Talk:Philosophy/Archive 30

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)

Major Traditions
Under major traditions, would you not include the rationalists (Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes) and also the empiricists (Hume, Berkeley, Locke)? There seems to be a huge gap left between Aristotelianism and German idealism. 212.183.140.9 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There might be different ways to address your second sentence. It seems worth considering, but empiricism with no qualifier gets used in a very broad way, so for example "British empiricism" and "Cartesianism" might be more specific and clear for naming "traditions"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Pragmatism and Correspondence
I removed the claim in the pragmatism section that "truth should be seen as correspondence" [sic]. User:Warshy reverted. I've reverted again. Here's the reason: the pragmatist theory of truth is always contrasted with the quite different correspondence theory of truth (e.g. one example), making the wording I deleted significantly misleading. Note too that in the citation, Peirce never refers to correspondence. What he says is "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." And this is reflected by my edit. Maybe it can be written more pretty, but at least it's accurate.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * One of the reasons I had reverted is that the syntax got garbled with your removal. You have now fixed that problem. I am no specialist in Peirce's pragmatism, so I will take you word on it, for the time being. Regards, warshy¥¥ 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest. I somehow misread the sentence after your first removal, the syntax did not get garbled as I thougt... So it was my mistake. Reading and re-reading the passage again now, the sentence the way it was still looks better to my aesthetic taste, and also logically is does not seem to fail. However, as I said, if you insist that Pierce's theories of correspondence and truth "need to be sharply distinguished," I will have to defer to you on it, for the time being... Regards again. warshy¥¥ 16:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, my sentence could probably be improved, but losing the ref to "correspondence" was a priority.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again

incorrect spelling
In the ancient greco-roman section, 2nd paragraph, 4th line, 5th word; please change 'onw' to 'own' because of incorrect spelling.

41.204.183.254 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Expand the definition
I would like to see the opening of this article put the overall subject in better context. The statement, "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument", should be expanded to include the "other ways" in order to clarify the problem being addressed. After all, while there are many tools, there aren't that many other systems--did I miss any?.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to do a good job of this, but I'd suggest something along the lines of:

"Competing systems for addressing these same problems in order to generate new, reliable knowledge of human reality include:
 * Science, which relies mainly on the tool of repeatable experimentation to provide new perceptions and useful manipulations of the physical world;
 * Religion, which relies mainly on the tools of faith and mythology to recognize and promote successful patterns of cultural behavior in human history, or attempt to create new ones;
 * Art, which provides new and unexpected commonalities and linkages, through sensory exploitation of sight (visual arts), sound (music), touch (dance, sculpture), taste and smell (culinary arts)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeliff (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Philosophy is about "problems!?" Quoting Lead Section: "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]"
 * That jars my teeth!...and dictionaries (American Heritage Dictionary) disagree. I'll change to "questions," but I'm not up to explaining the difference, —however I think that section begs for it. While subtle, it is so foundational that a misunderstanding here is likely to lead to an utterly different destination. A misunderstanding here is predictable due to the cultural assumptions and values internally projected from our western thought. see also Manual of Style (lead section) --71.133.254.31 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Nevermind, seems the article has been permanently locked up for three years. Also suggest meta-philosophy such as eastern V. western thought be discussed. Also, how people with two philosophies can communicate, for example scientific V. religious or Eastern V. western systems of evidence, etc. --71.133.254.31 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

two inactive references
References 53 "huang" and 54 "Chan" are not working.Can someone fix that in "Reference works" section? A Sourcebook of Chinese Philosophy by Chan, Wing-tsit. should be replaced with and Essentials of Neo-Confucianism: Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming Periods by Huang, Siu-chi should be replaced with --LesleyLai (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ and thanks.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge question concerning the Philosopher article
Should the article Philosopher, which is currently "top importance" but "start class" be merged into this article? Please have a look here: SPECIFICO  talk  18:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No: the Philosopher article is of little merit.


 * That's the point. The Philosopher article needs vast improvement or else it should be merged or redirect.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point in having an article "Philosopher" as well as an article "Philosophy" any more than "Chemist" and "Chemistry" (and I am surprised to note that there are such as well as Biologist/Biology and Musician/Music.!) On the grounds that Philosopher  a) superfluous and b) devoid of useful content I would support emptying the article and redirecting to this article,  &mdash; Philogos (talk)  23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not DELETE the article Philosopher? --&mdash; Philogos (talk)  21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge and delete.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just DELETE (but do not merge) Philosopher replacing it  with a redirection to Philosophy.  The article Philosopher,  has no content worth incorporting into Philosophy.  --&mdash; Philogos (talk)  21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014
Lpcardoso (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC) In the second sentence of the first paragraph maybe it will help to add examples of other ways of addressing the problems that philosophy tackles. Ie: the sentence would read: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways (ex: mythology, religion, scientific research) of addressing such problems by..."

My suggestion comes after reading the article in another language (Portuguese) link. tks.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

disambiguation link
word 4 of paragraph 1 of article header, study, links to disambiguation page. I suggest Education as the destination for this link as it pertains to a "field of study" or "branch of education" 72.175.154.107 (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014
I am developing a page as දර්ශනය (philosophy) in sinhala language. I like to copy or study the structure of this page.

my user page https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/පරිශීලක:රාජු

and the page i currently editing is https://si.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=දර්ශනය

Thank you.

රාජු (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

 * Unique Philosophy Chat Room

BoazBarak (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You would need consensus before adding such a link, which you are unlikely to get; but as the site is deemed suspicious/risky by McAfee, it won't be added in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

removal of "Criticism" section
After thinking about it, I would like to make sure it is at least mentioned on this talk page that a section has been removed, with this edit. I am not really sure I can follow User:Snowded's rationale, which was: "Dubious, philosophy of religion, by religions is a major field etc. etc This is too selective". To me it seems that the controversy it has always caused, is part of what is often seen as critical to understanding what philosophy is. In the classical formulation, philosophers saw themselves as providing a new type of knowledge, contrasting with both conventional/traditional knowledge and also "the poets". I don't think such criticism is uncommon or has ever stopped? That there is such a thing as "philosophy of religion" seems irrelevant. To preserve what is removed (which is not necessarily as good as it should be either), and also to allow comments if anyone has any, it was as follows: What do others think? Would it have been better to re-make the section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The section was very badly written, but it was referenced. The existence of a book titled "Philosophers behaving badly" suggests that there is criticism, and a better written section might replace the one deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't not having a separate criticism section a best practice on Wikipedia? WP:CRITS is not a guideline but I agree with its spirit. Criticism should be integrated into various sections of the article as and when it meets WP:DUE. Interestingly, the essay makes an exception for articles on particular philosophies and religions. Amitrochates (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with both the replies so far pointing to problems with what was removed. Indeed I was thinking the section deletion raised other questions about whether something better could replace it, if anything. To me, philosophy is now and always was to some extent defined by what it is not, and indeed what it comes into conflict with (religion, law, story telling, natural science etc). There is a danger when writing about philosophy that we treat it as an obvious and simple concept that everyone knows about, and which exists "by nature" rather than by an alignment of historical accidents. The explanation of how western philosophy came into being, which might also have covered this also, has also become somewhat de-emphasized in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The most common criticism of philosophy is that it is too intellectual, and ignores common sense. I don't think that is a just criticism, but it is the criticism I hear more often than any other. Should the article mention this? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with a criticism section in this context as criticism happens within the discipline or other aspects of the discipline.  If there was a movement to ban Philosophy as a subject, or if the odd 'science has replaced philosophy' comment was more than a debating point and clearly referenced third party sources then there might be a case to mention it.   The idea in the original edit that religion opposes philosophy was a nonsense when all religions have philosophies and formal study thereof.  Changing the western bias of the history would be a good idea if there are sources.  Too intellectual is a general criticism of all the humanities, philosophy is just one of many.  Controversies over teaching philosophy in schools would be worthy of inclusion.   The suggestion that philosophers behave badly (while undoubtedly true) does not imply a false discipline but simply comments on human nature   Snowded  TALK 06:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the extension of the word "philosophy" to cover Indian and Chinese philosophy, and the narrowing of the term so that it no longer normally includes natural science, are both known sources of difficulty which we need to handle in this article. What I mean is that there are clearly more or less narrow ways of defining philosophy, and how it contrasts with other types of "wisdom literature". Does this sound wrong? Just seems to be something we need to deal with.
 * I am not so clear what the relevance is of saying that religions have "philosophies". I think these are far from being "the rule" and also far from being consistent with the narrowest definitions of either philosophy or religion. Being simplistic, faith is demanded by religions, and called bad by philosophy. It seems to me one extremely sourceable story which is often said to encapsulate what philosophy is, is that Socrates was sentenced to death for bringing new gods to the city. It is not only pious people who question the arrogance of philosophy but also for example Aristophanes. Surely we all know there are volumes and volumes about this "battle" between philosophy and its competitors. A famous chapter in the story is surely Al-Ghazzali versus the medieval islamic philosophers.
 * Concerning contemporary criticism of philosophy from scientists, I can't think of any sourcing and am not really seeing it as a big concern. I think this might indeed be Snowded's concern about the deleted section. Maybe someone else can find something, but for now can see Snowded's point. Certainly modernism (including modern science) is founded upon the idea that metaphysics is a waste of time. But many philosophers would agree, so this is more a debate between schools of philosophy.
 * OTOH there is of course still criticism of philosophy from the religions, and from the "poets". (Again, many of the ones I am thinking of are of course influenced by the modern critics of philosophy within philosophy itself, such as Nietzsche.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any religion that doesn't practice the discipline of Philosophy .... [[User:Snowded TALK 14:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We argued for more than a year over whether philosophy included writers in India and China. I seem to remember Snowded being around at the time. We really do not want to relive that. Whether a religion has a philosophy depends on the religion. Catholics do. The more enthusiastic religions may not. For example, if you speak in tongues or whirl in circles, you may be trying to prevent rational thought. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I may have been assuming a too serious definition of religion :-)  My point was that you can't say Religion is opposed to Philosophy (the original edit) when all the major religions teach Philosophy in seminaries or equivalents  Snowded  TALK 15:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But not everyone does, and this is indeed an old subject in philosophy and in religion. It partly depends upon whether religion implies unquestioning faith. Anyway let's say that there is a tension between the two?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Then there is a tension between rigid materialism and philosophy with some scientists denying philosophy. Why single out religious from the body of extremists? Snowded TALK 10:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to. I pointed to a tension between faith and questioning which has been a big factor in the real world history of philosophers. But there are indeed other "tensions" contra philosophy and I did not mean to write those off. The way I see it, we are exploring what could or should have been in the removed section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see a case for a section. Mentioning religious fundamentalists opposing philosophy in the section on Philosophy of Religion might make sense if its referenced and significant. Ditto the fundamentalist 'scientists' to borrow Midgley's wonderful label in the Philosophy of science section. Snowded TALK 11:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal identity
I added the topic of identity in the lead because it is one of philosophy's fundamental and enduring questions. Snowded demurred.

While I appreciate the feedback, the question of identity is indeed fundamental.
 * The question of identity is a species of metaphysics, which is arguably the most fundamental.
 * The question of identity is, specifically, the question of how any particular entity is just that entity through time and through changes -- i.e., what is a substance? what is a thing at all?
 * The question of identity is the question] of what it means for me to be a person. I appear to be one thing through time and through change. Am I?
 * The question of identity is enduring -- it is asked by the earliest and most recent philosophers. It is asked by Socrates (in Phaedrus 230a) ("As I was saying just now, I investigate not these things, but myself, to know whether I am a monster more complicated and more furious than Typhon or a gentler and simpler creature, to whom a divine and quiet lot is given by nature.") by Kant in his discussion of the transcendental-ego, by Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature, and many contemporaries like Thomas Nagel (View from Nowhere) and others.

So yeah, it is a fundamental of philosophy by any account. Any reason to think it's not?

Pragmatically, it's smart to include the question of identity early in a philosophy article that gets lots of readers, because it is a very accessible introduction for non-philosophers to some of the fundamentals of philosophy, like what makes a substance, what is time, what causes change, first-person consciousness, mind, introspective knowledge, and knowledge in general.

CircularReason (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It falls within the other areas and there are overlaps with Anthropology and other disciplines. I'm the last person to disagree its important, but it is not one of the main divisions of the disciplines per University Course descriptions and the major encyclopaedia/dictionaries as far as I know, The same applies to causality which I have also removed.  Its not a matter of our opinion however, you need to work from third party sources which summarise the field not from primary sources such as Nagel.  This is particularly true for the lede which has to be properly sourced.  I also made the point in my last edit summary that a lot of collaborative effort went into agreeing the current lede.  So please bring proposals here first and get agreement.  Why insert causality rather than Free Will for example, but Free Will would not be listed one of the major divisions, in part because it is a subject in all those divisions.   If you include Identity and Causality there are a dozen other subjects that could be added in.  The lede is about the major divisions of philosophy  Snowded  TALK 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Snowded. We should describe the topic the way most mainstream sources do.  TFD (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Four Deuces. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "most mainstream sources"? I am indexing the sources currently listed as "introductory" and most of them list "Mind" or "Mind-Body" as a main issue. CircularReason (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You talked above above about "personal identity." Now you are talking about "mind" and "mind-body."  If you want to change the subject, set up a new discussion thread.  TFD (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A motion to revise the lead... and some other things
This article needs work.

It is rated #1 vital and a "C" in quality. I agree on both counts.

With an M.A. in philosophy and PhD in the works, I am doing my part. (I'm studying ethics, metaethics, philosophy of mind, among others, and doing what I can on those articles and sub-topics.)

When I need to learn something about philosophy, I rarely use Wikipedia. I use Stanford regularly and (in a pinch) the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Wikipedia has notoriously bad philosophy articles. But lots of nonphilosophers use WP.

We can do better. Drawing from books, encyclopedias, and articles from established philosophy journals, those of us who care enough about WP to make it visitable and informative can do so.

Is this about 'philosophy' in its broadest and most historical meaning or 'philosophy' in its varied contemporary meanings? WP is not supposed to be cutting edge, but encyclopedic. So I move that we discuss more of how philosophically has been historically understood (especially in the western philosophy sections) than how (some) moderns understand it.

This article has multiple issues:

1. The opening line says philosophy is the "study of ... problems." Plato, Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Boethius, Scotus, Kant, Hume, Russell, Moore, etc. were not studying "problems." They took themselves to be studying reality, existence, knowledge, etc. -- the things themselves. Philosophers study their own concepts, study history, but also study "being qua being." 2. The lead calls philosophy a "study" when it might include words like "questioning" "exploring" etc. 3. The first link is to the "reality" article which is, frankly, a not so good article. The ontology article is much more philosophical and less... garbled. 4. In the list of topics is "Values". Value is a loaded word that implies all evaluative concepts are subjective concepts. There is no clear and undisputed definition between facts and values (for instance, "farmer" as a concept includes evaluative content, since someone who claimed to be a farmer but killed all his crops would not be such. See (Foot 2003). Better would be to discuss particular evaluative terms like the good, beauty, excellence, veridicality, etc. 5. The first topical section is epistemology. Why not metaphysics? Why not ethics? Socrates (for instance) was more concerned with the good than he was with knowledge, relatively speaking. This Florida State Philosophy page has metaphysics first as well. 6. There is no discussion of conceptual analysis, which is what Frank Jackson, Robert Brandom and others think philosophy is all about. 7. There is no discussion of metaphilosophy, which is sort of what this article is about. 8. The distinction between historical and topical is very half-heartedly carried out. There is a a ton of historical stubs and only a few topical stubs -- and they are mostly stubs. 9. Ethics and political philosophy fly under the same heading. They should be distinguished (and they need citations). 10. There is no discussion of the relation between (historical) science and (historical) theology. Questions about what is real overlap with scientific questions (are electrons real? quarks?) and theological questions (are miracles real? angels?) -- and these are different from "specialized" fields like philosophy of science and philosophy of religion.

I am trying to work on each of these in time. My goal is to make it noncontroversial (impossible-- how about not too controversial) and clear enough for non-philosopher Wikipedia readers to glean something and keep reading.

Right now, just the new lead. that reads as thus:

"Philosophy is the general study of being, thinking, speaking, and life." With clarification, of course, these broad (and easily understandible) terms can introduce metaphysics, causality, epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, ethics, politics.

I even prefer this to the current: "In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other." (Florida State)

Just a few thoughts. I need comments from editors with M.A. and PhD in philosophy. That's all for now.

CircularReason (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * More on the first bullet point above: The opening line says philosophy is the "study of ... problems." This is a bad first sentence.

According to [|Oxford English Dictionary], philosophers study "the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." Philosophers indeed study their own concepts, and study history, and "problems" but the traditional definition of philosophy is that we study the fundamental nature of reality and knowledge.

I move to update the lead with a quotation and reference to the Oxford Dictionary. A much better sentence would be this: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language.[1][2][3]

All opposed? All in favor? Thanks

CircularReason (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Moving forward with the edit since no one objects. Thanks.

CircularReason (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Introductory texts"
I motion to remove this link from the "External Links" ''* Think: philosophy for everyone Lively and accessible articles written by philosophers pre-eminent in their fields, for a broad audience. Free articles are available online" '' It is a journal -- albeit an accessible one -- with ongoing and rotating topics and not a dedicated introduction to philosophy.

CircularReason (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? It is not a Wikipedia article, therefore we cannot move it.  TFD (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point seems to be that the link in question, which currently exists in the 'further reading: introductions' section of this article, seems inappropriate in that position, and should be either relocated elsewhere in this article, or removed from this article. Endovior (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for clarifying Endovior. Sorry Four Deuces. I re-phrased the above motion. CircularReason (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If it belongs then it is in further reading, but I don't think it is especially notable so I would remove it Snowded  TALK 16:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I also see no reason to keep it (anywhere).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, it's gone. If anyone has a dissenting opinion, feel free to voice it.CircularReason (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

End of introduction entry
I made a minor contribution to the introduction of this page. My edit was reverted and claimed "looks like vandalism". If you have a contention with my edit please think about the context of that sentence. It adds an accurate description of what philosophy is to regular people. So if you disagree based on the grounds that it doesn't sound "academic/pedantic" enough try and think about how this could help spread a fundamental understanding of what philosophy entails. Think about all the negative criticism of philosophy. The quote adds real world context. Void burn (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't vandalism. However, I've also removed it as not based on a WP:reliable source. The quote you added was a quote on a webpage of someone offering counseling services for a fee. Please read WP:BRD as that essay suggests that if your edit is reverted, you should discuss prior to re-adding the edit to gain consensus for the content. Vsmith (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

142.157.68.20 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

cite error
In the main article, a red CITE Error occurs. I couldnt fix it. Thanks to the semi-protected level.
 * Could somebody FindMeLost (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks for spotting it. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Aesthetics
In Snowded's most recent reversion, sourced material added to the aesthetics section was completely removed. The aesthetics section, should be, as he correctly points out, a summary of the Aesthetics article. However, even a summary should note that the longstanding notion that aesthetics was about beauty was challenged in the early 20th century by Dadaist artists and later by postmodern philosophers.

The reversion of all text added to the article is not the pathway to developing and improving the article. The reversion of all added text, including sourced, pertinent material is more associated with the goal of "protecting" Featured articles (however, even Featured articles can be edited). However, this is a C-class article. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The addition of selective material about some perspectives on a subject does not belong in a summary article of the whole field. You attempted the same with the lede which is why both edits have been reverted  Snowded  TALK 03:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC delayed pending more talk page discussion
An RfC was started on adding more history of philosophy discussion. This RfC has been removed after Snowded suggested that this issue be discussed more on the talk page. See above. OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 15:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Image of woman philosopher
According to WP:MOSIMAGES, general articles should have images that depict a diversity of race and gender. This article currently depicts only male philosophers. As an attempt to comply with the MOSIMAGES guideline, an image of Simone de Beauvoir was added in the existentialism section, as she is one of the philosophers who is discussed in the section. User:Snowded reverted this image on the grounds that Simone de Beauvoir does not "define" existentialism. There is no requirement under Wikipedia image guidelines that the proposed image depict the defining figure of a field of scholarship. The section on pertinence and encyclopedic nature at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states that "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic...Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." Simone de Beauvoir is directly related to the article, as she is named in the text. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't use her to illustrate that field. You have lots of other options  from the Medieval period on.  Maybe we should all come up with some names,  Snowded  TALK 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that we can't use her to illustrate the existentialism section. Could you elaborate on your reasoning? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) does acknowledge that Beauvoir is of those individuals who "...have gradually won the right to be admitted into the philosophical fold", because she "identify[ed] herself as an author rather than as a philosopher and call[ed] herself the midwife of Sartre’s existential ethics rather than a thinker in her own right." However, the SEP concludes that "[h]er enduring contributions to the fields of ethics, politics, existentialism, phenomenology and feminist theory and her significance as an activist and public intellectual is now a matter of record." <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 22:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your statement "You can't use her to illustrate that field" does not provide a rationale or explanation. Having a reasonable diversity of gender in images is required by the MOS:IMAGES guideline. Beauvoir is one of the very few women philosophers in the article. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 02:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are more important people in that field and you yourself say he range is wider. If you want then take someone like Hildegard of Bingen into the medieval section.  Or in the modern era Iris Murdoch or Mary Midgley  Snowded  TALK 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added Iris Murdoch pic after Snowded indicated that he agreed with the addition of her picture. Of course, to have her picture added, she needs to be included in the text of the article, so I added her name to the analytic philosophy section. Sorry for implying that you agreed she was an analytic philosopher in the edit summary. I was referring to our discussion about including a picture. Regarding where to categorize her, Iris Murdoch: Texts and Contexts edited by Anne Rowe, Avril Horner (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) states that "...she [Murdoch] writes in unusual ways for a philosopher of the analytic tradition." (p. 18). In IRIS MURDOCH AND THE BORDERS OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY (Ratio, Volume 25, Issue 2, pages 164–176, June 2012), Tony Milligan states that while "...Murdoch's philosophical texts depart significantly from familiar analytic discursive norms", her "...connection to the analytic tradition is more than genealogical, it is more than a matter of her writing (initially) in response to analytic contemporaries before branching off in a more continental direction. While she departs from familiar analytic discursive norms, she continues to accept most of the epistemic values (such as clarity and simplicity) that the norms embody." <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 21:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Applied philosophy
Ayn Rand was added to the applied philosophy section, as an example of a philosopher who has influenced governments and their actions. Snowded reverted her addition, stating she is not a philosopher. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on her, which calls her a "...a philosopher and a novelist who outlined a comprehensive philosophy, including an epistemology and a theory of art, in her novels and essays." Regarding her political influence, the SEP states that "[t]he libertarian political movement, though largely disowned by Rand, drew—and draws—great inspiration from her moral defence of the minimal state, that is, the state whose only raison d'être is protection of individual rights." . <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 04:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is the only one that does and it is an essay about her rather than a properly selected article. If you check all the other directories she is not even considered a philosopher.  Lots and lots of people call themselves philosophers, but we should only be listing people of note.  That means someone who is not considered noteworthy enough to appear in any of the major third party reviews of the field really doesn't count.  I Snowded  TALK 11:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is on individuals who influenced government, and it includes leaders who are not normally considered philosophers, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. A person does not need to be a philosopher to be in this list. While many sources argue Rand was an author or ideologue, and not a philosopher, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that “Ayn Rand was a major intellectual of the twentieth century.” Her “…philosophy is in the Aristotelian tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon metaphysical naturalism, empirical reason in epistemology, and self-realization in ethics.” “Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government.” Regarding her influence on politics, Salon states that “Rand’s impact has been widespread and deep. At the iceberg’s visible tip is the influence she’s had over major political figures who have shaped American society”, including Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan, Rep. Paul Ryan, Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 21:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Possibly widespread in the US but that is not the world. She does not belong in a summary of Philosophy, if she did then she would be mentioned in established international sources.  The Stanford article is written by a Libertarian blogger and an author linked to the Cato Institute.   One of the strengths of Stanford is that it comprises essays on a broad range of subjects, often by protagonists.  So it is a good reference for their position,   However in assessing international reputation and significance it is less good.  Other encyclopaedias such as the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy which set out to provide a comprehensive view of the field are more reliable in respect of overall reputation.  In that (and other comparable works) she is not even mentioned  Snowded  TALK 03:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The section could be better written. As I understand it, applied philosophy is a new branch of the subject and the section should be sourced.  Then we could determine whether Rand had any significant impact on it.  I suspect she has not.  TFD (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Companion to Philosophy is biased in my judgment. You will note that the current edition does not include an entry for Roger Scruton, even though he is a very well known figure. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not known as a Philosopher I think, but check out the other ones - she ain't there. As far as I can see she is only taken seriously as a philosopher in Universities that receive funding from the Anthem Foundation (like Texas).  The issue is notability, there are lots and lots of people who get mentions, but mentions in most of the third party sources is really needed Snowded  TALK 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Scruton is well known as a philosopher; if you look, I believe you'll find his writings are influential in the fields of aesthetics and architecture, for example. As for Rand, there are references works on philosophy that have articles on her - The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, for example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is notability, not the fact that some references exist Snowded  TALK 04:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But on Wikipedia we judge notability based on "references" so perhaps you should be a bit more specific about what is wrong or right with the one mentioned?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, there is a reference in Stanford to her being a philosopher, so under wikipedia policy that is enough for her to be labeled as such. Bit to include her as a philosopher on a list on this article one reference is not enough, per WP:WEIGHT, we would expect multiple references in different sources.  Otherwise if we include everyone referenced in Stanford then the list will be longer that the whole article  Snowded  TALK 16:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to be officially categorized as a philosopher to be on the list. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King are on the list. It is a short list of individuals who have influenced politics and government, and it is located in the applied philosophy section of the article. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 21:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Analytical tradition
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we need more pictures and references to female philosophers here. But that doesn't mean we should make false statements. One thing I am unsure of, so asking for other opinions, is just how far we can use the analytic label. My perspective is that people like Mary Midgley clearly challenge that and the Churchlands, Andy Clark and others are firmly taking a natural science (naturalising) perspective. However that modern approach where Philosophy of Mind, Neuro-science and aspects of Cognitive Psychology and coming together is not really covered in the article. As I say I'm unsure, so if we have an editor or two more in touch with modern academic categories here it would be useful to have an opinion. Once we get that right we can start inserting pictures :-) Snowded  TALK 06:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Michael Dummett's The Nature and Future of Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 2010) says "A small number of analytic philosophers–notoriously the two Churchlands–treat the absence of any detailed correspondence [between specific mental occurrences and particular events in the brain] as an objection not to the thesis of mind/brain identity, but to reliance on our familiar mental constructs." (p. 33) A university press book calls the Churchlands analytic philosophers. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 21:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Quentin Smith's Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language (Yale University Press, 1997) states that the postpositivist physicalism of philosophers such as the Churchlands and linguistic essentialism were the "two main movements of analytic philosophy of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s; no other analytic movement even compares with them in influence and acceptance." (p. 93-94). A second university press book categorizes the Churchlands under analytic philosophy. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 02:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Avrum Stroll's Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 2001) covers the theories of Rudolf Carnap, W. V. O. Quine, Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin, Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke, John Searle, Ruth Marcus, and Patricia and Paul Churchland. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 03:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK if you have the citations and no one objects reinstate it. Personally I would not place the naturalising tradition within analytic philosophy but sources outweigh opinion  Snowded  TALK 07:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Article too long
According to WP:TOOBIG, articles over 100 kb "almost certainly should be divided." This article is about 130 kb. According to the guidance at WP:TOOLONG, we need to come to a consensus on how to shorten or divide the article. It seems it would make sense to shorten sections that have a main article already. For starters, I propose trimming the history sections. There is already a history of philosophy parent article and some subsections also have their own main articles. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose an argument could be made, even just looking at recent talk page discussions, that this is going to be an article which is inherently difficult to keep within normal limits. Remember the Wikipedia page you quote is only meant to be general advice. On the other hand, probably nearly every editor will something in this article they would like to trim. The question is whether we can achieve any consensus on which things to trim. Proposals could be discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just a Wikipedia page. It's an editing guideline. The guideline on WP:TOOBIG states that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." Sections of the philosophy article that have a main article elsewhere on Wikipedia can be trimmed of detail, since a reader seeking more detail can go to the main article. For sections of the article that have a main article elsewhere, the content on this article is supposed to be a summary (as set out in WP:Summary style). <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 02:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a radical change from your previous position which was to expand sections :-)   In principle I think you are correct but remember that a guideline is not an absolute rule in wikipedia.  I suggest you take one section which you consider particularily  bloated and propose changes here  Snowded  TALK 07:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that one reason that all attempts to add new material to the article have been reverted is due to the article's 130 kb length. Thus I am proposing trimming existing sections so that material on new, underrepresented philosophers and branches of philosophy can be added. I will propose sections for trimming. Re: not an absolute rule...Arguing that an article should be one of the exceptions that needs to go over 100 kb might be more appropriate with a Featured Article (i.e., on the grounds that "We have created an article that is deemed to be an example of the best articles on WP, but it took us 130 kb to cover all the material adequately and fairly"), but this is a C-class article. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposing that we trim things, while all your changes have been to add material seems a little odd. It is a C class article so that justifies more than 100km if needed.   Snowded  TALK 20:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy simplistic definition
Philosophy needs a shorter definition, without losing its original meaning, so people outside of philosophical studies can understand it without any problems. <--- Language was designed to communicate ideas easy and accurately. So, I believe adding philosophy is the study of thinking is essential to achieving that very goal.

If anyone have disagreement, please add to this talk page below counterarguments, and I will reply to all counter-args within 12 hours. Thank you :)

Original argument:

Definition of philosophy needs a serious update to modern standards. Definition of a field of study needs to be complete and accurate to present society, however, current definition for philosophy is NOT. Philosophy is the study of general (one abstract word), fundamental nature (another abstract word), of reality (what is the reality is another term that is controversial in philosophy, science and physics), existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language (language is a word easily confused with language studies).

This existing definition have histories. But it is too limiting on the very concept of philosophy, which is love of wisdom, love of knowledge, LOVE OF THINKING. Thinking allows for conceptual possibilities. It is something people are free of doing. However, the existing definition of philosophy puts too much limitation of thinking by limiting philosophy to those of 7 areas (reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language). Which is absolutely intolerable, and it brings misconception to people who are outside of philosophical studies.

Study of thinking is a common sense definition that ALL philosophers can agree on. If you don’t. Simply argue with the cogito. Philosophy starts with the cogito, let’s aim our definition upon this block of knowledge as the starting point for all.

Counterarguments: In fact, there are no Philosophers who think that Philosophy is "the study of thinking." The study of thinking is called Cognitive Psychology. Q.E.D. Your definition is so absurdly simplistic and laughable as to be "not even wrong." World Champion Editor (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)]


 * I'm really not interested in wasting time in providing counter arguments to a proposed change where the only source is a personal and rather idiosyncratic web site.   If you want to propose additions to the article you need to give reasons supported by third party references.  Until then you stop edit warring  Snowded  TALK 05:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"I'm really not interested in wasting time in providing counter arguments to a proposed change where the only source is a personal and rather idiosyncratic web site." That's your argument, that all common sense needs to be published to be argued? You are flawed in your own reasoning. As philosophers you are SUPPOSED to be able to provide counterargument WITH/WITHOUT a 3rd party references. I am not required to provide a source on COMMON SENSE LOGIC. By playing this game of "not interested", you are bringing up your own PERSONAL bias not against the argument, but against the act of argument without a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually 2nd edit: In case Snowded forgot about the fundamental of knowledge. Fundamentals of knowledge DOESN'T require ANY REFERENCES. If a question was asked: What is the reference to a definition? Snowded's answer will be: Because xxx and xxx and xxx says so, and it was published by xxx therefore it is true. My answer: Because it the definition matches the nature of that object/idea/thing. And without any objection over the review of xxx,xxx,xxx, over a long length of time, without any real objection, then the definition matches. I found to be disheartening to even bring up this basic fundamental concept, during a debate for an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Read up on WP:RS, nothing gets onto wikipedia without reliable third party sources.  Certainly nothing gets here based on the web site of a contributor.   I've had to revert this same edit from two other articles, and nominate two more you created for deletion.  None of them match the criteria for inclusion.   You were offered help on your talk page to get started and I recommend you take that up.  You should also indent your comments on a talk page with colons - it makes it easier for everyone to follow the discussion   Snowded  TALK 06:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether or not if I am the a contributor on a website, or if a third party source is reliable or not, cannot be easily judged, let alone you are just ignoring the argument. Right now, it is all about getting to the debate. Not to inflict personal attacks on my articles based on your faulty assumptions about me, or my source, unless you have SOLID proof (which you DO NOT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I formatted that for you and you need to start signing your comments as a bot is having to do it for you.  I strongly recommend you read up on WP:RS.   We are an encyclopaedia not a class room or seminar.  We only summarise what third party reliable sources say.   Your (or your friend's) web site is not a reliable source  Snowded  TALK 06:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First, Wikipedia was NEVER an allowable source in any academic articles. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Again, you are assuming that I am or I am friend of 3rd party sources. Are you even an editor when you assume beyond facts. And I do not know how to sign because I barley started using Wikipedia, unlike you, who lives off on Wikipedia on making assumptions and deletion on ideas not because it is illogical, but because it doesn't have a "reliable source" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have been given links to pages that tell you how to edit. The signature method is described there, but look for the pencil icon and press that at the end of your comments. You have been offered help (look at the start of your talk page)   Wikipedia is a very reliable source for wikipedia process and methods.  Yes you are new and people are trying to help, but you have to do some work yourself  Snowded  TALK 06:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's get on a common ground. I am here to establish what is correct. Not, what each and every word came from, and sourced from. If you read about my argument, you wouldn't be here doing edit war with me, because what I have reinstated was common sense. About my source: my source have gone thru enough reviews to be a reliable source. A true philosopher doesn't need a source to judge if a concept is correct or not. Because logic can explain itself, with or without a source. Harvard1932 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Harvard, your own user page that you wrote says "Lead researcher of darkkyshadow research group, focuses on system philosophy and data theory." All of your edits have been about "system philosophy" and "data theory", and primarily reference "Han Harvard" at "Darkkyshadow Research Development". Your own words admit that you are associated with the source, which is inappropriate behavior for the encyclopedia.
 * Furthermore, though this article and others are about philosophy, we are not doing philosophy here. We are building an encyclopedia. So the appropriate methods of philosophical argument are irrelevant, because this is not a philosophical argument. The policies of the encyclopedia are what matter here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia of non-original content that is outdated, hard to understand, who needs a source on common knowledge. Look, it is about the ethics of doing what you do. If you say you are ignoring "appropriate methods of philosophical arguments", congrats! When you, yourself is a philosophy graduate, who doesn't even follow the rules that constructed philosophy at first place.Harvard1932 (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest is trying to help you here. See advice on your talk page.  Snowded  TALK 07:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Help me by not reasoning with "THE ARGUMENT". But doing what you want to accomplish personally against me, which is anti-facts and common sense. Oh well, I will return later with more 3rd party sources from more websites in a month. Since Wikipedia thinks sources are everything. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are clear instructions on your page as to how you should sign comments. It is perverse that you are ignoring them.  Otherwise before you come back please read up on original research and synthesis.  You can't create philosophy on wikipedia, we report it  Snowded  TALK 07:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unnatural to type ~ sometimes, and you forgot about it once too. <-- like I am judgmental towards it. Anyways, today Wikipedia truly taught me how ignorant philosophers can be. "we don't care about arguments", "we are philosophy graduates but we don't care about the facts/common sense", "we need source on common sense", "3rd party source with 8,000 unique visitors per month is not reliable", "we will stalk your profile to delete all of your articles because we take things personally", "we judge the article creator is the source author because we can assume, because we are philosophers". Sincerely thank you Wikipedia editors Snowded and pf. It was an educational session with you guys. I am sure, you guys don't run into player like me everyday :) - I will be back with sources, have a happy holiday.Harvard1932 (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had to indent your comments again. You don't have to type ~ there is (and the post on your talk page tells you) a button at the top of the edit screen that does it for you.  As it happens we run into players like you a lot on a range of articles.  Some turn into good editors, some end up being blocked from editing.  Hopefully you will be in the former category but you need to be more prepared to understand the way the community works and keep a civil tongue in your head. Other editors seeking to implement wikipedia policy are not "ignorant".  While you are looking for those sources take note of the links on original research and synthesis or you will hit the same problems second time round.  Snowded  TALK 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Policies are designed to be flexible. It is like saying Nazi used to kill ..... because it was the policy or the command of their leader. Is it righteous or ethical? Well, you figure. I see the similarities with the ignorance of the original argument on a common sense (because it is the policy of Wikipedia). Snowded, I did rather not to waste your time, I respect you for doing just your job :) I don't have much of power in Wikipedia until I get my sources, so see you until then.Harvard1932 (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040807090338/http://philosophy.hku.hk:80/think/phil/russell/ to http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/phil/russell/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Inexact Definition
Philosophy should not be defined by merely giving some topics philosophers study. Rather, on my view, you should start by saying what philosophy is, and then list the topics, rather than implying philosophy is only these particular things (these are examples, and are non-exhaustive). I thus suggest something like, "Philosophy is the study of the most fundamental and general questions, questions which are important or foundational to many or even all other domains of inquiry, such as the nature of reality, existence, knowledge, reason, values, mind, and language." The present lead sentence incorrectly, in my view, makes it sound like philosophy is neatly carved out into just those 7 topics, but I take it the above is not meant to be an exhaustive list. You should change the sentence so you do not imply something false. Thank you.World Champion Editor (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

And while the prior editor's complaint was perhaps mad, he at least was not wrong that the definition was mistaken. World Champion Editor (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It as if I asked you "What is Life?" and you told me "Birds, Mammals, Plants, Mushrooms, Fungi, Humans, Viruses, Bacteria." Listing a number of examples does not make a definition. Likewise, listing a number of philosophical topics does not provide a definition of Philosophy. (Reference: Theaetetus (dialogue))


 * Do you have any concrete proposal? But on the other hand I think it is at least debatable whether all terms can be defined in the way you demand, meaning that the definition you give of life may not be easy to improve upon without taking a side in certain debates; and secondly I do not see the "such as" section as particularly part of the current definition, only giving some examples, so it is hard to see how it is "false"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The definition is not false. I only wanted to suggest something slightly broader. I propose:
 * "Philosophy is the study of the most fundamental and general questions, such as the nature of reality, existence, knowledge, reason, values, mind, and language."
 * World Champion Editor (talk)
 * I like this proposal. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with it as well Snowded  TALK 19:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you just want to add "such as"? Seems reasonable to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the definition. "Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" gives the incorrect impression that someone cannot be a philosopher if he is not engaged in the study of all of these subjects. In practice, philosophers can obviously specialize in the study of particular topics. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Study" is not confined to working in a college is it? Snowded  TALK 08:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I do not understand the point of your reply; it seems irrelevant. At present, the article has a definition of philosophy that seems to imply that, to be a philosopher, one has to study all of a laundry-list of subjects, which surely isn't accurate. Where or how the study is conducted is not the issue. Wouldn't it be better to simply adopt a definition of philosophy from a standard work of reference, or even to return to the definition the article used before the current one? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood you, I thought 'study' was the issue.  Philosophy is the study of those subjects, to say that does not imply that anyone has to study all of them surely?   If I remember aright that definition does some from sourced material.   Personally per this comment I don't thing it implies what you suggest but I'm open to alternative wordings.  Snowded  TALK 08:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These are fruitful debates. My take as a professional philosopher is that "philosophy" is a broad term with wide extension, and so the lede should capture the widest breadth of senses as well as more specific senses, without getting too long. The definition of the word from Pythagoras is good, the first sentence is pretty good, and in my view the next paragraph about the historical (most broad) senses of the term is good. The third paragraph "Contemporary philosophers..." is just about subdivisions of the discipline, which is fine. Eventually there should be another paragraph, like the one Zebrax wrote, but a bit more representative of the history and contemporary status of key debates. But the first three paragraphs are, right now, pretty good in my opinion. CircularReason (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead can be longer
According to WP:MOSLEAD, the lead should be a standalone introduction to the article's topic and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The MOS also suggests that "[c]onsideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article." It can be up to four paragraphs long. Given this article's length and the breadth of material it covers, a longer lead would appear to be helpful to the reader. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 06:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede can be longer, but listed two more sub-divisions of the discipline is problematic - why those, why not others?   Snowded  TALK 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please propose some philosophical controversies which you believe are important and worthy of being in the lede. Prominent controversies "should" be included in the lede, according to the MOSLEAD. Summarizing a few key controversies will also create interest in reading the rest of the article, a consideration suggested in the same guideline. Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede summarises the article.  If you think there is material missing from the article propose changes.  If you think there is material in the article not properly summarised please say where.  Nearly all of philosophy is about controversies, what are key depend on your point of view or historical perspective.   If you can show evidence that some of them dominate then that might make a case.   Snowded  TALK 16:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Open to proposals also, but I do not think we should make a lead long just because it looks short. Not all subjects are the same. Some subjects are easy to summarise in a quick way but very hard to summarize in a "slightly longer" way, if that makes any sense. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying to make the lead longer just because we can. I am suggesting we make the lead longer because it is not currently a standalone introduction to the topic and it does not raise even a single controversy. A reader of this lead gets no sense that there have been huge debates and controversies throughout the history of philosophy. WP:MOSLEAD states that the lead should be a standalone introduction to the article's topic and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 19:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Added significant debates that were discussed in the article body. One line of criticism that has been leveled at previous attempts to add debates to the lead is that the debates are not that important to the history of philosophy. Well, as per MOS:LEAD, the lead can only summarize points from the body of the article. So if editors think that better debates or controversies are needed for the lead, then these better debates/controversies need to be added to the body of the article. Right now, these are the debates that are described in the body of the article. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 17:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear friends, I have spent the last couple of days substantially revising the lead.

Please let me know how you think it reads. The goal is not just a lot of info (that too) but readability and clarity. Thanks CircularReason (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph aims to (a) include what was good about the earlier versions (b) remain very concise, (c) convey the general idea of philosophy both historically and contemporarily, (d) cover the literal meaning of the word 'philosophy', (e) mention that Pythagoras coined the term, and (f) mention general philosophical methods.
 * The second paragraph provides (g) clearly state typical philosophical debates and controversies as they appear in the body of the article, both "highly abstract and theoretical" ones as well as "more practical ones", with appropriate internal Wikilinks as well as citations to classic texts on those typical questions.
 * The third paragraph (h) briefly mention the broader historical sense of the term 'philosophy' and when, and how, it narrowed to the specialized sense of today, with a Newton example pulled from the Wikipedia "Science" article, and (i) comments on the relation between philosophy and other disciplines, including some outside links to Briggle and Frodeman who are writing a book on the history of professional academic philosophy.
 * The fourth paragraph briefly mentions the metaphilosophical controversy about progress, with, of course, citations and internal links.

Proposed text for lead, summarising the key developments in the history of philosophy
Some of the key developments in the early history of philosophy include the Ancient Greek period, in which Plato is credited as the first Western philosopher; the formalization of Indian philosophy beginning in 1000 BCE, which includes several Eastern philosophies, including Hindu philosophy, Buddhist philosophy, and Jain philosophy; Islamic philosophy, notably as practiced during the Islamic Golden Age between the 8th and 12th centuries; Persian philosophy, which gave rise to Zoroastrianism (first recorded c. 440 BCE), one of the key events in the development of philosophy; Medieval philosophy, which saw the further development of classical Greek and Hellenistic philosophy and the integration of the doctrines of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity with secular learning; and the Renaissance ("rebirth") era, in which philosophical interests shifted towards inquiries into morality, philology, and mysticism.

The early modern era of Western philosophy is identified with the 17th and 18th centuries, with the 18th century often referred to as the Age of Enlightenment. Modern philosophy is distinguished from its predecessors by its increasing independence from traditional authorities such as the church and academia. Later modern philosophy is usually considered to begin at the beginning of the 19th century. In the 20th century, philosophy has increasingly become a professional discipline practiced within universities, like other academic disciplines, which has made it more specialised. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 23:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph is just a list, the second too much synthesis and original research Snowded  TALK 06:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead makes three references to the history of philosophy: it states that the term was coined by Pythagoras, that it is divided chronologically (including into ancient and modern philosophy), and it states that "Historically, these bodies of knowledge were commonly divided into natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy." Since the history of philosophy section comprises 29% of the article, I propose that additional points be made about the history of philosophy in the lead. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 15:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The logic of your idea makes some sense, but Snowded's remarks are about the specific draft you made. Perhaps you can rework it a bit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The latest revision does a lot to capture @OnBeyondZebrax 's goals: mention the coining of the term by Pythagoras, and includes a concise picture of historical changes due to modern science and modern universities; (the notion of chronological divisions are now in the first sub-section "Sub-disciplines"). How do you rate it, Zebrax? CircularReason (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Complying with guidelines in WP:MOS for lead
WP:MOS states that uncommon terms should be generally avoided in the lead, but "where uncommon terms are essential, they should be...briefly defined". (see WP:MOSINTRO). "Epistemology" and "metaphysics" are both uncommon words. They both have a Readability score of 40.4 on the Gunning-Fog Index. In the index, a score of 6 means a word is easy. A score of 20 means a word is hard. Of course they are key concepts of philosophy, so they should appear in the lead. Following the guidelines in the MOS, these terms should be briefly defined. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 04:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * They are clearly pipe linked for those who want to know more. They are the main subjects.  To get to an uncontroversial definition of each in one sentence would be very problematic and completely unnecessary.  This is a summary article of the whole field - per previous discussions  Snowded  TALK 06:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowded here, and would further add that in a way, these terms are not being used, they are being mentioned, so the guideline in question is not strictly applicable. You don't need to know what epistemology or metaphysics are to understand the sentence that says they are amongst the topics into which philosophy is divided. For comparison, should we have to define what analytic philosophy is for the next clause of the sentence, that gives it as an example of a stylistic division of philosophy? (I'd wager people are more likely to know the words "epistemology" and "metaphysics" than they are to know what "analytic philosophy" is; I knew the former before the latter, myself.) These terms are mentioned as the names of divisions of philosophy, not used in a way that requires readers to know their meanings to understand the sentence. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A brief definition of metaphysics would be hard to imagine as by the very nature of it (it is about that which is not nature, but somehow associated with nature), it is tricky to even describe. Epistemology would be a bit easier (it is about knowledge), but I think brief definitions of key words in leads are only practical if they are very few and won't great horrible English. So I am not opposed to the basic policy, where we can use it, but I agree that we need to be cautious about using it too blindly in an article of this nature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Snowded states that the terms are pipe linked for the reader, which suggests that he believes that a parenthetical definition of these terms is unnecessarily. If we look for guidance from WP:MOS, it tells us that while "[s]ome topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible... Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations". I don't agree with User:Pfhorrest's statement that the reader doesn't need to know what the key terms–that are an essential part of a article's topic–mean. Is it desirable for a Wikipedia article's lead to say that one of the key elements of the article topic is "foo", without even a few words explaining what "foo" is? I also disagree with User:Pfhorrest's raising of the use-mention distinction as guidance for writing the introduction to an article topic in a generalist encyclopedia. Should readers of this article construe the use of the word "epistemology" in the lead "...as a signifier... [which] mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself"? (quoting from the use-mention distinction article). We can continue our discussion. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 19:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The current lede as of 26 Apr 2016 does not use the term metaphysics or epistemology anymore, but mentions clearly metaphysical and epistemological questions such as "what is most real?" and "is it possible to know anything and to prove it?" Hoping these plain language versions of technical questions draws in the reader. CircularReason (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Areas of inquiry" rename?
So I've never heard the term "areas of inquiry" used in actual philosophy textbooks or philosopher's writings. Should we change this to reflect a consistent terminology with the lead and the article breakdown? Suggestions: "Branches" or "Subdivisions" or "Divisions". CircularReason (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we have to only use even exact words found in published sources? Seems a little extreme. The words seem quite correct and good for the use of explaining the meaning which we do find in sources? Also (1) I doubt how conclusive we should be about one person's personal research; (2) Keep in mind that encyclopedias have different functions than textbooks etc. As a particular difference under point 2, keep in mind that the terminology you mention is clearly a manifestation of recent "professional" philosophy, with its various sub-guilds in Universities, whereas philosophy is uncontroversially a subject where there is a debate about whether anything professional that is really strictly philosophy, and also a field where there is great criticism of the idea that only recent types of philosophy are relevant and up-to-date. Philosophy for many is almost by definition very open field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Andrew, I appreciate the response. Re: the name. It turns out, Wikipedia beat me to the punch. There is a "SpeedyRename" change in process that is going to switch the word "branches" to "Sub-fields." So that's that! Works for me! Re: the professional/non-professional divide. That's a hard one for me. As a professional philosopher, I agree that professionalization of a field is not NECESSARILY the gold standard. Terrence Malick (filmmaker) and Marilyn Robinson or Chuck Palahniuk are just as much philosophers in the broad sense -- maybe more -- than any philosophy professor. However, when it comes to Encyclopedas, it's hard to get consensus in separating good philosophy from bad without defaulting to the professional "expert" opinions. So perhaps the article can reflect the distinction. I.e., there can be a "community" and "institutions" bit just like the the Science article. Would that be a good compromise? CircularReason (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have a strong opinion, but what is wrong with the term "fields of inquiry" in the first place? That seems a very appropriate terminology for philosophy, given that the divisions of philosophical are not the same as the divisions of a university course, because of the way the field has always included novel and unprofessional contributions at the highest level. I am not thinking of examples like the one you mention though, but also people like Aristotle, Hobbes, Bacon etc. Such names are surely not of marginal importance, nor even only historical importance. Indeed modern professional philosophers necessarily spend a lot of time trying to process what was already debated over centuries, making it different from most academic fields. In my opinion that also implies that any good description of philosophy will need to reflect that special situation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

How do we decide what counts as a "specialized branch" of philosophy?
I would think of philosophy of language and philosophy of mind as central to most contemporary philosophy. There are also paradigmatic philosophical questions that are best described as belonging in these fields. But then, it's hard to non-arbitrarily divide up any subject into a set of "core" and "specialized" areas.50.191.21.222 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Good question. A lot of people are foolishly confident they know what the "core" areas of philosophy are because they had a confident professor in Introduction to Philosophy. We shouldn't let this article reinforce heuristic oversimplifications, however helpful they may be in college courses. CircularReason (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thought: A lot of the topics that are considered "specialized branches" begin with "philosophy of..." (i.e., philosophy of religion instead of "theology" or philosophy of language instead of "philology"). These disciplines are usually only 30-40 years old, academically speaking, at least in their modern iteration. In reality, a lot of such "specialties" have pre-modern correlates, as Plato's Cratylus is all about philosophy of language. For now, I'm trying to complete the list of "specialized branches" and then we can consider making them just regular old "branches." CircularReason (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am reading this older thread but really using it to comment on the next one. Is it not true to say that:
 * *Philosophy is about asking questions.
 * *There are many diverse ways to divide it up, even professionally, but in the end it will be a dividing up of ways of asking and handling various questions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016
Please change "Should actions evaluated by their consequences..." to "Should actions be evaluated by their consequences..." because the word 'be' is necessary to complete the sentence.

Podoguru (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples of early western philosophers
Should the lede mention some examples of the earliest philosophers, such as Thales (in the west) and Confucius (in the east)? We don't want to be exclusively western-centric but the term 'philosophy' is Greek and its modern form dates back to the Greek pre-Socratics such as Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, etc.

This passage is from later in the article: ''Durant claims that Ptahhotep could be considered the very first philosopher in virtue of having the earliest and surviving fragments of moral philosophy (i.e., "The Maxims of Ptah-Hotep").[1]"

I think Durant's claim here is pretty idiosyncratic. I've never heard a philosopher refer to early wisdom literature as philosophy -- even if it was recognizably philosophical in content. While we should not exclude early eastern and other "wise" people, it would be anachronistic to call them "philosophers" without explaining that they were up to a slightly different project in a different context than Socrates. "Wisdom literature" predates Greek philosophy by many centuries, perhaps millennia. There were "wise men" and wise sayings and wise writings before the Greek σοφοι (sophists) -- the interesting thing about Pythagoras was that he did not claim to be wise.

History of philosophy textbooks typically begin with the Pre-Socrates and with Socrates. This is the history of Western philosophy, for sure -- but philosophy in this sense is broadly western (including of course Egypt, Jerusalem, eventually the Arab world, in this broad sense of "western"!) Your thoughts?

Thanks, CircularReason (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two meanings of "Western" relevant to what you are discussing, and the distinction is important to many Wikipedia articles, but hard to get them all right.


 * Western can include "Hellenic" and when we go back to times before Rome, it even focuses on the Greek world. For this reason, you can sometimes see reference to a "Greater West" which includes all areas whose culture was rooted in Hellenistic culture, all of which also came to be dominated by Abrahamic religions (which had by then been very Hellenized). In other words, the world where philosophy spread, and including the Islamic world.
 * However in many modern contexts "Western" goes back to the Roman and later Frankish part of the above "greater West". This is probably the kind of meaning most English speakers will see as the normal and maybe only one. Therefore when we write something which is using the term in a DIFFERENT way, we probably should add some extra words to explain it.
 * Philosophy as opposed to wisdom literature is another issue. I think not everyone accepts a clear line of distinction but philosophers do tend to, and there is certainly a traditional distinction made. The explanation I have often seen and use myself is that philosophy requires a distinct consciousness of "Nature" - a constant a fixed way that things work, as if according to rules, quite independently of any human intervention.
 * On the other hand there is no doubt that the word "philosophy" can be used to mean deep thinking of pretty much any type. If there is a potential confusion, we need to explain more.
 * "Science", under this type of definition, is a type of philosophy. Indeed what most people now call science is a specific approach to "natural philosophy" which derives directly from the earliest Greek Pre-Socratics in many ways. (In other words the Socratic tradition and similar traditions can be seen as a detour whereby philosophy/science tried to incorporate teleological metaphysics concerning nature, something beyond nature, and beyond simply noting fixed patterns. Most English speakers now would find it odd to call that science. Socratic thinking is of course very important for modern religions though.) So also concerning the words "science" and "philosophy" we should as editors be sensitive to how most of our readers might be tone deaf to the way these words can be understood in different ways in different contexts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Helpful thoughts, Andrew. Thanks. It is pretty typical in American University philosophy courses for "philosophy" (unqualified) to mean (Greater Western) western philosophy, and for "Eastern Philosophy" or "Asian Philosophy" to include Indian or Chinese philosophy. So the new proposal I wrote above puts the breaks up the chronology into "Graeco-Roman" (which captures greater Western) and "Eastern" (which captures everything else). Since there are links to the other individuals schools of thought, I don't think the "History" section needs to do ALL the work of explaining, say, the history of the Upanishads in Hindu philosophy. CircularReason (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've updated the introduction and lede to make explicit the difference between "philosophy" as a western, Graeco-Roman phenomenon and "philosphy" as the various wisdom traditions of each culture and time. CircularReason (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Images of people
In order to address a number of concerns raised on this talk page about the formatting and length of this article, I removed all the images of people. This article is about a field of study - it is not fulfilling that function when its cluttered of thirty one images of people. These provide no educational value - what a particular philosopher looks like has no bearing on their work. This should not be a photo album. The presence of these photos acts to dissuade people from finding relevant educational images to use - there are only 3 non-person images in the article. I feel like my removal should be reinstated, and that editors, instead of worrying about fundamentally useless photos, concentrate instead on adding images of real value. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about a field of study that is defined, in part, by the famous figures who have practiced it. It is educational to include properly labelled images of philosophers inasmuch as it helps people to recognize who those philosophers are, should they come across images of them. Having images in the article also helps readers by making the article easier to read - a very long article consisting almost entirely of text is hard to focus on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Using images of people in this way is laziness. If this article is ever to come up to FA status, those images will have to be purged or at the most reduced to 4-5 extremely key figures.  31 images of people is replacing information with idolization. -- Netoholic @  06:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should try to convince you fellow editors with cogent arguments instead of insulting them? I am really not seeing any kind of argument in your comment above. At this stage, Snowded and I are in agreement that the pictures should stay, and no one supports your removal of them. You should remove the images again only when or if there is a consensus for that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And you also put in a request for a FA review and see what is said. Pictures are common in these type of articles.  If you want to make a case to remove some then I think everyone is open but mass removal is not acceptable  Snowded  TALK 06:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing them all brings this major issue into focus. I'd rather see discussion about which key figures to re-add, than try to debate which extraneous ones to cut. It also makes room for people to find non-photos for those sections, rather than seeing a photo and thinking an image isn't needed. -- Netoholic @  06:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is a fairly clear-cut concept, since no one wants to see a photo album when they are reading an article about a general knowledge subject. But if you insist on it, please explain why you think the current 31 images of people (vs 3 non-person images) on this article should be an exception to this Manual of Style guideline: WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE - "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor or inappropriate images, but in some articles images may not be necessary.... Strive for variety. ... If an article on a general already shows its subject in uniform, two more in-uniform portraits add little interest or information; a map of an important battle, and an image of its aftermath, would be more informative. Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.". -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that philosophy is made by philosophers it really is not surprising that their pictures are used to illustrate the article. While it might seem to be at times, Philosophy is not a battlefield and any map would be original research.  Having a portrait of a prominent philosopher to illustrate a section on a theory or history is helpful.  Snowded  TALK 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Every area of study is a result of the people that create, discover, or study it. Your argument could apply as easily to any article, which is an absurd conclusion.  Also, *examples* in a guideline are not meant to be literally applied. No one is asking for battlefield map here. Your literal reading of the guideline indicates an inability or unwillingness to rationally to discuss this in the context of Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Netoholic @  07:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep it relevant. We are not discussing "any article"; we are discussing Philosophy. If you want to argue that the images should be removed, then do - I am still not so far seeing a convincing reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Length
Is the purpose of this article to be the biggest of Wikipedia? Frenditor (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's not its purpose. At 94k of prose it's also below the 100k of WP:SIZERULE: it should "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". --McGeddon (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * @Frienditor, I'm working on drafting a MAJOR revision to the History section(s). It's on my sandbox if you want to see how it's coming along. When it's done, I'm going to make the edits over here. CircularReason (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

==Length (cont'd) OK folks, I'm going to start stitching in some of the revisions to the History. Please stand by and help by making corrections as we go. I'll roll out changes in small sections so you can undo small parts if need be.

Basic intention: I tried to MAJORLY trim down the history section, as per the request box. Deleting some good content may make some of the OPs upset. I want to publicly thank them; they wrote some good content in here, some of which was simply deleted. It just doesn't fit on this page anymore.

Here were a few guiding principles in my edits:

1. Point all non-western philosophy sections to their respective Main Articles. There is not enough space to do ALL PHILOSOPHY in ALL THE WORLD, and this article is primarily about the tradition dating back to Socrates or the pre-Socratics and leading up to philosophy departments in Europe, the U.S., Africa, Egypt, North America, South America, and so on.

2. Use the simple, three part system for dividing up periods: Ancient, Medieval, Modern. The sub-divisions include "early medieval" and "late medieval" as well as "early modern" and "contemporary", which I hope is a happy compromise.

3. Do not let each sub-section become TOO INFORMATIVE. For example, the Analytic and Continental stuff dragged on for thousands of words. My guiding principle was: Introduce the topic, link to the main article, and move on.

Let me know how this all looks. CircularReason (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

---

UPDATE: From 15,300 words down to 8,800. That's not bad. But take a look at the revisions and see what you think. The article is, to my mind, MUCH improved and actually readible. I'd still like to get rid of the issues on Thomism and Applied Philosophy, and the Continental Philosophy needs to be seriously condensed. But it's a start. CircularReason (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Confucious
I am moving our anonymous friend's comment here to the bottom of the Talk page, because it seems to be a New Section. His/her comment was:

"It is better to remove the picture of "Confucius". There are NO logicians believe he was an logician, he made 0 contribution to logic study."

I have no response to that. CircularReason (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

History too long
Currently, the Philosophy section is 75% the size of the History of philosophy article (about 39/53 kilobyte ratio). It should be at most 25%. I intend to leave only first-level subheadings (Ancient philosophy, 5th–16th centuries, and 17th–20th centuries), discarding the 14 second-level subheadings. fgnievinski (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be cautious. History is a bit of a misnomer for that section  Snowded  TALK 05:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * One more reason why it needs a cleanup. fgnievinski (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but I think I understand what Snowded would be concerned about. Philosophy is a subject which is often broken into schools and their time periods. But for example their are Thomists and Aristotelians and Hegelians active today. Maybe in order to have a methodical approach to this concern, a first thing to check is whether this section really covers the same material as the history article or are they actually just sharing a name but quite different?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as demonstrated below, the section and the article share the same name but are structured quite differently. The section is organized by time, whereas the article is organized around traditions. I'm not inclined to merge the two versions nor discard either version; rather, I'm inclined to simply split the section into a new article History of philosophy over time. fgnievinski (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Would we not then be covering very similar material in 2 articles? And how can anyone have a Philosophy article which does not talk about the basic traditions which make up the subject matter of philosophy? (In other words, wouldn't this cripple the basic Philosophy article?) Philosophy is a kind of subject where it is in fact difficult to split the study of the subject, from the study of the history of the subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've kept a single History of philosophy article but created two levels, merging the section Philosophy into History of philosophy and keeping the original content under History of philosophy. fgnievinski (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just hang on a bit I not sure we are agreed on this yet. As Andrew says the history of philosophy is very much part and parcel of explains what philosophy is.  It is not a discipline which progresses in the way of say Physics.  In Philosophy the issues raised by the pre-socratics remain unresolved for example.    Snowded  TALK 20:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm fine merging in the reverse direction, i.e., for History of philosophy to simply redirect to Philosophy. But we can't have article and section out-of-sync. The two versions (by culture and by period) should co-exist side-by-side. Unless someone volunteers to mix the two versions. fgnievinski (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * While consistency is desirable it is not always a feature of Wikipedia. Your suggestion of a redirect for the moment is one I would support but lets see what other people think.  Snowded  TALK 04:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For now, I also support the suggestion of a redirect. But, I think History of philosophy article can also be expanded (maybe in future?). -Nimit (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. It's a quite lengthy article now, though fgnievinski (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, I tried to adjust the Lede to reflect that "contemporary philosophers subdivide the field in a variety of ways." I'm a professional philosopher, and not EVERYONE agrees that the historical approach is the God-given approach. Some think the (timeless) topical approach is best, others only study a given thinker (Husserl or Scotus) and so study whatever topics or historical periods appear in that person's work. CircularReason (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge then summarize
Section Philosophy is competing with the main article History of philosophy. As per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the section should only summarize the article. Currently the section does not even follow the structure of the article:

Article headings:
 * Western philosophy
 * Ancient philosophy
 * Medieval philosophy
 * Renaissance philosophy
 * Modern philosophy
 * Contemporary philosophy
 * Analytic
 * Continental
 * Eastern philosophy
 * Babylonian philosophy
 * Indian philosophy
 * Persian philosophy
 * Chinese philosophy
 * Monotheistic philosophy
 * Jewish philosophy
 * Christian philosophy
 * Islamic philosophy
 * Judeo-Islamic philosophy
 * African philosophy

Section headings:
 * Ancient philosophy
 * Egypt and Babylon
 * Ancient Chinese
 * Ancient Graeco-Roman
 * Ancient Indian
 * Ancient Persian
 * 5th–16th centuries
 * Europe
 * Medieval
 * Renaissance
 * East Asia
 * India
 * Middle East
 * Mesoamerica
 * Africa
 * 17th–20th centuries
 * Early modern philosophy
 * 19th-century philosophy
 * 20th-century and 21st-century philosophy

So the section should be first merged into the article, then the article summarized in the section. The summarization can be accomplished simply with WP:Transclusion of the article lead. And if the merging looks too complicated, I'd be in favor of simply discarding the section's contents. fgnievinski (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, the article just had been destroyed, history of philosophy is just a topic of Philosophy (small I would say), not 90% of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irxvini (talk • contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ugh, how do we fix it? Add more content to the topics or trim down the historical stuff -- or both? CircularReason (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * New proposal for structure of article. (TLDR; One can divide up philosophy by topic and by chronological period. Here's some topics. Here's some periods. Each has a link for further reading.)

We can also put the "etymology" section (which I think is good) in the lede. Then we can revamp the lead to match more closely with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CircularReason (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything is better than the current state. The point is to condense it and point it to the appropriate sub-articles. Frenditor (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a go. You all can modify it or critique it whenever is convenient. It's finals week so I'll be grading but I'll try to get to this in May. CircularReason (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I have just completed a revision of the "philosophical topics" (formerly "Areas of inquiry") sub-section. It is much shorter. I've also added an "Introduction" to this article. Let me know how they look. I'm working on a synthesis and condensation of the history stuff in my Sandbox, and will implement asap. CircularReason (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I made some major edits to the history section. It's still too long, all things considered, but it's much shorter. The structure of the article loosely follows that of another very broad, very theoretical article -- "Science". CircularReason (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Motion to reconsider "very long" template
Depending on whether the condensation I undertook can be made to work, I'd like to remove the "very long" template. The article sits at a hefty but comfortable 8,800 words right now. It could be trimmed more if we want to take this article closer to a "mini-encyclopedia of philosophy" approach, where more things are mentioned but each gets a briefer space and a link.

There are lots of Main Articles on these philosophical subjects, thinkers, historical periods, etc., that need attention. But there are also lots of good ones. The "Philosophy" Main Article might be better as a hub connecting people everywhere than it is as a standalone end-all be-all introduction to all things philosophy. Look forward to discussing and coming to consensus on this. CircularReason (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If there's no objection, I'll remove the template. If you think it still belongs, let us know why here. Thanks, CircularReason (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

no qualifier at all?
I see we have a sentence in the lead, so a defining sentence, saying: "Historically, "philosophy" encompassed any body of knowledge." No qualifier at all? If I think about it, I can see another level to the sentence whereby the trick is in what knowledge means? But I am not sure that is the justification, and if it were, I guess most people, who use words like knowledge loosely, will not get it. I guess what is intended is that philosophy is an activity first (that loving, investigating thing), but that by extension, and type of subject which is put together as a result of such activity might also get called philosophy? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016
I think knowledge should be linked to the wikipedia page on knowledge. That would be helpful to gain a better understanding of what philosophy is.

146.95.24.239 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gap9551 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if Problems is a good way of summing up philosophy
The lede of the article refers to philosophy as dealing with problems, however this is a very controversial thesis within meta philosophy (e.g. Wittgenstein did not believe in philosophical problems). Only one of the references uses the word problems, can we change it to more closely follow the more metaphilosophically neutral wording used in the other reference?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * why not "questions"?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * October 2015 lede:


 * Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2][3] The Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophia) was probably coined by Pythagoras[4] and literally means "love of wisdom" or "friend of wisdom".[5][6][7][8][9] Philosophy has been divided into many sub-fields. It has been divided chronologically (e.g., ancient and modern); by topic (the major topics being epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics); and by style (e.g., analytic philosophy).

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017
Under External Links, add Wireless Philosophy as a resource. Wireless Philosophy produces free animated lectures featuring faculty and graduate students from top philosophy departments, and is an official partner of acclaimed education non-profit Khan Academy. Aamarmor (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Spam —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Professional section
Some useful info in this section but I have doubts about this sentence: "Furthermore, unlike many of the sciences for which there has come to be a healthy industry of books, magazines, and television shows meant to popularize science and communicate the technical results of a scientific field to the general populace, works by professional philosophers directed at an audience outside the profession remain rare." This was mainly true 26 years ago in 1991 and that is exactly why I started Philosophy Now magazine, which consists of works by professional philosophers directed at a general audience, and which has since grown to have a big circulation and be sold from news-stands in more than a dozen countries. At least ten other philosophy magazines that I know of have been started since, in a variety of languages. A major industry of popular philosophy books and philosophy books for beginners has sprung up in the last decade or so, and you can find them in any bookstore. There have also been various TV shows. Apart from that I suppose the sentence is accurate... Actually, no, it really is a shame that the sentence as it stands utterly ignores the existence of the movement to popularize philosophy. I'd be happy to fix it, but as I'm still the Editor of Philosophy Now, I'd probably end up breaking Wikipedia guidelines. Can anyone else fix it? That sentence is just downright wrong as it stands. Dodo64 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706145426/http://leninist.biz/en/1973/PHP462/index.html to http://leninist.biz/en/1973/PHP462/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017
Hi Vinci was here Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom"[1][2][3][4]) is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[5][6] The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570–495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.[7][8] Classic philosophical questions include: Is it possible to know anything and to prove it?[9][10][11] What is most real? However, philosophers might also pose more practical and concrete questions such as: Is there a best way to live? Is it better to be just or unjust (if one can get away with it)?[12] Do humans have free will?[13]

Historically, "philosophy" encompassed any body of knowledge.[14] From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine and physics.[15] For example, Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics. In the 19th century, the growth of modern research universities led academic philosophy and other disciplines to professionalize and specialize.[16][17] In the modern era, some investigations that were traditionally part of philosophy became separate academic disciplines, including psychology, sociology, linguistics and economics.

Other investigations closely related to art, science, politics, or other pursuits remained part of philosophy. For example, is beauty objective or subjective?[18][19] Are there many scientific methods or just one?[20] Is political utopia a hopeful dream or hopeless fantasy?[21][22][23] Major sub-fields of academic philosophy include metaphysics ("concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being"),[24] epistemology (about the "nature and grounds of knowledge [and]...its limits and validity" [25]), ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, logic, philosophy of science and the history of Western philosophy.

Since the 20th century, professional philosophers contribute to society primarily as professors, researchers and writers. However, many of those who study philosophy in undergraduate or graduate programs contribute in the fields of law, journalism, politics, religion, science, business and various art and entertainment activities.[26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.177.86 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Trivia
I believe that there should be some mention of the fact that you will always end up on this page if you click on the first, non-italicised blue link in each article you are directed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JetMaster (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is no longer the case, the word "Branch" in a previous links to branches of philosophy, and not the page itself. I wish it was still the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.192.70 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, this is still the case. The branch page leads to Philosophy as well, just slightly more roundabout. (MMStinks was here. You can come yell at me for this if you'd like) 18:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving History of philosophy section
The section history of philosophy needs to be moved to its own page for various reasons. It is too large and too specific to be part of a general philosophy article. Just like we have separate pages for eastern philosophy, african philosophy, etc, we should have a separate section for the history of western philosophy. This page should be a generalist page on philosophy and thus any in depth historical overview should have its own page. If not, this page would have to also outline the history of all other world or regional philosophies in order to adhere to a certain fairness. I am therefore moving all historical content to "History of Western Philosophy". Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu 01:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the enormous discussion section at the top of this page about that very topic? --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, as I have explained, this article is inconsistent and unfair. Keeping the historical material in this article strictly about Western philosophy is simply unbalanced. On the other hand, adding to this article historical perspectives of similar depth for all other philosophical traditions - Buddhist, Chinese, Indian, Islamic, etc would simply make the article too large and unwieldy. So the solution is simply to split off and create another article for History of Western philosophy, let that article grow on its own and simply add short cultural historical overviews for each tradition in this article pointing to the main articles of the respective philosophical traditions (in the "Culture" section). I am working on doing just that at the moment. Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu 02:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for or against either way, and I can see the point you have here, but I don't think such a radical change should be made without any prior discussion as other editors recently did a lot of work on this very matter. Please wait for further comments before proceeding, per WP:BRD. (If nobody else cares after a few days, I don't care either and won't take any further action to stop you). --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it really that radical? The main issue that the other editors had was that there would be no historical content in the general article which I agree would be a problem, but this will be remedied as the "Cultural overview" section I am working on now will include short historical overviews of philosophy in different cultures, not just a large section on the history of Western philosophy alone. So the consensus reached in the previous discussion is not being circumvented by my edit, it is just being altered to include varying philosophical cultures. What the edit accomplishes is keeping this article from becoming too large by moving the detailed historical overview of Western philosophy to another article. Either way, I will wait some days as you requested. I now think that the 'History of Western philosophy' section should be moved to Western philosophy, there does not need to be both a History of Western philosophy and a Western philosophy. Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu 22:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am now mostly finished with the "Cultural overview section", would you (or anyone else for that matter) mind giving me some feedback, thoughts? Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu 14:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

 * Hello friend Javierfv1212, thank you for your recent edits. I hear your concern about "unfairness" -- however, we have had long discussions about this topic. The word 'philosophy' is a Greek word, and the concept of western, Greco-Roman philosophy is a distinctive one (when compared with Chinese, Egyptian, etc.). The article should link to other cultures but keep a tight focus on 'φιλοσοφια' as it has evolved through the ages -- the way the story is told by Hegel, Melchert (https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/the-great-conversation-9780199999651?cc=us&lang=en&), Kreeft (https://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Children-Ancient-Greatest-Philosophers/dp/1587317834/theofficiapet-20), and most other philosophers. I am a professional philosopher and can attest that academic philosophy is divided into "western" and "non-western" philosophy, where "western" is metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, ethics, aesthetics, and other traditional topics and "non-western" is asymmetrically divided into all other cultural wisdom traditions. Therefore, I think the Wikipedia article should reflect the professional practice, not any one's personal opinion (however correct it might be!) With these considerations in mind, I am going to revert some of your edits. But please, do not take it personally, and post your thoughts here. Thanks, CircularReason (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello sir, I was disappointed to see that you decided to undo my edits. I thoroughly disagree with your stance and in fact, can back up this disagreement, even if I am not a professional philosopher myself. I can point to academic sources which indeed use the term "philosophy" to refer to non-Western thinkers and to remove them from this general article and focus this article solely on western thinkers does a disservice to the purpose of wikipedia, which is to provide a general introduction available to people of all cultures, not just westerners. The thing is, even if the term 'philosophy' is a Western term, it is clearly now being applied in a general sense to refer to thinkers and traditions from all over the world, as we can see in academic journals like "Philosophy East and West" and "Asian philosophy" (Taylor and Francis). Obviously, the understanding in this common usage of the term is that "philosophy" in a general sense, is not something that is unique and only exists in the West, but is a way of asking questions shared by many cultures. Examples of sources that I would cite to support my point include the philosopher Jay Garfield, who has been very vocal about modern philosophy's eurocentrism, see this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/if-philosophy-wont-diversify-lets-call-it-what-it-really-is.html?_r=0 Recently Justin E. H. Smith has written on different types of philosophers, and includes numerous non western folks in his book: http://blog.press.princeton.edu/2016/04/22/justin-e-h-smith-on-six-types-of-philosophers/  Not only that but there are many books, journals and professional philosophers which use the term philosophy to refer to non-western thinkers, such as for example, Mark Siderits' publication "Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction" and the following https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-World-Philosophy-Multicultural-Reader/dp/019515231X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482640759&sr=1-2&keywords=world+philosophy Recently Michael Puett's class on Chinese philosophy has been very popular at Harvard, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-hundreds-of-harvard-students-studying-ancient-chinese-philosophy/280356/  Finally, if the wikipedians reading this comment would like to see further proof, they only need to head over to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which includes many articles on Indian and Chinese philosophers, and uses the word philosophy when referring to them. For example, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-india/    They can also refer to the academic sources that I cited in writing the section I added (e.g.  Garfield & Edelglass; The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy), many of which are sources which use the term philosophy when referring to non-western thinkers. I think that this is more than enough evidence to show without a doubt that indeed, the term philosophy as used by many academics and philosophers is much broader than just Western thinkers. I ask you to please not revert my edits on this topic as you did before, unless you can show that the term philosophy, which is the title of this article, is absolutely not used for non-Western thinkers by academic sources. In the meantime, please feel free to continue your edits as before on Western Philosophy instead. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu)    Edit: Here's Philosopher Jonardon Ganeri (New York University) making the point, again: https://news.uchicago.edu/multimedia/jonardon-ganeri-why-philosophy-must-go-global

https://www.academia.edu/25799760/Why_Philosophy_Must_Go_Global_A_Manifesto_for_Re_Emergent_Philosophy
 * Hi Javierfy, thanks for your passion and for your recent edits. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert them again. I will politely request that you build consensus before adding anything again in order to avoid an edit war, as per Wikipedia policy. The reason I will revert them is not because they are bad its, but Wikipedia reflects present state of things; Wikipedia is not a platform for changes you would like to see made. Western philosophy is the norm when talking about "Philosophy" unless qualified otherwise. As a professional philosopher, and others should certainly weigh in here, the state of the discipline is clear.  I am not just pulling rank, because I established a consensus on these edits after months of discussion and writing.  Non-western philosophy courses are certainly taught in larger universities in the western world, but "non-western" refers to many different strands of thought (eastern, Indian, African, early American) as opposed to the "main" tradition of western philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and so on. Non-western philosophy is a real thing, with books, courses, experts, etc... which is why this article needs links to those sources.  The sources you cite are good sources but do not make your case; they prove the point that without further qualification "philosophy"  *as it currently is* usually refers to a western (or "Eurocentric") tradition dating back to Socrates and the pre-Socratics in Greece. No one is saying that Indian and Chinese philosophy *is not philosophy at all*. It There are dozens of links to the appropriate sources on this page. However, it is different (in historical genesis, style, and content) from philosophia -- the tradition beginning with the Greeks. You cite a NY Times opinion editorial and a NYU professor who are pushing back against the state of the profession, trying to change the way things currently are. But that's the way they are. Another consideration, more practical than philosophical:  this article is too long to include every wisdom tradition of every culture and country and time period in every part of the world. When I trimmed it down it was almost readable; we want to avoid it growing unwieldy again. PS. It's not personal; I've had a hundred edits reverted, we all have. Sometimes I save the text on my HD; I'll give you some time to save your edits before I revert.   CircularReason (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to me first that you are the one threatening an edit war, as you are the one insisting on reverting a series of edits without pursuing consensus. On the substantive points, I don't think you're correct. While we can argue about the appropriate balance of Western and non-Western philosophy on the page, I don't believe it's tenable to say that non-Western philosophy should be wholly excluded, either in virtue of covering the wrong topics or by lack of interest within current academic philosophy. Buddhist philosophy engages with many of the traditional questions in philosophy of perception and metaphysics, while Chinese philosophy is sufficiently well studied within Anglo-American philosophy departments that it merited its own section in the Philosophical Gourmet report. Another piece of suggestive evidence is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is decidedly centered on Western philosophers, but also includes sections on Chinese, Indian and Arabic philosophy. It also seems to me that on the points that are changed, the December 1st revision has some clear problems, as it categorizes African, Aztec and medieval Jewish philosophy *inter alia* as "Eastern", while linking to a page that does not include them, so it may make more sense to work from the current page and cut as is appropriate if necessary. JustinBlank (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me add my support to what JustinBlank said above. This has been discussed here, at length, for years, and the viewpoint he expresses has emerged as a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in JustinBlank and Rick Norwood. You bring up important points. I again invite other readers, especially professional philosophers, to feel free to weigh in as well.  I will say, to start, that I established consensus in June 2016 before making substantive changes. You may not have been around for those discussions but they were wide-ranging. Nevertheless, some of the issues merit re-litigation.  My main concerns are (a) length, (b) accuracy, and (c) consistency with other Wiki articles. As for (a) I am fairly happy with the length, as it stands. The current "Historical Overview" section is only about 2,300 words, far less than the 6,600 word behemoth it was in June 2016. (The Wikipedia "Science" article, for comparison, is roughly 2,200 words.) The goal of the History section is to put a very broad topic (like "Philosophy" or "Science") into a general perspective, and to then link away to more specific topics  *in a manner that is readable*. On this criterion, I am relatively happy with this length. As regards accuracy, it still needs work. no one is suggesting that non-Western philosophy be 'wholly excluded' from the article but that the summaries and links accurately represent the facts of history. And no one is denying JustinBlanks' points that (1) Buddhist thought addresses similar questions to Western philosophy (2) Chinese wisdom is studied by Western philosophers (3) Brian Leiter and the Philosophical Gourmet, and SEP count expertise in various non-Western philosophical traditions. (1)-(3) are true but the current article is still misleading.  It falsely conveys the impression that the Greek Socratic (and pre-Socratic and post-Socratic) tradition is just the western version of a global phenomenon. It is of course a truism that "every culture has a philosophy" in the sense of a wisdom tradition. That truism is expressed (or was) at the beginning of the "Philosophy and culture" section. What is *not* true that every culture's philosophical tradition is roughly the same. It is *not* true that every culture engages in the distinctly Pythagorean project of *searching* for wisdom by means of mathematical and logical investigation; nor the Socratic project of identifying one's own ignorance (rather than promoting one's wisdom, as Solomon and the Buddha did); nor of subjecting even religious and political tradition to unflinching scrutiny (as opposed to shoring them up, as Confucius did). The article must reflect the facts. It is a historical fact, for instance, that "φιλοσοφία" is a Greek word, representing a uniquely Greek historical phenomenon. It is a fact that Aristotle, the Stoics, the neo-Platonists, pseudo-Dionysius, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Scotus, Aquinas, Hegel, Marx, Wittgenstein, Russell, MacIntyre, John McDowell etc. are directly contributing to that same tradition that started in Greece. As for (c), consistency, have you noticed that the Wikipedia "Medieval Philosophy" and  "Modern Philosophy" articles are (justly) almost entirely western? And that the Chinese philosophy page is almost entirely focused on ancient Chinese thought? (The only "Modern" sections in Buddhist and Chinese articles show interaction with Western science and philosophy!) The same conventions hold in academia as well. Non-western philosophy is either historical in focus or is studied in its connection to western philosophy (ie., the tradition that is Greek, European, and now global).  In conclusion,  the current length is much better than it was a year ago; but there is still an accuracy problem with listing "Western philosophy" as merely one of seven(!) possible references of the word.  This kind of ridiculous distortion is one of the reasons academic philosophers avoid Wikipedia and use SEP or even IEP instead. To deny that something unique was going on in Socrates and Plato that is still going on in contemporary "philosophy" departments might sound inclusive but it's just false. It would still be more accurate to history and more consistent with the rest of the Philosophy portal for this article to provide a historical overview of *western philosophy on its own,* followed by a far more brief historical overviews/links to other six non-western wisdom traditions. The respective Buddhist philosophy, African philosophy, etc. pages are very good in their own right, and we should directly interested readers  to the appropriate article efficiently.  Appreciate your thoughts on this and your help making this article even better. It's one of the most important articles on Wikipedia and so deserves our best. CircularReason (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CircularReason, let me make a few quick points here about this restatement of your argument, which I see as a form of "Western exceptionalism". You claim that Western philosophy holds a special and more important place than other forms of philosophy and should therefore be given pride of place along with more space in the article itself, while other forms of philosophy should be relegated to a secondary spot in the article. You claim that only Western thought "searches for wisdom" by means of logical investigation, but this is clearly false, as can been seen for example, in the works of Indian epistemologists (pramana) and your claim that only Western thinkers subject religion and politics to unflinching scrutiny is also false, as can be seen in the critiques of Chinese philosophers which attacked both religions and political ideals. Can you point to academic sources which prove these claims of yours, that only Western thought is logical and critical? Imagine if this was another article, for example, political thought, and I claimed that since communism is clearly the superior and most logical system, it should receive more space and we can see why what you want to do in this article is unbalanced. As for your point about "(c) consistency", it simply does not follow. Medieval philosophy refers to Medieval Western Philosophy, because the term "Medieval" is a historically European term that does not apply to other regions while the "Modern Philosophy" article is a simple start class article that should, but has not yet been expanded to include full sections on Asian, African and Middle eastern thought. In short, yes, Western thought is unique, but so is Chinese and Indian and African and so on, and there is no good reason why any one in particular should have a privileged position in the article.Javierfv1212 (talk)
 * Just in case helpful I will note that I do not think that CircularReason is wanting to emphasize any claim about superiority, but about difference. The approach to "wisdom" taken in the west (at least from the Greeks to the Middle Ages, but obviously we are only comparing old "philosophies" here) is often claimed to have been different. (The approach which was taken towards the concept "Nature" is often considered to be part of this difference, or maybe critical to it.) I think there is no doubt that the word "philosophy" does however also have a broader meaning also which this article should at least refer to, and that the difference mentioned above is somewhat debatable at least in the details. Indeed I have seen it claimed that modern western philosophy has itself strayed away from what originally made western philosophy specifically "philosophy"! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Andrew, while CircularReason has not outright stated that Western philosophy is superior, it is a view that can be inferred from what he has tried to argue in this discussion. For example, in claiming that the Western tradition is "metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, ethics, aesthetics..." while other philosophies are mere "wisdom traditions" -- as if there wasn't any aesthetics or phil of language etc. in Indian thought (see: Abhinavagupta and Kumārila Bhatta respectively). He also seems to assume that other cultures do not search for wisdom using logical investigation or "subjecting even religious and political tradition to unflinching scrutiny". This is also false and can be gleaned from even a cursory study of non-Western thought. The issue then is not just about difference, because if it was, then we wouldn't see this sort of language. What is encoded here is a view which sees Western philosophy as exceptionally different and hence deserving of more space in this article. It is interesting then, that he mentions that the article should model Hegel in his first post, because Hegel's view of this topic is well known, calling Indian thought "one unbroken superstition". But this is of course, the real superstition of many Western academics (viz. that they are special). Javierfv1212 (talk)
 * Another professional philosopher here. Not sure if this is still up for debate, but seeing as there is already a Western philosophy page, shouldn't this page be inclusive to all traditions as a jumping-off point to each's own, more detailed Wiki page? It does not seem logical or efficient to focus this page around Western philosophy simply because the ancient Greeks coined the term — even if we acknowledge that there are significant differences in both method and topics between these schools of thought — when this is an Anglophone page, and ″philosophy″ is a colloquially catch-all term used to refer to both ″Western philosophy″ and ″non-Western philosophy.″ Gerdesk (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015165808/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=epistemology&use1913=on to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=epistemology&use1913=on
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170609133754/http://read.hipporeads.com/why-i-left-academia-philosophys-homogeneity-needs-rethinking/ to http://read.hipporeads.com/why-i-left-academia-philosophys-homogeneity-needs-rethinking/%23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Post-truth in "Philosophy" entry
Dear colleagues,

This portrait of young Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, displayed here (and all over the internet) as Immanuel Kant, is certainly prettier than any of the historical portraits of Kant. But... For those interested there's a comprehensive Kant iconography at Uni Mainz webpage.

Regards, Vadim Chaly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadim Chaly (talk • contribs) 07:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sophists?
I'm certain I'm not the only one who finds it inane that Wikipedia's philosophy page does not include references to Sophists...Did the authors completely forget about this important step in the formation of the ideas of Philosophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobaltblueeyes (talk • contribs) 05:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reasonable suggestion I think but do not forget this is a very broad philosophy article. There might be other articles where more should be said? They are not easy to explain properly without going into depth, because little is known of their philosophy apart from it being pre Socratic. (In a way it refers to a professional group that helped define the opposed position of Socrates.) For this article, we currently have this text for example, where it would be easy to slip in a reference to Sophists. See my square brackets suggestion:
 * "Western philosophy is the philosophical tradition of the Western world and dates to Pre-Socratic thinkers who were active in Ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE such as Thales (c. 624–546 BCE) and Pythagoras (c. 570–495 BCE) who practiced a "love of wisdom" (philosophia)[33] and were also termed physiologoi (students of physis, or nature). Socrates was a very influential philosopher, who insisted [in opposition to the supposed claims of "Sophists"] that he possessed no wisdom but was a pursuer of wisdom."
 * I personally also find it a bit odd that we just say Socrates was "influential" rather than pointing specifically to him being a turning point towards political and ethical philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Role of women section
There is a role of women section, and no role of men section. I recommend removing the role of women section (or adding a role of men section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingovelocity (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Phil of religion as part of epistemology?
The section on epistemology has philosophy of religion as a part of it. But really, it is not, since it deals with many other issues like religion and ethics, religion and science etc. Javierfv1212 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Observation
Has the time come for the concept of observation, a noun, to be a phenomenon equal to the phenomena of fundamental interactions in physics and philosophy. That matter/thought and observation are dependent.45.49.226.155 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Arnold45.49.226.155 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a well written page, addition of pages in Jayarama Pancanana, Mahadeva Punatamakara needs to be done. The pages for them needs to be created. (Blake Peter (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC))