. Brews ohare (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Physicists do not pretend that their laws describe reality, merely that they can predict events. So v1 + v2 = approx. v1+2 at low speeds but that is not a metaphysical statement about time and space.  TFD (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead mistake / discrepancy
The sentence "Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and not professionals." doesn't seem to me to be right, seeing as there are many examples of 'professional philosophers' (or at least people who earn a salary by doing philosophy) including teachers, writers and university professors.

Should the sentence read "whereas philosophers were "lovers of wisdom" and not professionals"? If so, can it pleased be changed? If it's not considered a mistake of that kind, then I fundamentally disagree with it and would like to propose it be amended or removed. Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right, it should be past tense. I will fix. It could be argued that it remains true in a deeper way, and indeed it is often argued, but that would just be confusing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy
There is an article on WP called metaphilosophy, and a much more open-minded and substantial article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-reviewed journal; see Contemporary Metaphilosophy. I had proposed adding the sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction:


 * Answering the questions: What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? is the domain of metaphilosophy.[1]
 * [1]

The whole idea of metaphilosophy is pooh-poohed by Snowded:
 * "Also the whole idea that 'Metaphilosophy' is agreed is a nonsense, it is used by some philosophers but rejected by others." Snowded  TALK 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a real objection to adding this sentence to the introduction? This use of the prefix meta like this to mean something like "discussion of" or "about..." is very common: for example, see the Wiki articles Meta and Metatheory. Brews ohare (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I worry about the attention you pay to what people say. The key phrase in that quote is that Metaphilosophy as a concept is AGREED within philosophy in the same way that say Epistimology is used.  It isn't.  It's used by some not by others.  Find some quality third party references and we can look at it.   I'd also advise against picking up on phrases that appear to agree with your particular PoV, better to focus on third party sources.   Snowded  TALK 08:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The point indeed is not whether Snowded disagrees with something called Metaphilosophy being meaningfully distinct from philosophy, but whether such disagreement is mainstream or not, and obviously it is. Your open minded sourcing above is fine for proving the existence of authors who do think the term is meaningful, but you need much more than that for changing the lead of the Philosophy article in order to limit Philosophy like you propose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Andrew: Can you explain to me how introducing the subject of the "philosophy of philosophy" has the effect of limiting philosophy? Is the idea that because of this topic it is no longer possible for 'philosophy' to discuss itself? Of course that is not the case; it just means that any such discussion can be placed in the context of such discussions, where it will be compared with other such discussions. Take a look at Contemporary Metaphilosophy, where exactly that is done. Brews ohare (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Brews this was discussed in the previous talk section, which is where you made your first proposal to put metaphilosophy in the lead. Why ask me to explain again? If you have a modification to your original proposal I think it is up to you to explain. But keep in mind that solving the concern about limiting philosophy is only one thing to consider, because this is a lead. There needs to be some good reason to include such a change of subject away from the article's subject, right in the opening lines. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew: You say the inclusion of this link to metaphilosophy was already discussed. But all you have said yourself is:
 * "Philosophy definitely does not ask questions about what philosophy is or should be. Instead there is a thing called metaphilosophy which does this."

This remark of yours is in flat contradiction to Williamson: ""The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is...""

- Timothy Williamson

This position agrees with the objection of Snowded, quoted above, who said:
 * ""Also the whole idea that 'Metaphilosophy' is agreed is a nonsense, it is used by some philosophers but rejected by others."

Of course, Snowded has simply decided to align himself with this view, which is not universal, as illustrated by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article Contemporary Metaphilosophy, and has launched an effort to consolidate Metaphilosophy with Philosophy itself.

Your additional remark, that regardless of whatever can be said in support of this link:
 * "There needs to be some good reason to include such a change of subject away from the article's subject, right in the opening lines."

strikes me as a peculiar notion of what is the usual procedure in introducing a subject, namely saying what it is about. As Contemporary Metaphilosophy says, metaphilosophy is aimed at "Answering the questions: What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? What could be more likely to be on the reader's mind when introducing the subject of Philosophy?

These comments by yourself and Snowded, yours being completely wrong according to Snowded, hardly constitute a discussion. A discussion is what I wish to open in this thread. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Brews, first your quotation of me above is a misreading. I was trying to summarize how I read the implications of your proposals to change the lead. (I asked you to confirm if I was getting the right message.) I definitely disagree with anything that will imply that philosophy about philosophy is not philosophy.
 * Second, even if we find a wording that avoids the above problem, your contention that it is peculiar to demand a good reason to change subject away from the article's subject, right in the opening lines, is also hard to follow, and perhaps also based on a misreading? The demand seems pretty straightforward to me, and also a very common issue on many WP article. For example there is always a tendency for people to want to put digressions about abiogenesis into the lead of the Evolution article. Everyone wants to squash all their favourite interesting RELATED subjects into the leads of important articles.
 * Indeed the two problems are related. Trying to force a digression about abiogenesis into the lead of the Evolution article is what implies to any normal reader that the two subjects are linked in their core, and so the second problem above is possibly what is giving the impression which leads to the first problem.
 * To me it seems like Metaphilosophy could probably be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've suggested its a paragraph somewhere in this article but that the article of that name should simply be merged. It does not belong in the lede.   Bews would you PLEASE stop misrepresenting other editors positions, its becoming disruptive.  My point is that the term is not agreed as a universal in the way that say epistemology is and therefore it does not belong in the lede.  I have not said that the term or the idea is nonsense.  Please read what people say rather that reacting   Snowded  TALK 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

@Andrew Lancaster: If I put aside the noun metaphilosophy and simply pose the two questions: What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done?, is it your position that these two questions are irrelevant to an introduction to an article titled Philosophy and requires "a good reason to change subject away from the article's subject"? If your answer is "Such questions are entirely pertinent to defining the subject of philosophy" then I'd say its hard to escape that a link to Metaphilosophy is in order as that is the definition of this subject. If your answer is "The question of What is philosophy? is completely irrelevant to the introduction to the article Philosophy", then I find your stance incomprehensible. Perhaps you can explain your position more clearly?

@Snowded: Your argument, if you will allow me to state it as I understand it, is that the use of the term metaphilosophy is not widespread at the moment, making it different from terms like ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics. Therefore, its mention in the introductory sentences is misleading to the reader, suggesting a status for metaphilosophy that it has as yet failed to establish. To this position I'd argue that unlike the established terms ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, unlike these established terms the field of metaphilosophy happens to be directly concerned with the entire subject of philosophy and what distinguishes this field from among the many other branches of human knowledge. By virtue of this subject matter, and its very direct bearing upon the subject What is philosophy?, metaphilosophy deserves mention in the lead as a service to the reader who wishes to explore further what distinguishes philosophy among the disciplines. I think we can agree that this question: What distinguishes philosophy among the disciplines? is distinct from specific branches of philosophy like ontology, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, which may occasionally digress to discuss metaphilosophy, but have a primary purpose devoted to more particular issues.

Brews ohare (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that Metaphilosophy does not merits special mention in the lead. I don't think that most introductions to philosophy give a special mention to metaphilosophy as a branch of philosophy, rather reflexivity is obviously included as a part of the philosophical project. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus: Perhaps you did not mean to put a double negative in your comment? Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected, thanks for noticing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Brews, your question to me is very indirect. Are you proposing to mention that philosophy asks what philosophy is in the lead? Or are you proposing to make sure there is a mention of metaphilosophy? Anyway, I see no point mentioning either in the lead. If we say philosophy asks questions, then we are not far from philosophy asking what it itself is. If we are to mention a few major types of topic for questioning, the ones mentioned, which are all far more well known and accepted than metaphilosophy, all also head towards this question. (So I disagree with you that philosophy questioning itself is not a classic topic in epistemology, ethics, and ontology. It clearly is.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maunus: If you look at the section Metaphilosophy you will find that indeed you are right that some philosophers consider that philosophy can study itself. That is possibly different from saying (say) science can study itself, because the methodology of science, being based upon experimental verification, is not well-suited to the study of the methodology itself. For example, it has been suggested that there are various criteria satisfied by a 'good' scientific theory, and the analysis of these criteria is arguably not science (although it has been suggested that because science using these criteria has been successful, so the criteria have validity). On that basis one might suggest (as I am pretty sure Snowded would suggest) that metaphilosophy is not a distinct field because it uses much the same methods as philosophy itself. However, instead of thinking of metaphilosophy as a distinct field, one could think of it as the 'philosophy of philosophy' as suggested by Williamson:
 * ""The philosophy of philosophy is automatically part of philosophy, just as the philosophy of anything else is...""

- Timothy Williamson


 * I argue that the 'philosophy of philosophy' is well suited to the lead of the article Philosophy because it discusses the natural question in the mind of a reader: What distinguishes philosophy from among other disciplines?. Whether other articles on philosophy directly mention metaphilosophy or not, this question is very much suited to the lead of the article philosophy, directly addressing a question that many readers quite naturally will have in mind. Inasmuch as WP has an article on this subject, it should be linked as an aid to the reader, whatever the 'cognoscenti' may think of the specific terminology: metaphilosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that question is well referenced and well sourced in the current lead. Why would we pick up on a phrase in recent use that is itself disputed by major philosophers in so far as it has any currency? Snowded  TALK 08:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although some philosophers have indicated a preference for the term philosophy of philosophy because (I suppose) the methodology of philosophy of philosophy is similar to that of philospohy itself, it is hardly the case that the term is not used. The Google book search Metaphilosophy produces 39,400 hits, including such titles as "Wittgenstien's Metaphilosophy", "Studies in Metaphilosophy", "Models of metaphilosophy", "An introduction to metaphilosophy", and so on.
 * As the WP articles Meta and Metatheory point out, it is common English to use "meta" to mean "about ...". This displeasure of yours, Snowded, over this simple term, is simply one view, and cannot be imposed upon the entire subject and all its contributors (whether they explicitly mention they are doing 'philosophy of philosophy' or not).


 * It is simply a normal WP practice to link a topic like Philosophy to the appropriate related WP topics, particularly when that topic, Metaphilosophy, is devoted especially and entirely to the subject : What is philosophy?. Brews ohare (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source which says that it is well established Brews. A google count is not a source its original research.  I think you can use the term somewhere in the body of the article - no objection to that but it does not belong in the lede without much better sourcing.  Snowded  TALK 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A failure to respond, eh? Does one have to find a source that says philosophy is a well-established term? Probably the existence of many books on the subject is a sufficient evidence. That what is done [here for metaphilosophy. And, as pointed out, linking to the article where What is philosophy? is the entire subject is appropriate. [[User:Brews ohare|Brews ohare]] (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Read what I said Brews, I'm getting very tired of having to try and teach you the basics of editing Snowded  TALK 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded, you haven't tried to 'teach' anything: you simply refuse to address argument and prefer this kind of stuff & nonsense. Metaphilosophy is part of the title of many published books: fact. It discusses the question What is philosophy?: fact. The use of 'meta' in metaphilosophy is in keeping with standard English practice as described in Meta and Metatheory: fact. Many philosophers use the term 'metaphilosophy': fact. There is an entire article Contemporary Metaphilosophy on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: fact. Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a four paragraph article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which uses Metaphilosophy in its title fact. An editor using a google scholar list to support a proposition is original research and/or synthesis fact.  Even if your interpretation were right (which it isn't) then it would not be sufficient to use it in the lede.  Now witter away as you will and make what empty threats you want about taking me to ANI (I would so love you to do that), but until some other editors support your position you are in a minority of one fact. And (I just checked) you have a history of troublesome editing as evidenced by this this block log fact.    Snowded  TALK 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy article
Brews appears to have transferred his earlier campaign to the above article. Some more editors would be appreciated. Snowded TALK 15:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to know I am running a 'campaign', eh? What, exactly, is the objective of that 'campaign'? Brews ohare (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did wonder at the time Snowded  TALK 16:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's 'facts'
Here is Snowded's paragraph supporting his view that 'metaphilosophy' is a non-subject:


 * "There is a four paragraph article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which uses Metaphilosophy in its title fact. An editor using a google scholar list to support a proposition is original research and/or synthesis fact.  Even if your interpretation were right (which it isn't) then it would not be sufficient to use it in the lede.  Now witter away as you will and make what empty threats you want about taking me to ANI (I would so love you to do that), but until some other editors support your position you are in a minority of one fact. And (I just checked) you have a history of troublesome editing as evidenced by this this block log fact."    Snowded  TALK 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Below I will assess these 'facts':

1. "There is a four paragraph article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which uses Metaphilosophy in its title fact."
 * The article in question is Contemporary Metaphilosophy by Nicholas Joll in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosohpy, an often cited peer-reviewed on-line journal. It is a 110,000 word article with 181 scholarly references. Snowded's attempt to denigrate this work as a "four paragraph" article is bunk.

2. "An editor using a google scholar list to support a proposition is original research and/or synthesis fact."
 * The Google Books search I made was to identify that there are numerous published works using Metaphilosophy in their title and even more that discuss metaphilosophy: about 39,500 hits altogether. That is not "original research", no claim is made as to its accuracy. There may be more such items out there, but everyone will agree that the linked occurrences in published books exist and can be counted. I picked out from this search a few specific titles containing the word 'metaphilosophy', and linked them to show that indeed the use of 'metaphilosophy' occurs in the title of some philosophical works.

3. "Now witter away as you will and make what empty threats you want about taking me to ANI (I would so love you to do that), but until some other editors support your position you are in a minority of one fact. And (I just checked) you have a history of troublesome editing."
 * A clear example of using personal innuendo to support the ridiculous, where no reasonable argument can be found.

It is unfortunate that Snowded has come to this pass, but he hasn't a leg to stand on. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh my God, legless as a result of a 'Brew". Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.   Snowded  TALK 14:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I respect you as an editor, but when you or I make a mistake, as in the length of a particular article, it is best to apologize sincerely, not sarcastically. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The original article referenced was four paragraphs Rick. If there is a new fine I'll happily look at it.  But I am finding it increasingly difficult to take Brews seriously.  He misrepresents what people say, ignores responses etc. etc. I'm pretty tolerant of personal attacks but if Brew thinks I should be taken to ANI (check out the posting) then he should have the guts to do it.    Snowded  TALK 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I skimmed the link. The point I made some time ago about original research and synthesis stands.  The article Brews references is not about metaphilosophy, it uses the term to provide an overview of different philosophical approaches.  So its enough to establish that the word is in use, that it applies to talking about philosophy etc.   What it does not do is to establish that metaphilosophy exists as an accepted discipline in the way that say epistemology does.  As another editor said elsewhere (this discussion is taking place in more than one location) find an example of a course called Metaphilosophy in a Philosophy Department.   Snowded  TALK 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the idea that we need to find a university course teaching a topic in order to have an article about it on WP? Is the idea that linking to another WP article about What is philosophy? has to first establish that this other article has a university department course about it? Is the idea that the lead of Philosophy cannot cite the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy discussing the question What is philosophy? until there is a university course about metaphilosophy? Or, are these notions symptoms of an idée fixe that metaphilosophy is a 'fringe' subject area? (Maybe idée fixe can be linked in this discussion, because there is a course somewhere in the humanities discussing 'idée fixe'?) Brews ohare (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was an option, given your inability to come up with a reliable third party source which established its notability and which was not original research. You have not established that the term is notable enough for the lede, you have just established its used.  Now given that this is a solitary mission for which you have gained exactly zero support from other editors, it may be time for you to move on.   Snowded  TALK 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * George Bealer ran a course on metaphilosophy last semester (Fall 2012) at Yale. It was cross-listed, graduate-level code PHIL 628, called "Philosophy of Philosophy".  It seems kind of weird to list courses on the topic, though it can be done.  Isn't it better just to go by the published works on the topic?  The very first issue of Metaphilosophy seems appropriate: see Bynum & Reese, "Editor's Introduction", Metaphilosophy, vol. 1, no. 1 (1970), p. 1; and Lazerowitz, M., "A Note on 'Metaphilosophy'", ibid., p. 91.  I can send copies of these on request. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something or is this whole talkpage section about editors instead of editing, posing as a continuation of a more legitimate discussion? The distraction of talking about one exaggerating editor makes it seem like the question is about whether metaphilosophy is a valid topic for WP, which is also how Brews has portrayed it also at WT:PHIL. But the subject is quite clearly a big more specific than that? The question is whether to emphasize this in the lead, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree Snowded  TALK 05:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So now the question is narrowed to whether the article Philosophy of philosophy warrants being cross linked in the lead of the article Philosophy. Have I got that right?

Assuming that is the question, it would seem that you, Andrew Lancaster, and you, Snowded, both are of the opinion that linking this article in the lead should not be done. The only argument I've seen brought by you two to support this 'parsimony' in cross-linking of related WP articles is that Philosophy of philosophy is too insignificant a topic to warrant this kind of attention. Is that your stand?

Although I think it debatable that a cross-linking in the lead of Philosophy awards a huge honor upon any article given that distinction, it seems to me that in fact Philosophy of philosophy is a notable subject that has been addressed by a number of rather well-known philosophers (Heidegger, Wittgenstein and a host of others among the 88 sources cited in Contemporary Metaphilosophy), and your latest request for notability, that of being taught in a university course, has been supplied above by Atethnekos

Philosophy of philosophy, being defined as the discussion of What is philosophy? is so obviously pertinent to a reader interested in the topic Philosophy that cross-linking it in the intro is a no-brainer.

What new objection can you bring up now that notability and pertinence are established? Brews ohare (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think all editors are OK with some mention in the body of the article, although I think we should wait resolution of the content of the metaphilosophy article and its name. However at the moment only you think it belongs in the lede.  The number of things that are in philosophy which would have the same evidence you present is legion, so you haven't made the case.  Oh and your statement of my position is (yet again) wrong.  Snowded  TALK 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. The point is now that there are so many worthy items that could be linked in the lead that it would be simply undue weight to put in a link to Philosophy of philosophy. But Philosophy of philosophy is not only a subdivision of philosophy, like entomology, but also happens to be uniquely the topic that discusses What is philosophy?, which is at the foundation of all the fields of philosophy, and is a natural question that would be asked by many readers entering the article Philosophy? Philosophy of philosophy is pertinent to the whole of Philosophy, unlike other subdivisions of philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have your views, expressed at length. Lets see if other editors agree with you or not. Snowded TALK 04:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Put the sentence in section 1.6, "Specialized branches". Metaphilosophy, while not trivial, has not commanded nearly the interest of phil of language, phil of mind, phil of religion, phil of law, -- all of which are relegated to said section rather than singled out with an entire sentence in the lede paragraph.  Metaphilosophy is no more "at the foundation of all the fields of philosophy" than meta-mathematics is the foundation of math, or philosophy is "at the foundation" of physics, or chemistry, or what have you.  While there might be something to such an idea, it verifiably does not command much interest from physicists, chemists, etc., and so singling it out in such a way gives it UNDUE weight, just as would inserting a sentence about the philosophy of physics into the opening paragraph of physics. 271828182 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 271828182: I'd say the areas of 'phil of language, phil of mind, phil of religion, phil of law' all indicate that they share something denoted by the word 'philosophy' and it could reasonably occur to a reader as to what exactly the word philosophy brings to each of these topics. Of course, the answer to that is the answer to What is philosophy? and that is the subject of Metaphilosophy. Because of its direct involvement in answering this question and related sub-questions like How is philosophy different from science, from math, from religion,...? it has a peculiar position in informing the reader about philosophy in general that recommends its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that follows in the least. Cf.: an article on different branches of mathematics need not include a sentence about meta-mathematics.  Conjecturing what "could reasonably occur to a reader" is weaseling and handwaving.  Just as scientists are able to practice science without ever considering the philosophy of science, and just as the WP articles on biology, chemistry, and physics do not mention phil-of-X in their ledes, there are no grounds to elevate metaphilosophy to the same rank as core subfields such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc.  Inserting a link via a term (as the opening sentence does) would result in the patently goofy "philosophy is the study of general problems such as ... philosophy."  What do you have against it being in section 1.6? 271828182 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that the lead paragraph now introduces many subfields of philosophy (an approach I recommended long ago that met with great protest). It might be pointed out that the article on philosophy here is not averse to presenting metaphilosophy: "The issue of the definition of philosophy is nowadays tackled by Metaphilosophy (or the philosophy of philosophy)." Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to imply that the current lead, which is older than your proposal, is influenced by your proposal? Or are you trying to say that the core of your proposal and the disagreement with it, is just about the naming of sub-branches in the lead? Your way of narrating things is a bit confusing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster: No, I wasn't under the impression I'd had any influence. I meant that the only surviving argument against putting a link to Metaphilosophy in the lead at this point is that a link was 'undue weight' because other topics of equal relevance found in philosophy were not mentioned in the lead. However all of seven subfields of philosophy already are linked in the lead, making a simple statement like that in the New World Encyclopedia seem appropriate.The New World statement: "The issue of the definition of philosophy is nowadays tackled by Metaphilosophy (or the philosophy of philosophy)" is fine. My suggestion was: "Just how philosophy is distinguished from other disciplines as to subject matter and methods is considered by metaphilosophy." Hardly undue emphasis after all. Brews ohare (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 271828182 made the point about weight well and you haven't really answered that point.  Add to that the simple fact that the term is disputed by some, while epistemology is not and you should be able to see why it doesn't really belong in the lede  Snowded  TALK 11:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: My comment above refuting the idea of 'undue weight' on the basis that there are plenty of other topics linked in the lead right now, directly addresses 271828182's remarks. How do you arrive at your view that it does not? There is widespread usage of the term metaphilosophy and the only dispute is the internal one as to various ways of looking at it, which are in themselves part of the subject of metaphilosophy. How do you arrive at your view that a subject that contains some different interpretations of its subject matter is therefore itself a field itself in dispute? Sort of like saying different tastes in wine mean there is no wine industry. Brews ohare (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Explained it to you too many times to repeat it all over again Brews, including most recently above. I suggest you now wait to see if any other editor supports your position.  To date no one has and carrying on without support beyond a certain point becomes disruptive.   Snowded  TALK 13:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: You have 'explained' nothing and respond to all discussion only by reiterating your same assertions, like using repetition to sell Coke instead of Pepsi. I am abandoning the attempt to link metaphilosophy in the lead and instead will introduce a sub-section on this topic, thereby incorporating the subject in the main body of the article as some editors have proposed above. Brews ohare (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the new section on metaphilosophy here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, just to clarify, you are saying that because there are categories of philosophy named in the current lead, then ALL possible categories of philosophy should be given equal weight in the lead? I do not think that is very convincing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC):

Rewording of introductory paragraph
The present introductory paragraph is as follows:
 * "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]

[1] Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 1: "Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate, abstract and very general. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose."

[2] A.C. Grayling, Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 1: "The aim of philosophical inquiry is to gain insight into questions about knowledge, truth, reason, reality, meaning, mind, and value."

[3] Anthony Quinton, in T. Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 666: "Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved."

[4] Mirriam Webster on-line dictionary

The Merriam Webster definition is not one definition but four, ranging from "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts" to "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means" and "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs", and "a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought". In my opinion this set of definitions has two drawbacks: it is so general and so vague as to leave the concept in limbo, and it doesn't capture the essence of what is philosophy at all.

The Oxford Companion definition is very good.

The Wikipedia definitions "the study of general and fundamental problems" is hopelessly vague. The follow-up "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." addresses an important point, distinguishing philosophy from other disciplines. The last sentence makes a bow to the Merriam Webster approach, connecting 'philosophy' to a grab-bag of ideas. Perhaps it is useful to point out the very wide and sloppy everyday use of philosophy in a sentence, as done here, but that should be the end of the discussion of this formulation.

For example,as replacement for the present first paragraph:


 * Philosophy is critical thinking of a systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Philosophy seeks to articulate the rules or principles involved in belief formation in an explicitly rational, critical and systematic way.[1][2] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[3] Answering the questions: What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? is the domain of metaphilosophy.[4]


 * [1] A paraphrase of a much quoted definition by


 * [2]


 * [3] Mirriam Webster on-line dictionary


 * [4]

Are there comments about such a proposed revision? Brews ohare (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I'd like to replace the vague initial statement of the article by some wording more along the lines of the Oxford Companion wording, and provide some links to closely related WP articles. Brews ohare (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It think the following is the proposal and I personally think it is no way an improvement. But it would be good to get more comments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism that the first sentence is "hopelessly vague" overlooks the full sentence, which immediately narrows the field by offering examples. The proposed replacement is, in content, unobjectionable, but in style is far more cluttered and difficult to parse.  If someone is reading this article to learn what philosophy is, they need a clear, plain statement, not a paragraph encumbered with ugly jargon about "belief formation".  271828182 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The second is also more limited in nature, its formulation excludes aesthetics to take but one example and the whole "belief formation" is both jargon and partial in nature Snowded  TALK 04:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The term 'belief formation', which I cribbed from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy appears to grate. So I propose fixing this problem.
 * I have swapped out this wording in the two-column comparison above. Brews ohare (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The complaint that a 'clear, plain statement' is desirable cannot be disputed. Looking at the literature, I haven't found such a statement. The first sentence in Philosophy: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with" blah blah blah, may be simple, but its content could be summarized as "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems." Is that really all that helpful? The suggestion is that the second sentence fixes this problem "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument", but this description of methodology does nothing to clarify just what is included in its "generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument", and this description doesn't distinguish philosophy from other pursuits. Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem you have is that you are trying to restrict or bound philosophy to confirm with a particular view you have of the subject.  Todate I see no suggest from you which improves on the current text (which went through extensive discussion with a far greater number of editors.  Unless someone else supports you I think this is over.   Snowded  TALK 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: I recognize that you do not wish to participate in this discussion. I do not see any arguments of substance as to why you have decided this way. Your claim that the proposal unnecessarily restricts the subject of philosophy is unhelpful unless you can articulate just what constraints it imposes that you have objection to. Then that matter could be addressed. At the moment, of course, the provided definition of philosophy covers every "systematic and rational" intellectual pursuit known to man, so anything less than that would be more restrictive. Brews ohare (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Making assumptions about other editors again I see. Try and get your mind around the fact that it is possible that other editors do not agree with your criticism of the current wording.  As it happens you have clearly articulated the constraint as you see it.  I and other editors have, per current wording and sources, made the wider use clear and you currently have no support.  Continued participation when you are introducing no new arguments is a waste of time.     You might want to do us all the courtesy of reading the previous discussions on this subject in the archives. Snowded  TALK 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh a question, from what other pursuits do you think philosophy has to be distinguished? So far you have suggested a distinction with neuro-science which does not reflect the literature or practice. Is that the only one or do you have others?  Snowded  TALK 19:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Your question appears to relate to an earlier thread unrelated to the present proposal. It seems that you wish to escalate this discussion of a sentence in the introduction into some kind of major brouhaha. There have so far been only two comments about the proposal other than your own, and the discussion is hardly "over". You may be skilled at this kind of diversion intent on making this conversation personal rather than a consideration of content, but it is not helpful to Wikipedia. The more fruitful course would be to focus upon the proposal made in this thread, to put other matters aside, and to articulate a response related directly to the proposal as it stands. Brews ohare (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I really shouldn't have to keep reminding you to stop speculating as to the motives of other editors not to mention making rather silly accusations such as the brouhaha one. I am happy with the current wording, I don't think your proposal adds anything it only subtracts for the reasons stated (and repeated).  So I may not be engaged in way that you find helpful, but I am engaged.  Introduce some new argument then fine we can look at it, but for the moment this is going no where.  You might like to answer my question above (the one about other pursuits), if you can it might help clarify you position.  If nothing else it would give some indication you are listening to other editors  Snowded  TALK 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I've revised the proposal in accordance with the suggestion that "belief formation" is objectionable. I have included aesthetics in the list of philosophical subjects. Any other suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics was just one example, by trying to narrow things down you are loosing too much. I repeat this is no improvement and no sound argument has been advanced that we need to change. Snowded  TALK 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Brews just some examples of some comments about the style of writing: I am just giving some examples. I do not see how you have removed any vagueness, or added any improvements with this proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence you propose contains no less than 4 parentheses. That is bad style, and by that I mean it is not just breaking some common conventions, but that it is painful to read, and very difficult to parse in a clear way even for someone familiar with philosophy.
 * The first parenthesis seems to equate "metaphysics" with something known as "theory of existence" and also with, it seems, one of the following: "a systematic kind about the general nature of the world", or "the general nature of the world", or "the world".
 * The second one seems to equate "epistemology" with "theory of knowledge" (OK) and then also with either "the justification of belief" or "belief". I can more or less understand this, but I do not see the point of the triple equation and parenthesis.
 * The third one equates "the conduct of life" (or perhaps "life") with "ethics" and then also with "theory of value". Again, why all these equations in the first sentence of a lead?
 * The fourth one I can handle. You equate "the judgment of beauty and taste" with "aesthetics". Same again. Why?
 * Andrew: Thanks for the specifics. The point of the links is to assist the reader by pointing out particular subdomains and providing links for elucidation. Perhaps the links alone without attempts to explain them would be preferable, and could eliminate parens. What do you think? Pointing out specific topics does avoid vagueness. The result might be this:

Any better, Andrew? Perhaps without raining on the entire parade you might suggest some rewording? Brews ohare (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We deal more comprehensively with the subject areas of philosophy later. That is one of the reasons they were not included last time this was discussed as to exclude any was to make the description incomplete.  Also the whole idea that 'Metaphilosophy' is agreed is a nonsense, it is used by some philosophers but rejected by others.   Snowded  TALK 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be easy for the non-expert to read. Thus, "reality" is clearer than "epistomology". Rick Norwood (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rick: Are you recommending the links be set up like this:
 * Philosophy is critical thinking of a systematic kind about the major topics of being, knowledge, morality, and beauty.
 * As you probably know, none of the branches of philosophy is easily expressed, but maybe this will do for a starting position? A click on a link will provide more detail. Brews ohare (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, concerning your new proposal I could make a few more obvious comments but it is clearly going in the direction at least the first bit of your proposal is a reordering of the words in the existing text. So by definition it does not seem to be a major clarification. If the existing version is hopelessly vague then this rewrite must also be? The real point of your proposal must surely be all or some of the following very controversial limiting of the domain of philosophy? (Please check and confirm.)
 * Philosophy is limited to only "abstract, logical and impartial" discussion about only "the rules or principles behind" only "the major topics" within only 4 topics: metaphysics,epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.
 * Philosophy definitely does not ask questions about what philosophy is or should be. Instead there is a thing called metaphilosphy which does this.
 * Do you honestly believe that either of these two points represent mainstream and non-controversial positions amongst published philosophers and the best published summarizers of philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: The objectives of philosophy have evolved from the days of the Greeks, so any discussion like you suggest probably requires a date stamp. However, I don't think the present proposal should be critiqued on the basis of what I might think or might propose or have proposed previously. Brews ohare (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but descriptions of the evolution are for the body, not the first sentence of the lead. It is a common problem on WP that people want to say everything in the first sentence. For the first sentence we need to try to distill what is common to all the normal mainstream meanings of philosophy. (For subjects that have different definitions with zero common ground we need several articles. I do not think anyone is proposing that here?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (1)The new proposal, both in its original and its revised form, is too general in offering thinking as the definiens of philosophy, just as "thinking about matter, motion, and energy" would be a flaccid and misleading way of defining physics. "Study" is preferable as it is part of one of our sources, is the definiens offered by the OED entry for "the usual sense", and accurately fits the topic of the rest of the article, which is clearly identifiable as the academic discipline that goes by the same name as found in the overwhelming majority of universities around the world.  (2) Including "systematic" without qualification (cf. the current lede), and attributing to philosophy a search for rules and principles behind (why the italics? why the metaphor of surface and depth?), and replacing the minimalist "rational" with the more rhetorically freighted triad of "abstract, logical and impartial" all push the paragraph toward POV violation, as there have been many notable philosophers who have sharply dissented from such definitions of philosophy.  The definition should be neutral and inclusive.  If the price of this seems "hopelessly vague" to some, I am afraid such is the nature of fitting so multifarious a field into two reasonably clear sentences.  271828182 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'll abandon further discussion here. It appears to me that there are two schools of thought: one that the present introduction is just ducky, and the other that the attempt to improve upon is futile. So being between those gunning for its present form and those who throw up their hands in futility .... Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sign, or between one editor and all other editors who work on this page. Or between one editor who wants to impose a particular (restrictive) take on the definition of philosophy and those more than open to change, but who do not want to take a particular PoV and/or want to follow what we can find in general sources such as Encyclopaedias and Dictionaries of Philosophy.  It really would be helpful if you focused on content, rather than sweeping generalisations about the motivations and attitudes of other editors.   Snowded  TALK 08:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording is better than all the proposed versions in this thread, which are too restrictive in limiting the topic basically to a specific western tradition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange "r tu ou" characters
Found "r tu ou" at the beginning of the main Philosophy paragraph (See the screenshot). I tried editing the article but coudn't find theses characters. Some hidden bug? --ImdadAhmed 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdad.ahmed (talk • contribs)
 * It was vandalism of the template:philosophy sidebar Snowded  TALK 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Sub-section in article Philosophy on the topic of Metaphilosophy
Is it appropriate to include a sub-section in the article philosophy on the topic of metaphilosophy? A proposed subsection is presented for comment here. It is proposed to add this subsection to philosophy under the header Areas of inquiry. Comments concerning its suitability for inclusion and concerning its improvement are solicited. Brews ohare (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed summary subsection in article Philosophy under the existing header Areas of inquiry

 * The following is a four-sentence 108-word summary of what the field of metaphilosophy is, and its relation to Philosophy.

Metaphilosophy

Metaphilosophy (sometimes called 'philosophy of philosophy') is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy." Its subject matter includes the aims of philosophy, the boundaries of philosophy, and its methods.

The subject of metaphilosophy is considered by some to be a field broader than philosophy itself, commenting upon philosophy from both inside and outside, while others consider it to be entirely a part of philosophy, using the same methodologies. Many sub-disciplines of philosophy have their own branch of 'metaphilosophy', examples being Meta-aesthetics, Meta-epistemology, Meta-ethics, Meta-ontology, and so forth. However, some topics within 'metaphilosophy' cut across the various subdivisions of philosophy to consider fundamentals important to all its sub-disciplines.

Citations

--

Comments

 * Such a subsection is particularly pertinent to the article Philosophy because it deals with the subject of philosophy as whole, including all its sub-fields, and not only considers fundamental aspects of philosophy common to all, but brings forward the various meta-subjects such as meta-ethics, meta-epistemology and so forth.
 * This subsection was removed from the article by Snowded with the edit comment: "does not deserve more prominence than Philosophy of Science" . I am unsure why Philosophy of science should be singled out, but I am arguing that Metaphilosophy by virtue of its fundamental nature applying to all branches of Philosophy has a position of particular importance for an article on philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion in Section 1.6 which lists a series of divisions of Philosophy which have their own articles, but which are not considered by editors (over multiple discussions over time) to have the same universality as the those in 1.1-1.5  Brews has not produced third party evidence to support his view of the importance of metaphilosophy which is not universally accepted as a discipline anyway.  Editors not familiar with this debate should look back over the history of earlier discussions on the lede.  When I deleted the material, I moved Metaphilosophy with a link to the article into 1.6 so it has the same standing as Philosophy of Science etc.   Adding a sentence about Philosophy of Philosophy or similar is OK.   Snowded  TALK 20:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There already is a link under Philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Weak support - I would support merely putting a link to metaphilosophy under see also, but if we have a section on metaphilosophy in this article, then it should be a very brief summary with a hatnote link as described above. The section should be very close to the bottom of this article. Greg Bard (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal of Snowded, not Brews Ohare.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, to try to get a bit more detail, do you support Snowded because you agree with him there is too little "third party evidence to support his [that is, my] view of the importance of metaphilosophy"? Would it change your mind to see a Google books listing of 260 books with the word 'metaphilosophy' in their titles, and another Google books search showing 39,600 books that contain the word 'metaphilosophy'?? Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not really confronting this as a due weight discussion Brews. The most well-known and commonly accepted divisions of philosophy are really very clear. You do not need to prove to anyone that metaphilosophy is a valid term. You need to prove that it deserves equal weight to such obviously much more widely accepted categories as epistemology. There are a large number of categories we could add of course, not just metaphilosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: This proposal is for a four-line summary of 108 words (about the "100 words or less" used in marketing contests) under the existing main header Philosophy. Presently Philosophy has 1,247 words epistemology' has 700 words, metaphysics'' 320 words. By my count, that gives this proposed subsection way less 'weight' than the other fields given space in this section. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dedicating a section to a subject is certainly giving a special emphasis to it. Counting words is certainly not the only way we show "weight".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I support adding a link to See also in Philosophy. I'm not sure I could support a section, because metaphilosophy = philosophy. It would look odd suddenly to start calling philosophy "metaphilosophy," as though all previous sections had been about something else. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin: I agree with your statement "It would look odd suddenly to start calling philosophy "metaphilosophy", but (please bear with me here), that is not what is happening. The idea of meta-philosophy is to discuss the presuppositions of philosophy and its methods, not to discuss subject matter in the standard realms of epistomology, ontology, ethics, and so forth, not to overlap what is already done in philosophy proper. Whether you think of metaphilosophy as being about philosophy or as being about the methods of philosophy, it is not at all a consideration of the standard subjects discussed in philosophy. I don't know if I have been clear, or not? Brews ohare (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin: To push this matter a bit further, what changes could be made in the wording of the proposal to make this point clearer? Brews ohare (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I support adding a link to See also in Philosophy Oppose. If the others, especially SlimVirgin and Snowded (and also Gregbard), agree to a small summary section, I may go along with it too. The all encompassing field is Philosophy, as it is also History, or Mathematics. There are fields of study such as Meta-History, or Philosophy of History, but they are parts of the all-encompassing main discipline of study, in my view. Metaphilosophy can in no case, as I see it too, become more important than Philosophy itself. Understandably there may be some enthusiasm for a supposedly "new" field of study out there, but it comes from the "freshness/newness" of the field, as supposedly new developments can generate this type of enthusiasm. But even though the term may be relatively new, Philosophy of Philosophy is always an integral part of Philosophy in the end. warshytalk 22:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Warshy: I'm a bit confused by your remarks. You, like SlimVirgin, have interpreted 'metaphilosophy' as somehow intent upon 'taking over' traditional philosophy. That is not its aim: rather, it is intent upon providing an overview and evaluation of methods philosophy-wide, and is not intent upon evaluating the various schools of thought in various sub-disciplines. Maybe you could help to word the proposed sub-section for 'metaphilosophy' to make that clear? Perhaps you could suggest what changes you would make to bring the proposal within what you see as a 'small summary section'? Brews ohare (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There already is a link under Philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, after looking more carefully into it, and especially into the link above and its position in the article, I want to change my position to Oppose. The link is already there, very prominently in the introductory section of the article, and there is no need to add anything to the main article. There is no need to a "See also" link, since the link is already there; and there is no need for a summary section under the branches section. The link already speaks for itself, and everything is already there on the linked sub-article. All that could be added is a short description to the right, or continuing the link line itself, since the upper ones have small summaries added and this one doesn't have one. warshytalk 18:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Warshy: There is no link "already there, very prominently in the introductory section of the article". The link Philosophy is at the bottom of a list of items in a sub-sub-section. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I think it's useful to mention metaphilosophy and gesture toward the problem of defining philosophy. This helps the reader understand what philosophy is in terms of its intension, and not merely by looking at some of its extension (by listing various sub-topics). Certainly metaphilosophy is not universally recognised as a discipline, but neither is philosophy itself.  Universal recognition does not seem like a legitimate requirement, rather the recognition will be adequate if its degree fits the subject matter.  In some ways metaphilosophy has more recognition than metaphysics.  Carnap and others forcefully rejected metaphysics, and these logical positivist views are still somewhat popular.  I know of no philosophers who reject metaphilosophy in such a way, but metaphilosophy is regularly taken up by philosophers. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "In some ways metaphilosophy has more recognition than metaphysics." Maybe, but not in any way relevant to a discussion like this one. Wikipedia has many full articles about theories which are widely believed to be wrong, so being wrong is not important for us. Metaphysics is far more notable than metaphilosophy and that is relevant to us. When we write about philosophy on WP we are supposed to aim to write something which reflects the way the mainstream sources already write about them, aren't we? We are not supposed to be developing a programme for change here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: The existence of 260 books with the word 'metaphilosophy' in their titles, and 39,600 books discussing 'metaphilosophy' certainly establishes notability. As for how mainstream sources refer to 'metaphilosophy'? The brief four-line summary of this proposal is entirely mainstream about this topic. Perhaps your concern is with too much attention being paid within the article Philosophy? Shouldn't an article on various wine varietals contain a mention of viticulture? Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is relevant to a discussion like this one, because in this discussion universal recognition was already raised as a grounds for consideration. If the discussion includes the proposition that some content is to be excluded because it represents a sub-discipline which does not have some level of recognition, then discussing the degree of recognition of that sub-discipline in relation to other sub-disciplines which are included is relevant.


 * I think it depends on what you mean by "reflect". If by "reflect" you mean treat of and only of aspects discussed in the reliable sources, then the answer to your question is "yes".  If by "reflect" you mean produce an article of which the content represents some sort of average, mean, or median of the content of analogous articles in mainstream sources, then the answer is "no".  What makes the latter improper is Wikipedia's advantage.  Unlike the mainstream sources, articles here have no time limits or size limits, beyond technical ones.  Therefore we can aim to represent all of the content of the reliable sources.  If an article becomes too large for technical reasons, it may be split up. If we keep "reflect" to mean the former, then the topic of metaphilosophy may be mentioned, as it certainly finds discussion in reliable sources for this topic. I think I agree with everything else you wrote. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Brews. You are still not addressing the point properly in my opinion. You are proving to me that metaphilosophy has some notability, which is fine. No one is arguing with that. You are not even attempting to show that it has equal notability to the fields which have their own sections, and of course we all realize that there is simple no contest.
 * @Athenakos, please compare WP:DUE and WP:V. They really are different, and WP:DUE really does ask us to survey how a field generally weights things. Of course people do over simplify policies sometimes, like for example when you sometimes see people citing a google search. But I think the problem with Brews' proposal is not concerning a minor technical point of policy. Everyone including Brews knows that metaphilosophy is one of the more minor and less accepted categories of philosophy, which of course has hundreds - philosophy being one of the oldest fields of publication we have sources for. Giving it the same weight as for example epistemology would be WP taking a non-neutral position which is significantly different from what any normal survey of the field would reveal. This proposal is purely a case of one person's personal preferences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: It seems having a 100-word treatment on Metaphilosophy and a 700-word treatment on Epistemology conveys, in your mind, conveys the notion that both have 'equal' stature. It doesn't look that way to me. The reader knows Philosophy is an overview article, intended in part to guide the reader to the various articles on philosophy found on WP, and I'd guess the length of a field's subsection conveys stature more than does the mere appearance of the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The well-thought position which WP:DUE tries to communicate is that one should not misrepresent the importance of the various aspects of a topic. For example, a reasonable reader should not be led by the Barack Obama article to the conclusion that his relationship with Jeremiah Wright was the most important part of the President's life.  A misconstrual of WP:DUE is the ill-thought position that Wikipedia should not ever represent aspects of a topic to a depth comparable to or greater than the depth to which more important aspects are represented.  This is ill-thought for two reasons.  For one, sometimes an important aspect is relatively simple to explain, and a less-important aspect requires a more in-depth explanation.  Secondly, this artificially limits the creation of content according to the development of content which is of the least interest to contributors.  On that line: If this misconstrual was preëminently enforced, then, for example, if the Immanuel Kant article had only two lines written on transcendental philosophy, an interested editor would not be able to add two lines concerning Kant's position on perpetual peace.  The solution of an imbalance is for more information to be added to the more important aspect, not for the less important aspect to be stunted.


 * Finally, I do not see how metaphilosophy is one of the "less accepted categories of philosophy". Who is accepting these categories? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Atethnekos: Thank you for that discussion, which is more profound than my thinking about this. Good points. Brews ohare (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All very deep and stuff, but not relevant. Who is accepting these categories? Us the editors, based on mainstream sources - so convince other editors. May we ignore published sources and other editors and reality, and create our own brave new meta-reality here? I think there are many other places on the internet with such lofty aims (but less results).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: What do you mean by "we ignore published sources and other editors and reality, and create our own brave new meta-reality here"? Plenty of sources are provided, both here and in metaphilosophy. Are you suggesting that metaphilosophy violates Verifiability, No original research, Reliable sources and Notability ? I don't think it does. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean exactly what I said: you are ignoring reality, including sources and other editors. Counting books to show that a subject exists and is notable (something which no one disputes) is simply not an answer to a question of RELATIVE weighting of that subject VERSUS OTHER even more notable subjects?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: OK, we are back to your view that including metaphilosophy in the list of topics under Philosophy confers undue status upon it. I think that ignores the role of Philosophy as an umbrella article that should guide the reader through what is available on WP.
 * You are suggesting suppression of metaphilosophy on the basis that there are many articles on other philosophical fields that are more worthy of inclusion on this list Philosophy and they are so numerous that if one began to list them, metaphilosophy would be so far down the list it would fall off. Why not follow up on this feeling and suggest (i) what these topics are, and why they should have priority over metaphilosophy and (ii) why we shouldn't expand the list to include some of these items you bring up? Brews ohare (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is suppressing metaphilosophy. We are trying to give it an appropriate weight. You are trying to promote it above its station. Philosophy has a publishing history of thousands of years, and there are hundreds of proposed ways of categorizing philosophy. Most of them are short term trends or fringe, and simply can not all have a sentence in the lead or a full section in this article. Counting google hits into triple figures just does not cut it as a response to this simple fact. Please stop talking in circles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: There is no "talking in circles" here. Here is the situation as I see it, and if you see it differently I'd be surprised. 1. There is a list of Philosophy. 2. I propose 100 words to go into this list under the header 'metaphilosphy'. 3. You say: No. 4. Your reason is that before 'metaphilosophy' goes on this list, there are more important areas of inquiry to consider for this list. 5. I ask you: What are they? 6. You seem to say: I can't begin to enumerate; there are hundreds.


 * Does that about cover it, Andrew? A simple approach to enumeration would be this It suggests 6 main branches: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and Aesthetics and also Logic and Political Philosophy. These correspond remarkably well with the items presented in Philosophy. If now we allow the metatheories corresponding to these 6, there would be 6 additional entries, or sub-entries. However, among the meta-disciplines one stands out, metaphilosophy as it is the metatheory for philosophy itself. So a case could be made that among the meta-theories, metaphilosophy has a better reason to be on this list than the other 6. Or, alternatively, some arrangement could be made to handle all these meta-theories? In fact, the proposed 100 words do exactly that: they introduce links to all the meta-theories. Brews ohare (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first reference you supply makes the point well. Metaphilosophy in that is an also ran against others which is the point Andrew is making  Your reference to multiple meta theories seems to be a return by you to the unsupported attempts you made when you first got involved with this article, namely to take a partial definition of philosophy Snowded  TALK 05:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point about a 'partial definition of philosophy'. Maybe you are taking the side that 'metaphilosophy' is part of philosophy, which I believe is well established as a partisan opinion, discussed in detail in metaphilosophy and in the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy. Assuming metaphilosophy includes the metatheory of philosophy, it stands partly 'outside' of philosophy and partly inside. As such, it makes sense to include it in the list, and arguably one could suggest it has its own sub-metas of meta-ontology and so forth. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its been explained to you enough times.  I'm starting to see why you were topic banned from physics.  Snowded  TALK 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: What is the it that has been explained so often, and how does that bear upon my attempt to understand your cryptic phrase, a 'partial definition of philosophy'? Brews ohare (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, in answer to your question to me, no I think you are distorting and over-simplfying what people try to explain to you. For example my point does not logically rely on having to name hundreds of categories of philosophy. But just to play along a little bit please try your googling method on terminology such as "philosophy of law", "philosophy of religion", etc. Also please consider that we have compressed all moral and political philosophy into one heading of the type you wish to give for metaphilosophy. I would say metaphilosophy discussions could in a similar way be considered a part of the heading epistemology, as could other terms such as methodology etc. But really, this discussion could go forever in the way it is going. I am sure you are not going to accept any explanation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I've oversimplified your argument, but I don't see how. One thing we agree upon, I guess, is that discussion like this is unsatisfactory as it isn't really about reaching an understanding, apparently, but a rhetorical debate with all its shenanigans. That is too bad. Brews ohare (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of some sort, ambivalent as to what exactly -- at least a See Also link, possibly a small section somewhere, not sure if as a branch of philosophy is appropriate since there is controversy as to whether metaphilosophy is just the branch of philosophy considering itself, or something above and beyond philosophy, and we should remain neutral on that question. (On which note, the defensiveness of some editors about unstated suggestions that metaphilosophy will somehow 'take over' philosophy shows a bias on that issue: on a construction of metaphilosophy as simply the branch of philosophy considering itself as the object of study, that would be impossible, so such concerns belie a bias toward the idea of metaphilosophy as something separate from and beyond philosophy, rather than merely reflexive philosophy.) I also think it's worth discussing that Snowded seemed to think at one point that the material comprising the bulk of Metaphilosophy (now collected in the "Topics" section) was more on subject here than there; I rebuffed that on grounds that editors here have previously rejected such material in this article, but I am personally of the opinion that it is appropriate in both places, an extended discussion there and a summary somewhere here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the general consensus for a link in the a see also section... more specifically after the philosophy links and prior to any metaphilosophy of metaphilosophy.—Machine Elf 1735  06:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MachineElf: "metaphilosophy of metaphilosophy"? There already is a link under Philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather the indefinite article... although I'd prefer the Philosophy section proper, as that would be more commensurate (and in which case, alphabetical order would be fine).—Machine Elf 1735  22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose as I am unconvinced that this is anything other than what philosophers have long done for their own field as they have for others. Recursion is a mathematical procedure, not a game. "Philosophy is the study of its own history." JJL (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * JJL Your opinion is that there is no metatheory of philosophy, which is a view held by Williamson for example, but is only one faction in the discussion of this point. See Contemporary Metaphilosophy for the view that metaphilosophy sometimes does use the methods of philosophy, but that does not rule out a metatheory. Brews ohare (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Brews, as passionate as you may be about meta-philosophy...it is a fringe topic and doesn't belong in the lead nor a section of its own. Snowded has proposed a reasonable compromise. Your effort would be better served by expanding/improving the metaphilosophy page instead of insisting that it be mentioned in the lead IMHO. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose I regard this as a simple matter of nomenclature and it should fit within a general nomenclatura of Philosophy.Whiteguru (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support a sentence but not a paragraph. Having scanned through what I could, I feel somewhat underwhelmed, though it seems potentially important. Incidentally the final sentence under Applied Philosophy here, could this be considered Metaphilosophy? "Often philosophy is seen as an investigation into an area not sufficiently well understood to be its own branch of knowledge. What were once philosophical pursuits have evolved into the modern day fields such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics, for example." Sighola (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It's not a fringe topic; rather it's one that is getting a substantial and increasing amount of attention from philosophers, as the references in the article indicate. It involves fundamental issues about what philosophy is and how it should be done that are highly relevant in a general article on philosophy. Neljack (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta-comments (sic)
Brews, the idea of an RfC is that other editors comment so we get new views. You seem to be responding to everyone to tell them why they are wrong, rather than letting the process run its course. Snowded TALK 15:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments are intended to get more specifics from contributors. I am also curious just why some of them think 108 words on the 'nature of philosophy' is overkill in an article about philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe some commentators haven't got it clear how this proposed subsection fits into the article philosophy under the existing sub-header Philosophy? Maybe they haven't understood the that metaphilosophy is about the nature of philosophy, the whole enchilada, not a sub-field devoted to a narrow segment of philosophy like Philosophy? Brews ohare (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Apparently not "prominently" enough for your eyes. Actually, more than prominently enough for my eyes. About the "whole enchilada" thing: cute. One of the classic branches of classic philosophy is Metaphysics. In this new "meta" fad they are probably going to talk about meta-Metaphysics also. I mean, one can tag the prefix meta basically anywhere one wants or pleases, of course. I also note that another classic branch of classic philosophy that is these days overlooked in the main article, in favor or more recent fads, is Ontology. Just some meta-thoughts. warshytalk 19:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its already been written I have it in the "to read" pile at home! Brews, I realise that the reason people disagree with you is that they don't understand you, it happens so often to so many people but just let the process run  Snowded  TALK 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we also mention the post-meta-philosophy-of-meta-meta-philosophical-postology in the lead? --Shabidoo | Talk 03:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * please don't give people ideas, but your brightened up my morning with that one! Snowded  TALK 06:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Metametaphysics
Believe it or not there is an article or rather the stub based on one book with that title! I nominated it for speedy delete, Brews wants to discuss, so the page is here for anyone interested. Wondering how many metas can be chained? Snowded TALK 11:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's 'facts'
Here is Snowded's paragraph supporting his view that 'metaphilosophy' is a non-subject:


 * "There is a four paragraph article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which uses Metaphilosophy in its title fact. An editor using a google scholar list to support a proposition is original research and/or synthesis fact.  Even if your interpretation were right (which it isn't) then it would not be sufficient to use it in the lede.  Now witter away as you will and make what empty threats you want about taking me to ANI (I would so love you to do that), but until some other editors support your position you are in a minority of one fact. And (I just checked) you have a history of troublesome editing as evidenced by this this block log fact."    Snowded  TALK 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Below I will assess these 'facts':

1. "There is a four paragraph article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy which uses Metaphilosophy in its title fact."
 * The article in question is Contemporary Metaphilosophy by Nicholas Joll in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosohpy, an often cited peer-reviewed on-line journal. It is a 110,000 word article with 181 scholarly references. Snowded's attempt to denigrate this work as a "four paragraph" article is bunk.

2. "An editor using a google scholar list to support a proposition is original research and/or synthesis fact."
 * The Google Books search I made was to identify that there are numerous published works using Metaphilosophy in their title and even more that discuss metaphilosophy: about 39,500 hits altogether. That is not "original research", no claim is made as to its accuracy. There may be more such items out there, but everyone will agree that the linked occurrences in published books exist and can be counted. I picked out from this search a few specific titles containing the word 'metaphilosophy', and linked them to show that indeed the use of 'metaphilosophy' occurs in the title of some philosophical works.

3. "Now witter away as you will and make what empty threats you want about taking me to ANI (I would so love you to do that), but until some other editors support your position you are in a minority of one fact. And (I just checked) you have a history of troublesome editing."
 * A clear example of using personal innuendo to support the ridiculous, where no reasonable argument can be found.

It is unfortunate that Snowded has come to this pass, but he hasn't a leg to stand on. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh my God, legless as a result of a 'Brew". Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.   Snowded  TALK 14:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I respect you as an editor, but when you or I make a mistake, as in the length of a particular article, it is best to apologize sincerely, not sarcastically. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The original article referenced was four paragraphs Rick. If there is a new fine I'll happily look at it.  But I am finding it increasingly difficult to take Brews seriously.  He misrepresents what people say, ignores responses etc. etc. I'm pretty tolerant of personal attacks but if Brew thinks I should be taken to ANI (check out the posting) then he should have the guts to do it.    Snowded  TALK 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I skimmed the link. The point I made some time ago about original research and synthesis stands.  The article Brews references is not about metaphilosophy, it uses the term to provide an overview of different philosophical approaches.  So its enough to establish that the word is in use, that it applies to talking about philosophy etc.   What it does not do is to establish that metaphilosophy exists as an accepted discipline in the way that say epistemology does.  As another editor said elsewhere (this discussion is taking place in more than one location) find an example of a course called Metaphilosophy in a Philosophy Department.   Snowded  TALK 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the idea that we need to find a university course teaching a topic in order to have an article about it on WP? Is the idea that linking to another WP article about What is philosophy? has to first establish that this other article has a university department course about it? Is the idea that the lead of Philosophy cannot cite the article Contemporary Metaphilosophy discussing the question What is philosophy? until there is a university course about metaphilosophy? Or, are these notions symptoms of an idée fixe that metaphilosophy is a 'fringe' subject area? (Maybe idée fixe can be linked in this discussion, because there is a course somewhere in the humanities discussing 'idée fixe'?) Brews ohare (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was an option, given your inability to come up with a reliable third party source which established its notability and which was not original research. You have not established that the term is notable enough for the lede, you have just established its used.  Now given that this is a solitary mission for which you have gained exactly zero support from other editors, it may be time for you to move on.   Snowded  TALK 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * George Bealer ran a course on metaphilosophy last semester (Fall 2012) at Yale. It was cross-listed, graduate-level code PHIL 628, called "Philosophy of Philosophy".  It seems kind of weird to list courses on the topic, though it can be done.  Isn't it better just to go by the published works on the topic?  The very first issue of Metaphilosophy seems appropriate: see Bynum & Reese, "Editor's Introduction", Metaphilosophy, vol. 1, no. 1 (1970), p. 1; and Lazerowitz, M., "A Note on 'Metaphilosophy'", ibid., p. 91.  I can send copies of these on request. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something or is this whole talkpage section about editors instead of editing, posing as a continuation of a more legitimate discussion? The distraction of talking about one exaggerating editor makes it seem like the question is about whether metaphilosophy is a valid topic for WP, which is also how Brews has portrayed it also at WT:PHIL. But the subject is quite clearly a big more specific than that? The question is whether to emphasize this in the lead, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree Snowded  TALK 05:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So now the question is narrowed to whether the article Philosophy of philosophy warrants being cross linked in the lead of the article Philosophy. Have I got that right?

Assuming that is the question, it would seem that you, Andrew Lancaster, and you, Snowded, both are of the opinion that linking this article in the lead should not be done. The only argument I've seen brought by you two to support this 'parsimony' in cross-linking of related WP articles is that Philosophy of philosophy is too insignificant a topic to warrant this kind of attention. Is that your stand?

Although I think it debatable that a cross-linking in the lead of Philosophy awards a huge honor upon any article given that distinction, it seems to me that in fact Philosophy of philosophy is a notable subject that has been addressed by a number of rather well-known philosophers (Heidegger, Wittgenstein and a host of others among the 88 sources cited in Contemporary Metaphilosophy), and your latest request for notability, that of being taught in a university course, has been supplied above by Atethnekos

Philosophy of philosophy, being defined as the discussion of What is philosophy? is so obviously pertinent to a reader interested in the topic Philosophy that cross-linking it in the intro is a no-brainer.

What new objection can you bring up now that notability and pertinence are established? Brews ohare (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think all editors are OK with some mention in the body of the article, although I think we should wait resolution of the content of the metaphilosophy article and its name. However at the moment only you think it belongs in the lede.  The number of things that are in philosophy which would have the same evidence you present is legion, so you haven't made the case.  Oh and your statement of my position is (yet again) wrong.  Snowded  TALK 19:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. The point is now that there are so many worthy items that could be linked in the lead that it would be simply undue weight to put in a link to Philosophy of philosophy. But Philosophy of philosophy is not only a subdivision of philosophy, like entomology, but also happens to be uniquely the topic that discusses What is philosophy?, which is at the foundation of all the fields of philosophy, and is a natural question that would be asked by many readers entering the article Philosophy? Philosophy of philosophy is pertinent to the whole of Philosophy, unlike other subdivisions of philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have your views, expressed at length. Lets see if other editors agree with you or not. Snowded TALK 04:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Put the sentence in section 1.6, "Specialized branches". Metaphilosophy, while not trivial, has not commanded nearly the interest of phil of language, phil of mind, phil of religion, phil of law, -- all of which are relegated to said section rather than singled out with an entire sentence in the lede paragraph.  Metaphilosophy is no more "at the foundation of all the fields of philosophy" than meta-mathematics is the foundation of math, or philosophy is "at the foundation" of physics, or chemistry, or what have you.  While there might be something to such an idea, it verifiably does not command much interest from physicists, chemists, etc., and so singling it out in such a way gives it UNDUE weight, just as would inserting a sentence about the philosophy of physics into the opening paragraph of physics. 271828182 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 271828182: I'd say the areas of 'phil of language, phil of mind, phil of religion, phil of law' all indicate that they share something denoted by the word 'philosophy' and it could reasonably occur to a reader as to what exactly the word philosophy brings to each of these topics. Of course, the answer to that is the answer to What is philosophy? and that is the subject of Metaphilosophy. Because of its direct involvement in answering this question and related sub-questions like How is philosophy different from science, from math, from religion,...? it has a peculiar position in informing the reader about philosophy in general that recommends its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Brews ohare (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that follows in the least. Cf.: an article on different branches of mathematics need not include a sentence about meta-mathematics.  Conjecturing what "could reasonably occur to a reader" is weaseling and handwaving.  Just as scientists are able to practice science without ever considering the philosophy of science, and just as the WP articles on biology, chemistry, and physics do not mention phil-of-X in their ledes, there are no grounds to elevate metaphilosophy to the same rank as core subfields such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc.  Inserting a link via a term (as the opening sentence does) would result in the patently goofy "philosophy is the study of general problems such as ... philosophy."  What do you have against it being in section 1.6? 271828182 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that the lead paragraph now introduces many subfields of philosophy (an approach I recommended long ago that met with great protest). It might be pointed out that the article on philosophy here is not averse to presenting metaphilosophy: "The issue of the definition of philosophy is nowadays tackled by Metaphilosophy (or the philosophy of philosophy)." Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to imply that the current lead, which is older than your proposal, is influenced by your proposal? Or are you trying to say that the core of your proposal and the disagreement with it, is just about the naming of sub-branches in the lead? Your way of narrating things is a bit confusing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew Lancaster: No, I wasn't under the impression I'd had any influence. I meant that the only surviving argument against putting a link to Metaphilosophy in the lead at this point is that a link was 'undue weight' because other topics of equal relevance found in philosophy were not mentioned in the lead. However all of seven subfields of philosophy already are linked in the lead, making a simple statement like that in the New World Encyclopedia seem appropriate.The New World statement: "The issue of the definition of philosophy is nowadays tackled by Metaphilosophy (or the philosophy of philosophy)" is fine. My suggestion was: "Just how philosophy is distinguished from other disciplines as to subject matter and methods is considered by metaphilosophy." Hardly undue emphasis after all. Brews ohare (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 271828182 made the point about weight well and you haven't really answered that point.  Add to that the simple fact that the term is disputed by some, while epistemology is not and you should be able to see why it doesn't really belong in the lede  Snowded  TALK 11:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: My comment above refuting the idea of 'undue weight' on the basis that there are plenty of other topics linked in the lead right now, directly addresses 271828182's remarks. How do you arrive at your view that it does not? There is widespread usage of the term metaphilosophy and the only dispute is the internal one as to various ways of looking at it, which are in themselves part of the subject of metaphilosophy. How do you arrive at your view that a subject that contains some different interpretations of its subject matter is therefore itself a field itself in dispute? Sort of like saying different tastes in wine mean there is no wine industry. Brews ohare (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Explained it to you too many times to repeat it all over again Brews, including most recently above. I suggest you now wait to see if any other editor supports your position.  To date no one has and carrying on without support beyond a certain point becomes disruptive.   Snowded  TALK 13:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: You have 'explained' nothing and respond to all discussion only by reiterating your same assertions, like using repetition to sell Coke instead of Pepsi. I am abandoning the attempt to link metaphilosophy in the lead and instead will introduce a sub-section on this topic, thereby incorporating the subject in the main body of the article as some editors have proposed above. Brews ohare (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the new section on metaphilosophy here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, just to clarify, you are saying that because there are categories of philosophy named in the current lead, then ALL possible categories of philosophy should be given equal weight in the lead? I do not think that is very convincing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC):

Rewording of introductory paragraph
The present introductory paragraph is as follows:
 * "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]

[1] Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 1: "Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate, abstract and very general. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose."

[2] A.C. Grayling, Philosophy 1: A Guide through the Subject (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 1: "The aim of philosophical inquiry is to gain insight into questions about knowledge, truth, reason, reality, meaning, mind, and value."

[3] Anthony Quinton, in T. Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 666: "Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved."

[4] Mirriam Webster on-line dictionary

The Merriam Webster definition is not one definition but four, ranging from "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts" to "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means" and "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs", and "a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought". In my opinion this set of definitions has two drawbacks: it is so general and so vague as to leave the concept in limbo, and it doesn't capture the essence of what is philosophy at all.

The Oxford Companion definition is very good.

The Wikipedia definitions "the study of general and fundamental problems" is hopelessly vague. The follow-up "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." addresses an important point, distinguishing philosophy from other disciplines. The last sentence makes a bow to the Merriam Webster approach, connecting 'philosophy' to a grab-bag of ideas. Perhaps it is useful to point out the very wide and sloppy everyday use of philosophy in a sentence, as done here, but that should be the end of the discussion of this formulation.

For example,as replacement for the present first paragraph:


 * Philosophy is critical thinking of a systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Philosophy seeks to articulate the rules or principles involved in belief formation in an explicitly rational, critical and systematic way.[1][2] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[3] Answering the questions: What is philosophy? and How should philosophy be done? is the domain of metaphilosophy.[4]


 * [1] A paraphrase of a much quoted definition by


 * [2]


 * [3] Mirriam Webster on-line dictionary


 * [4]

Are there comments about such a proposed revision? Brews ohare (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I'd like to replace the vague initial statement of the article by some wording more along the lines of the Oxford Companion wording, and provide some links to closely related WP articles. Brews ohare (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It think the following is the proposal and I personally think it is no way an improvement. But it would be good to get more comments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The criticism that the first sentence is "hopelessly vague" overlooks the full sentence, which immediately narrows the field by offering examples. The proposed replacement is, in content, unobjectionable, but in style is far more cluttered and difficult to parse.  If someone is reading this article to learn what philosophy is, they need a clear, plain statement, not a paragraph encumbered with ugly jargon about "belief formation".  271828182 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The second is also more limited in nature, its formulation excludes aesthetics to take but one example and the whole "belief formation" is both jargon and partial in nature Snowded  TALK 04:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The term 'belief formation', which I cribbed from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy appears to grate. So I propose fixing this problem.
 * I have swapped out this wording in the two-column comparison above. Brews ohare (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The complaint that a 'clear, plain statement' is desirable cannot be disputed. Looking at the literature, I haven't found such a statement. The first sentence in Philosophy: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with" blah blah blah, may be simple, but its content could be summarized as "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems." Is that really all that helpful? The suggestion is that the second sentence fixes this problem "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument", but this description of methodology does nothing to clarify just what is included in its "generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument", and this description doesn't distinguish philosophy from other pursuits. Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem you have is that you are trying to restrict or bound philosophy to confirm with a particular view you have of the subject.  Todate I see no suggest from you which improves on the current text (which went through extensive discussion with a far greater number of editors.  Unless someone else supports you I think this is over.   Snowded  TALK 19:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: I recognize that you do not wish to participate in this discussion. I do not see any arguments of substance as to why you have decided this way. Your claim that the proposal unnecessarily restricts the subject of philosophy is unhelpful unless you can articulate just what constraints it imposes that you have objection to. Then that matter could be addressed. At the moment, of course, the provided definition of philosophy covers every "systematic and rational" intellectual pursuit known to man, so anything less than that would be more restrictive. Brews ohare (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Making assumptions about other editors again I see. Try and get your mind around the fact that it is possible that other editors do not agree with your criticism of the current wording.  As it happens you have clearly articulated the constraint as you see it.  I and other editors have, per current wording and sources, made the wider use clear and you currently have no support.  Continued participation when you are introducing no new arguments is a waste of time.     You might want to do us all the courtesy of reading the previous discussions on this subject in the archives. Snowded  TALK 19:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh a question, from what other pursuits do you think philosophy has to be distinguished? So far you have suggested a distinction with neuro-science which does not reflect the literature or practice. Is that the only one or do you have others?  Snowded  TALK 19:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Your question appears to relate to an earlier thread unrelated to the present proposal. It seems that you wish to escalate this discussion of a sentence in the introduction into some kind of major brouhaha. There have so far been only two comments about the proposal other than your own, and the discussion is hardly "over". You may be skilled at this kind of diversion intent on making this conversation personal rather than a consideration of content, but it is not helpful to Wikipedia. The more fruitful course would be to focus upon the proposal made in this thread, to put other matters aside, and to articulate a response related directly to the proposal as it stands. Brews ohare (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I really shouldn't have to keep reminding you to stop speculating as to the motives of other editors not to mention making rather silly accusations such as the brouhaha one. I am happy with the current wording, I don't think your proposal adds anything it only subtracts for the reasons stated (and repeated).  So I may not be engaged in way that you find helpful, but I am engaged.  Introduce some new argument then fine we can look at it, but for the moment this is going no where.  You might like to answer my question above (the one about other pursuits), if you can it might help clarify you position.  If nothing else it would give some indication you are listening to other editors  Snowded  TALK 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I've revised the proposal in accordance with the suggestion that "belief formation" is objectionable. I have included aesthetics in the list of philosophical subjects. Any other suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aesthetics was just one example, by trying to narrow things down you are loosing too much. I repeat this is no improvement and no sound argument has been advanced that we need to change. Snowded  TALK 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Brews just some examples of some comments about the style of writing: I am just giving some examples. I do not see how you have removed any vagueness, or added any improvements with this proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence you propose contains no less than 4 parentheses. That is bad style, and by that I mean it is not just breaking some common conventions, but that it is painful to read, and very difficult to parse in a clear way even for someone familiar with philosophy.
 * The first parenthesis seems to equate "metaphysics" with something known as "theory of existence" and also with, it seems, one of the following: "a systematic kind about the general nature of the world", or "the general nature of the world", or "the world".
 * The second one seems to equate "epistemology" with "theory of knowledge" (OK) and then also with either "the justification of belief" or "belief". I can more or less understand this, but I do not see the point of the triple equation and parenthesis.
 * The third one equates "the conduct of life" (or perhaps "life") with "ethics" and then also with "theory of value". Again, why all these equations in the first sentence of a lead?
 * The fourth one I can handle. You equate "the judgment of beauty and taste" with "aesthetics". Same again. Why?
 * Andrew: Thanks for the specifics. The point of the links is to assist the reader by pointing out particular subdomains and providing links for elucidation. Perhaps the links alone without attempts to explain them would be preferable, and could eliminate parens. What do you think? Pointing out specific topics does avoid vagueness. The result might be this:

Any better, Andrew? Perhaps without raining on the entire parade you might suggest some rewording? Brews ohare (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We deal more comprehensively with the subject areas of philosophy later. That is one of the reasons they were not included last time this was discussed as to exclude any was to make the description incomplete.  Also the whole idea that 'Metaphilosophy' is agreed is a nonsense, it is used by some philosophers but rejected by others.   Snowded  TALK 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be easy for the non-expert to read. Thus, "reality" is clearer than "epistomology". Rick Norwood (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rick: Are you recommending the links be set up like this:
 * Philosophy is critical thinking of a systematic kind about the major topics of being, knowledge, morality, and beauty.
 * As you probably know, none of the branches of philosophy is easily expressed, but maybe this will do for a starting position? A click on a link will provide more detail. Brews ohare (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, concerning your new proposal I could make a few more obvious comments but it is clearly going in the direction at least the first bit of your proposal is a reordering of the words in the existing text. So by definition it does not seem to be a major clarification. If the existing version is hopelessly vague then this rewrite must also be? The real point of your proposal must surely be all or some of the following very controversial limiting of the domain of philosophy? (Please check and confirm.)
 * Philosophy is limited to only "abstract, logical and impartial" discussion about only "the rules or principles behind" only "the major topics" within only 4 topics: metaphysics,epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.
 * Philosophy definitely does not ask questions about what philosophy is or should be. Instead there is a thing called metaphilosphy which does this.
 * Do you honestly believe that either of these two points represent mainstream and non-controversial positions amongst published philosophers and the best published summarizers of philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: The objectives of philosophy have evolved from the days of the Greeks, so any discussion like you suggest probably requires a date stamp. However, I don't think the present proposal should be critiqued on the basis of what I might think or might propose or have proposed previously. Brews ohare (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but descriptions of the evolution are for the body, not the first sentence of the lead. It is a common problem on WP that people want to say everything in the first sentence. For the first sentence we need to try to distill what is common to all the normal mainstream meanings of philosophy. (For subjects that have different definitions with zero common ground we need several articles. I do not think anyone is proposing that here?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (1)The new proposal, both in its original and its revised form, is too general in offering thinking as the definiens of philosophy, just as "thinking about matter, motion, and energy" would be a flaccid and misleading way of defining physics. "Study" is preferable as it is part of one of our sources, is the definiens offered by the OED entry for "the usual sense", and accurately fits the topic of the rest of the article, which is clearly identifiable as the academic discipline that goes by the same name as found in the overwhelming majority of universities around the world.  (2) Including "systematic" without qualification (cf. the current lede), and attributing to philosophy a search for rules and principles behind (why the italics? why the metaphor of surface and depth?), and replacing the minimalist "rational" with the more rhetorically freighted triad of "abstract, logical and impartial" all push the paragraph toward POV violation, as there have been many notable philosophers who have sharply dissented from such definitions of philosophy.  The definition should be neutral and inclusive.  If the price of this seems "hopelessly vague" to some, I am afraid such is the nature of fitting so multifarious a field into two reasonably clear sentences.  271828182 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'll abandon further discussion here. It appears to me that there are two schools of thought: one that the present introduction is just ducky, and the other that the attempt to improve upon is futile. So being between those gunning for its present form and those who throw up their hands in futility .... Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sign, or between one editor and all other editors who work on this page. Or between one editor who wants to impose a particular (restrictive) take on the definition of philosophy and those more than open to change, but who do not want to take a particular PoV and/or want to follow what we can find in general sources such as Encyclopaedias and Dictionaries of Philosophy.  It really would be helpful if you focused on content, rather than sweeping generalisations about the motivations and attitudes of other editors.   Snowded  TALK 08:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording is better than all the proposed versions in this thread, which are too restrictive in limiting the topic basically to a specific western tradition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange "r tu ou" characters
Found "r tu ou" at the beginning of the main Philosophy paragraph (See the screenshot). I tried editing the article but coudn't find theses characters. Some hidden bug? --ImdadAhmed 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdad.ahmed (talk • contribs)
 * It was vandalism of the template:philosophy sidebar Snowded  TALK 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)