Template talk:Philosophy topics/Archive 1

Guideline for inclusion
here is the proposed guideline for inclusion: Overwhelming evidence of centrality to philosophy as demonstrable by thousands to ten's of thousands of publications in the history of philosophy.

this means, most things in philosophy aren't on this list. most things are referred to on this list by a higher category. --Buridan (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

List of "philosophies" which should NOT be in the template
I'm sorry it had to come to this, but this is probably for the best. Add as you wish, I can't list them all. -- infinity  0  20:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Christian Science
 * Creationism
 * Theism
 * Atheism
 * Agnosticism
 * Evolution
 * Darwinism
 * Transhumanism

Objectivism
What is the reasoning behind not including this section? As a relatively modern philosophy I understand that it doesn't have as large an impact as some of the other members of the list, but having studied Ayn Rand in several distinct university Philosophy courses I am surprised that it has been omitted.

EDIT: Never mind, I read some more stuff on the list and realize that this is a hot-topic on here. While I don't necessarily agree with the decision (in my opinion if there is this much debate, that alone should be sufficient merit) I'm not going to open an old can of worms.


 * I disagree, exclusion of Objectivism must be explained, because right now I can't see the reason for it, and I'm sure many neither do many other people. It would be according to editing policy of Wikipedia to give the basic explanation why Objectivism is excluded. If it is considered a pop philosophy, a link to credible source would also be appropriate. 195.182.10.22 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a Portal
Why not take the template content as a starting point for Portal:Philosophy?

With using template, either it gets ridiculously large, or it's an eternal fight who and what gets included.

Pjacobi 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Too big?
I like this concept, but it seems to be too big. Should we make a template with just the different eras (i.e. Ancient, Medieval, Modern, etc.), and then provide detailed lists of philosophers on linked pages?

An alternate idea is to code the box as it is now to be hidden. Then when you click on "expand" or whatever, it will unhide it. For example, this is how the table of contents boxes work.

FranksValli 20:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If we create a portal, it is also hidden by default. When you click Portal:Philosophy it becomes visibles. Also for visitors with Javascript turned off. --Pjacobi 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Systematic POV deletion of Template:Spirituality
An anonymous author (User:24.18.171.99) of  Template:Philosophy topics  has systematically replaced Template:Spirituality with this philosophy template on common target pages. This form of POV steamrolling won’t be tolerated. Wikipedia categories and topics form a network, not mutually exclusive territories. Please refrain from this practice in the future. In addition, replacing those templates removed without any justification or consensus would be appreciated. &mdash; RichardRDFtalk 21:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A philosophy template is more informing and objective than a spirituality template. Much of it has already been incorporated into this template anyways. Infinity0 20:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

POV
This template does not include any significant non-Western philosophy. There's no Eastern, South Asian, or Middle Eastern philosophy included. Perhaps this template should be moved to Template:Western philosophy. &mdash;thames 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone is open to add the eastern stuff. BTW, the template has been streamlined, and the beginnings of Easternization has been added to it.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka 24.18.171.99) 01:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Link spam
Using a template to put the same external links into more than 50 articles is a severe case of link spam. --Pjacobi


 * They aren't spam links. They are widely recognised, good, sources of extra information, especially stanford plato. Infinity0 18:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good sources for all 200 pages this templates seems to go to? Then why aren't they included there now? Are there any precedents fpr external links in navigation templates? I'd consider them de facto against policy.
 * Anyway. I've put the whole thing on WP:TFD fo reasons outlined there. --Pjacobi 18:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Infinity0. They are general resources on philosophy, created in the same spirit as the Wikipedia.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka 24.18.171.99) 18:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Infinity0, you'll have to fight him on TFD, as I don't have a member account yet. (Still getting my feet wet).   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka 24.18.171.99) 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't need a user account to participate in WP:TFD discussions. --Pjacobi 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Found the instructions at the top of the TFD page too.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka 24.18.171.99) 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories
Well, you will have to sort out the categories. "Doctrines and Schools of Philosophy" is way too big atm, and unorganised. Also, it's vague what you mean by "concepts". IMO, idealism and materialism are concepts, not doctrines. I would organise everything, but I don't know what half of those things are. How the hell did you get them all, anyways??? Infinity0 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved the "Doctrines and Schools of Philosophy" section to a list article or two, with links in the template to get there. "Concepts" is now all-encompassing and is not distinct from the aformentioned (quoted) category.  Whichever ism terms you think should be included can easily be added to it.  I cleaned up the title bar and internalized the other links that were up there.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka 24.18.171.99) 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, I keyed-in every philosophy ism I could think of or find, and plugged them into the template as topic links (using Show preview)... almost all of them came up as live links! I couldn't believe my eyes.  I removed the few that turned up red, like Randianism, Socraticism, etc.  Wikipedia has definitely achieved critical mass.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka 24.18.171.99) 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up
It's cleaned up. Let me know what you think.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka 24.18.171.99) 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a western philosophy nav without an eastern philosophy nav. The template is small enough for me to re-inserting the eastern references. Infinity0 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Democritus and Epicurus are ancient greek philosophers. Extropy, evolutionism and creationism are not major philosophical topics and are probably best left out. Infinity0 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log.

Categorisation
There aren't just 4 branches - different sources come up with different numbers, eg: So I think putting the "philosophies of" thing into "branches" is justified.
 * (5 branches)
 * (13 branches)

I think your version of "Concepts" is too long and disorganised. You have stuff like "atheism" and "deduction" under the same heading. I think my version, splitting it up into "Concepts" and "Topics" is better, but maybe the "Topics" should be called something else. I didn't think "Schools" was a good word as it is too specific, and in your version you only have 6 schools.

Infinity0 19:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)



It doesn't make any sense to use synonyms to categorize the concepts. We'll have to find better words, but the subdivisions of philosophy (namely: tradition, movement, school, doctrine, principle, idea, theory, system, approach) all overlap, and it is impossible to get anyone to agree on which terms belong where, while many terms belong to several. And to have all those designations would make the template far too large.

Here's a snapshot of the template, to clarify what exactly we are discussing at this point:

 Philosophy

In the above version, the "schools" section is incomplete. It was intended as a starting point to list more or less complete philosophies or belief systems. I merely included the ones I could think of off the top of my head. Obviously, there isn't enough room to list them all, so we need to keep it limited to a representative cross-section of what is out there, including the cutting edge.

The phrase "Philosophy of" was repeated many times in an earlier version of the template. So it made sense to consolidate these to save space, which is our main concern with this template.

I agree that I haven't much of a clue as to what should be included in the concepts list, but the current list was only intended to serve as temporary suggestions until I (we) learn this subject better.

Besides, the template cannot grow much larger than this before it starts upsetting the people who tried to get rid of it already. So differentiation of the types of topics isn't required as much as refinement of the navigation aid itself. It needs to include the bare minimum of essential philosophical topics. I don't have a clue where to start in setting selection criteria for what constitutes "essential". But this should become more apparent as we progress...

Which brings us to the overall goal, of which the template is only a part (i.e., what I had in mind when I created the template): development of a linking system to:


 * 1) Introduce newcomers to philosophy in a non-intimidating way (i.e., help them get a feel for it without subjecting them to information overload).
 * 2) Provide a linking structure to assist in navigating the whole of philosophy (which will take more than a simple template or even a set of templates; more on this below), to help the reader find everything relevant to his research, from within the topics.  Methods include imbedded links, templates, "see also" reference sections, portal links, and links to the appropriate categories.
 * 3) Provide a comprehensive map of philosophy, external to the topics themselves, to help the reader see how everything fits together.  Categorized indices (lists), specialized lists, etc.  The template already hooks into these, but the best ones are incomplete.  There are quite a few resources like this floating around the Wikepedia, but as of yet they are not linked together in a very useful way.  Many of them are stranded resources, and I don't even know what they are, but I keep running into them, and as soon as I do, I link them into the whole structure.

If we keep waging a reversion war on this template, it will detract us from development of the rest of this project. We can nitpick it until we grow old and gray.

I've been working on the List of philosophical isms, which originated on this template by the way, and could sure use some help pasting in the definitions, and finding the isms missing from the list. That list should assist us in choosing which topics should be included as essential concepts on the Philosophy (navigation) template, and in categorizing the whole of philosophy for other parts of this system. Plus we aren't as limited on space on that list, though I think four or five lines should be the maximum for any definition.

Now, getting back to templates, this is only the first one in a series of planned templates. The idea is to link the top tier of philosophical subjects together (by virtue of their sharing the Philosophy (navigation) template), and use more specialized templates in successively lower tiers of the philosophy topics hierarchy. So, not only will the articles be linked together by templates, the system of templates will be linked together intelligibly by the articles (which should all point back up the hierarchy). However, before we start creating templates to achieve this, we need to survey what templates are already out there that are suitable for this purpose or already in use.

I'm starting to experience brain fry, so I'll turn the floor back over to you...

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)



The current version has no logical structure though. "Atheism" and "Deduction" are in the same sections. A bundle of all concepts labelled under one type is going to confuse, not clarify. The previous version separates concepts from topics - how are they the same thing? Also, creationism and evolutionism really shouldn't be here. Infinity0 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the other version:

 Philosophy

I've tried to keep concepts (free will, deduction, etc) and thought-systems (topics) (atheism, nihilism) separate. Infinity0 00:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Creationism and evolutionism both concern the origin of the universe (if I'm not mistaken, this falls under Ontology), and as far as issues go, they don't get more philosophical than that one!    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka Go for it!) 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, they bring science into it. They use very little philosophy and should be left out of a concise philosophical navigation. Infinity0 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Among other things, everything with its own page in the Wikipedia is called a "topic".

Yes, the word "topic" was the best one I could think of. But do you not agree that those two sections should be kept separate? Infinity0 00:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

How about renaming "topics" to "schools"? Atheism and agnosticism are schools of thought, to an extent. And at least it's better than "topic"... Infinity0 00:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I integrated the 2 versions. I've retained the 1st, 2nd, and 5th sections, and adopted your sections as 3 and 4, though I renamed "topics" to "systems".  I understand now what you were going for, and it makes good sense.

(i don't think "phil of" should be in "branches" - too diverse for that. also, rem cosmology, 49 virtues, rhetoric (not phil) and cosmogony (not major); ren systems to philosophies - it makes space)

Translation: I separated "phil of" from branches as it looked untidy; i've kept the "traditional" branches in the branches section. I removed cosmology, 49 virtues, and rhetoric, because they were either not philosophy or have too few components of philosophy to be properly included here. I removed cosmogony as it's too minor, and renamed systems to philosophies - i don't think it's too big a gap, and it provides gap for the other headings. Infinity0 18:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Template-specific goals
Here are some potential goals with respect to this template. Please let me know what you think...

Size:  How about a 10-line maximum (11 if you include the template title)?

Left margin:  Keep it as small as possible, or eliminate it altogether. What are your thoughts on this?

Subheadings:  Keep it to five or six. (each one creates blank space between subheadings which wastes a lot of precious space).

Topic selection:  (don't know yet. any ideas?)

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 00:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Philosophies" makes the the left margin HUGE
That's a lot of wasted space in the left margin just to accomodate that one word. I suggest we revert back to "Systems".  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 23:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad, but change the word if you want. Infinity0

Having six designations creates an extra line of wasted space, plus partial lines empty
We should merge Branches and Sub-disciplines, because Branches currently wastes half a line, while Sub-disciplines wastes 2/3 of a line. That's more than a whole line of white space. We'll also pick up the whole line of space that lies between the two.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 23:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is wasting far too much time. And all we have is a bloated template. We had it to 11 lines at about 2/3 this height.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 23:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm experimenting with different formatting of the code to cut down the paddings. Wait a few mineutes, pleas. Infinity0 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Case of the disappearing topics: pipe needs to be on its own line
In your latest version, the first topic of every list disappeared!  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 23:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ahh, ok i'll fix it Infinity0 23:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Infinity0 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Issues
Compare my version with Go for it's version

My version:
 * Takes less space.
 * Clear, separate categories. Will be easier to update and edit in the future.
 * "Philosophy topics" is a more accurate description of the template than "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide". It's also shorter to type.

Go for it's version:
 * Too much padding.
 * Categories are not clear. The concepts section is muddled up.

Comments appreciated. Please vote in TfD:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide, because it's an unneeded duplicate of this one. Infinity0 23:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Template: Philosophy (navigation) VERY STRONG DELETE This template's title and tag were meant as working titles only (I should know, I created the thing), and has been obsoleted by it's replacement, the Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide (see below). The reason for the replacement is that the new tag is much easier to remember, as it has the same name as the template's new title.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka Go for it!) 23:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC) I created the template anonymously as 24.18.171.99 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Template: Philosophy Quick Topic Guide VERY STRONG KEEP - This template was designed to replace Template:Philosophy (navigation), which was a working title (I should know, I created it). Infinity0 doesn't like the new title, and therefore has instigated a deletion campaign. This template already has better article placement than the obsoleted original, and the process of replacing the old tags is nearly completed. This template's tag is much better placed, and it will take a lot of work to revert all those tags back to the inferior working title.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka Go for it!) 23:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop spreading your bs propaganda. We both know that the only reason you created the new template was to go behind my back in changing the template. I made changes you didn't like, so you made a new template which wasn't on my watchlist. If the new title is so good, why didn't you have it as the title when you originally created the thing? And "it's easy to remember" is your POV. Both are equally easy to remember (in fact "Phil (nav)" has two fewer words), but "Phil (nav)" is a better description of the actual template, and easier to type. "Deletion campaign"?? What campaign have I exactly planned? You're the one spreading bs POV about the template. Jeez. I've linked both to let other people have a look for themselves. Infinity0 23:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How could anyone possibly go behind anyone's back on a public system like Wikipedia? Did you think I made such a move believing you would never find out?  That's pretty naive of you.  By the way, the thing that makes the title and tag easier to remember is that they are the same.  I had trouble remembering Philosophy (navigation) in the beginning, and I was the one who created it!  Another more subtle advantage to having a formalized title is ease of referring to the template, because it has more of an identity, rather than "that box labeled 'Philosophy' at the bottom of the screen".    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka Go for it!) 09:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, stop adding bullshit propaganda to the TfD page. You're a dishonourable piece of shit. "sabotage" and "instigating deletion campagin" are unneeded, unbased and unsupportable accusations. The point of wikipedia is to improve an article, and if you don't like my version please say WHY, instead of being a crybaby and reverting everything to suit you. I've made compromises with you before, but now it looks like you're just not willing to listen to anything I have to say. I have shown why your points about "easy to remember title" are wrong. At least answer my above points. Infinity0 00:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no need for name calling. I've put a lot of hours into this project, and I don't think you realize that it has a much bigger scope than this particular template.  I think a lot of your topic insertions have been insightful, and I'm not really at odds with you on the content of the template so much as with the title.  We need to reach a compromise:  Let's adopt the new template and title, and let's keep the General, Lists, Branches/Subdisplines, and Links sections.  Defer on those, and you'll have my support on the rest of the currently existing sections (from your version), including how you want to differentiate the traditions/schools/movements/theories/arguments/concepts/ideas.  Do we have an agreement?  (Good job on fixing the padding, by the way).    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    (aka Go for it!) 00:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You gave the impression that you want this project to be solely yours. Why "Quick Topic Guide"? A "guide" should be flowing prose, which this is anything BUT. Your "Lists" and "General" sections should be together - I was thinking of having "General" as in pure-philosophy stuff, and "In the world" to how philosophy relates to the world. "Lists" and "General" is a nice categorisation in that it's easy for us editors to maintain, but it's less helpful to the reader than categories based on topic.

As for the portal, it will be far easier in the long run to link to this template, trust me. In this way, you don't have to edit both at once. Infinity0 16:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa... I was worried that you two were going to just keep escalating this to arbitration, but it seems like you're regaining your cool. Just take a breather and work together on fixing it up to where you both are comfortable with it, ya know? You are both very knowledgeable about this stuff - so I'm sure the final product will be good. Just try not to write to each other in a condescending tone and everything will be honky-dorey. :) And if you really can't work out your differences, consider using the informal Mediation Cabal . Those guys are pretty chill, and always willing to help. --Michael (talk)  17:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

TfD is merely administrative, that is, a title/tag name change, nothing more
This deletion conflict isn't about content or padding (I simply didn't catch the padding improvement, and would have fixed it myself if I could figure out how, they've been added in now -- thanks Infinity!). Infinity0 and I have been engaged in an edit war on this template almost from the moment I created this template, and that war will continue to go on until he and I learn to work together. No, this conflict is about the name of the title and the tag for this template. I've asked that this template be deleted, because it has been obsoleted by template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide. That template has essentially the same content, and Infinity0 is welcome to edit it the same as he has been editing this one. The new template has the advantage of having the title and tag the same (the tag is easier to remember that way), and gives the template an identity that is a lot easier to refer to.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 01:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To an outside observer, the conflict here seems to be more about personality than about subject matter. Take it elsewhere, boys.


 * I like Template: Philosophy. I voted KEEP when it was up for deletion.  The only changes I suggest (I'm not going to make them, but if others agree, I hope they will make them):


 * 1) "Deism" rather than "Theism"
 * 2) "Ontology" moved into the preceding category
 * 3) "Teliology" added to that category
 * 4) Separate "aesthetics|ethics" into two categories.

Rick Norwood 13:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I did 1 and 4, will do 3 some time, but Ontology is a sub-branch of metaphysics, and I don't think it should be moved. Infinity0 16:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me offer one more thought. "Template:philosophy" is in the style of other Wiki templates.  A template, by definition, is already a quick topic guide -- adding that to the title is only confusing.  Rick Norwood 17:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen! Listen to yourselves!  I think, if you go to the template history, and read over what you are saying to each other, you will be surprised at how you sound to an outside observer. Rick Norwood 00:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate
This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 02:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am glad the template survived. Now, let's discuss moving Template: Philosophy (navigation) to Template: Philosophy.  The Philosophy article is undergoing extensive work, and to have a Template: Philosophy sidebar would be useful. Rick Norwood 13:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution
Why is evolution on the list of philosophy topics? TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 10:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly because things other than animals evolve, like ethics or political systems? Endomion 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While that's a good attempt at an answer, the link was to Evolution which was almost entirely about biological evolution. One small section was given to "Social controversies," which is really a rather different topic than evolution itself. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionism (the theory of evolution) is one of the most philosophical concepts there is! It changed the whole philosophical landscape, shifting the emphasis of philosophical thought from the metaphysical to the materialistic epistemological. It's because of the evolutionism vs creationism debate. Darwin stabbed God right in the heart with his theory of natural selection, thrusting evolutionism into the center of metaphysical discussion and bringing the whole God issue into quesion. How can God exist in the face of evolution? Did God evolve too? Doesn't religion (and God) evolve every time we come up with something new, like evolution? What if man takes control of his own evolution, and creates the posthuman? What will that do to the dogma of the theists? How will they evolve their religions to compensate for that! What about intelligent design? Did God create evolution?

And look at what evolution did for philosophy: it kicked atheism, agnosticism, and agnostic atheism into high gear. As doubting God came into vogue, we needed theories of knowledge verification to replace blind faith. Evolutionism gave a major boost to the deveopment of the Scientific Method, one of the most important products of philosophy. Now, as a basic assumption, evolutionism is an integral part of modern (analytic) philosophy and of the most promising emergent philosophies. Evolutionism helps form the foundation of several atheistic philosophical schools of thought, including Nihilism, Existentialism, Pragmatism, Humanism, Extropianism, and Transhumanism, to name but a few.

And getting back to metaphysics, if we evolved, making His being obsolete, then God gets sliced by Occam's Razor, which means that there is no soul either, right? And no afterlife. So, what we see is what we get. Which means it is up to society to determine what is morally right and wrong, for due to evolution, there is no higher (supernatural) authority to pass down commandments nor sit in judgement over us for our sins. Which means men have been doing this all along, as false spokesmen for a god that doesn't exist. But now, we won't take their word that something is right just "because it is God's will": we will want to know the reasoning behind it. As Nietzsche said, "God is dead". So, make the best of this life pal, it's the only one you've got! You'll never get out of this life alive!!! Or as Ben Franklin once said: "Dost thou love life? Then waste not time, for time is the stuff that life is made of!"  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   (aka Go for it!) 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well let's see here. Wow. Your last paragraph largely confuses "evolution" with atheism. This seems to be common among both theists and atheists, but the linked article had nothing to do with souls, afterlife, morality, supernatural beings, etc. The idea that God can be eliminated by Occam's Razor is a primarily atheistic one. It might deserve it's own page, but I doubt it deserves a link on a general purpose template. Glancing at the other parts of this reply... no, religions don't "evolve" in the sense that the linked page described. The idea that humans can/should control their microevolution is called eugenics. I wouldn't be entirely against linking it. It seems that there are really only two real reasons listed here: historically evolution has been associated with/boosted some philosophies, and some philosophies depend on evolution. I still don't think either of these ideas particularly makes evolution a good topic to include on a list of philosophy topics. It seems that I'm not the only one who thinks so, since evolution was removed some time ago. Anyways, I'm not really interested in this page much anymore, I was only confused why a scientific theory was being linked from a philosophy template. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 21:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about what "evolutionism" is. It's not "the theory of evolution". Evolution is the theory of evolution as well as the fact of evolution (kind of an overloaded terminology). "Evolutionism" was originally a pejorative word coined by the creationists. It's another in a long line of words with "-ism" tacked onto the end of it. -- Cyde Weys 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think an argument can be made that although Evolution began as a Scientific movement in it's early days, it has become a holistic philosophy. Evolution has become like a prism, that is, a way in which to think about a subject, instead of just a simple way to explain biological processes. Even in science, we now have schools of evolutionist physics, chemistry, geology, mechanics, etc. Much like Aristotles posterior analytics, or Plato's Socratic method, Evolution is a way of thinking as much as it is "science". --Jmarinara 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Schools and such
Maybe listing "philosophical schools" isn't a good idea. I rather like the old "concepts" sections, like "awareness, being, etc etc". Those are much more general to all of philosophy. Instead of schools there could perhaps be links to "western schools" or "list of schools", etc. Infinity0 talk 23:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Does transhumanism belong here?
It hardly belongs up there with empircism, rationalism, etc. - I wonder how many major philosophers you could find who would call themselves 'transhumanists', much less deem it a makor school. If you agree with me that it doesn't belong cluttering up ever phil page, why not delete it? I would, but I'm just not feeling very bold today ;) Thomas Ash 20:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, change the article as you see fit, and if people like it they'll keep it :) Infinity0 talk 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What?! Negating the dialectics?
Of course, Dialectics (Socrates, Hegel, Marx) should be one of the schools! How could we forget!? I'll put it in the template. Probably also Dialectical materialism (or Marxist philosophy of nature) deserves a place there, but I guess there should also be some sort of limit to the size of the template. -- ActiveSelective 07:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've repeatedly added it to the article the many times it was deleted. Can't believe I missed it this time. /blushes Infinity0 talk 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am by no means a Hegel expert, but his entry on wikipedia lists his school as "Hegelianism" and the entry on Hegelianism seems much more like a school then what appears on the dialectics page. Next, Socrates was not a "dialectics" or whatever. If anything you might call him a Platonist. Yes, Socrates did philosophy in a dialectic but that does not make him in anyway a part of the same school of philosophy as Marx and Hegel. Now, I think you are right to say that Marx's Dialectical materialism deserves a place on the template. I think you are right to try adding a school on the template to cover the likes of Marx, Hegel, etc. I just don't think "dialectic" is their school, or a school at all. - Atfyfe


 * Thanks for clarifying. I might add the materialist dialectics too. My response:
 * We have to consider that visitors to wikipedia are not experts eiher. Very general articles like Theism, Humanism and Dialectics give the abundant semi- or non-philosophical visitors an easy entry, and help them to choose their road further into the depths of philosophy. Quality of philosophy counts, but quantity of philosophy-interested visitors does also. The title of this template is for that order well chosen: not "philosophical schools" but "philosophical topics". ActiveSelective 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe a name change into "the dialectic" (as a form of philosophical reasoning) might also help here if "dialectics" suggests too much a particular philosophical school. (although, to me, the name "the dialectic" sounds so... archaic) ActiveSelective 10:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it is up there if it is merely a way of reasoning. The section on the template is called "schools." I cannot really speak with much knowledge here because I am pretty ignorant about what the Continetial philosophers are up to, but in Analytic philosophy I don't see "dialectics", "dialecticism" or "the dialectic" as having a place on the template. (Atfyfe)


 * Ah, you're right. It was under the "schools" section. Well, replace it into a better one, but please do not remove - see for the reasons above. By the way, I do think it is quite an artificial devide, this "continental vs analytical". But even when one would hold on to it, I don't see why this template is strictly analytical. ActiveSelective 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying the template should be analytical, I am just admitting that when making edits to sections dealing with continental schools I am personally not very knowledgable. I'll leave it to you (or someone) to figure out how to represent Hegel and Marx on the template, I don't know their philosophies all that well. Until then let's just leave Dialectics up. Atfyfe


 * Okay. I'll take care of those in the template.
 * About "way of reasoning": the dialectic is a general form of reasoning, and in that way of the very same kind as Logic (under the Branches section). At the same time it is more than just reasoning: it is also a philosophy, unlike Logic. Basically, yhe big difference between them is that the logical way outputs less information then it gets as input, while with the dialectical way it is the other way round. Two basic examples:
 * Logic
 * input (A ^ B) v (A ^ -B) ==> A output
 * Dialectic
 * input S + O ==> S'O + O' output
 * The S cientists are studying their O bjects of study (optical lenses). In the end they become transformed S' cientists. Transformed because they now control the O bjects. They fuse with them - S'O is the scientist using microscopes. Because of the fused state, they are now able to study new O' objects (bacteria), which could not have been in this study-relationship prior to optics. So you start out with scientists and lenses (and maybe bacteria), and you end up with scientists, lenses, optics, and visible bacteria.
 * A consequence of the difference between Logic and Dialectics: Logic cannot build a philosophy of more then just Logic - no ontology, no epistemology, no ethics. But Dialectics seem to grow larger philosophical systems, including ontology, epistemology and ethics. Dialectics is therefore often classified as a philosophy, next to being the name for the dialectical way of reasoning at its base.
 * One of the best reads is Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin's book "The Dialectical Biologist" in which they use Dialectics in order to explain biological processes, and debunk ideological confusion about biology. ActiveSelective 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sophism
Hmm...should sophism be placed anywhere on that table? I guess you can't really call it a 'school of philosophy' as much as a way of carrying out philosophical discussion, but still.Laplace&#39;s Demon 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We used to have a section called "concepts" that included stuff like "good", "evil", "value", "being", "awareness", etc etc... I guess sophism would have been under there. But it got taken out because of space constraints. -- infinity 0 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added Sophism back in. Perhaps it will die again. But the name does name a number of philosophers (like Protagoras) who had certain defined positions in philosophy. The only real reason we might not include this school of philosophers on the template is the fact that so little is known about their school. All we really know today is the straw mans of their philosophy that Plato provided us. Today the word has another use as labling a certain (bad) way of carrying out discussion, but at one time it was a school. It is, in fact, because Plato bashed them so badly that we use the word as an insult. - Atfyfe

Reformational "philosophy"
I deleted Reformational philosophy that was added to the template because it is in no way a "philosophy".

What RP actually is:
 * 1) a collection of arguments on the subject of religion,
 * 2) of this collection the boundaries are set by religious dogma; in other words: the philosophy is completely subjected to religion which says "this is where I grant thee movement, but thou shall think beyond this dogmatic line",
 * 3) the insipration for discussion is solely religious.

RP is a style within the Calvinist religion, not a philosophy. As an analogy, styles and arguments within the realm of programming ("should we use while...do...lus? or a do...until...lus?") or within psychology ("how to handle the carrot-stick-method") or within physics ("shall we solve it using Newtonian laws or the Principle of Least Action?") can neither be called a "philosophy". Within the restricted context, specialists might use the term "philosophy" as another word for a certain "style" or "method". Within that specialized restricted context, style and method might be the most abstract notion they ever use, which makes it understandable they nickname it "philosophy". In programming, psychology, and pysics, they might give names like "the C++ philosophy", "the Dr Phil philosophy", and "the convention philosophy" but this is of course way off what a genuine philosophy is.

Empiricism, dialectics, and even skepticism, all try to overstep and even break down the boundaries set analyze beyond it in order to evolve knowledge and self-evolve. A programming philosophy won't go beyond computers and a reformational philosophy won't go beyond the Calvinist God.

-- Christian Mission 09:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, 'Ref Phil' is back! Is this legit? I've never heard of it, but then again I wouldn't know anything about this school unless they contributed something mainstream. I'll hold judgement until I can do some checking around. My standard is if any of the philosophers listed on the Reformational philosophy entry have any published work in Mind, Nous, The Philosophical Quarterly, and any of the other mainstream journals. Atfyfe 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenology
I was wondering if phenomenology should be listed under schools? Postmoderism does not cover phenomenology, and phenomenology is certainly an important school of philosophy. It is just a thought... Thanks. -aeyn edwards14:10, 23 April 2006


 * I'm not sure about this, so anyone else have any input? -- infinity  0  22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say phenomenology is more a methodology than a school, but I realise that might just be my impression. People such as the existentialists were influenced by his work, but did Edmund Husserl leave a wake of followers? Regards, David Kernow 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My two-cents: It is a methodology, but often methodologies are also a school. For example, I may use the phenomenological method to examine some part of the world, but that doesn't make me a phenomenologist. What would make me a phenomenologist is if I thought the phenomenal method was The End-all, Be-all of philosophy. If you think the method radically changes the philosophic landscape, and solves all or near all of the ancient philosophic questions--then you are not just using the phenomenological method, you're a phenomenologist.(Atfyfe) 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Christian Science as a school of metaphysics
Many people confuse Christian Science, (CS, for short) which also comes under the subject of a so-called organized religion or religious denomination with Christian Science as a school of philosophy or a school of metaphysics. In fact, there have been at least two individuals who have basically taught the metaphysics of CS without the name, precisely for the purpose of not confusing the denomination with the philosophical aspects of what Mary Baker Eddy, its proponent, actually proposed. Based on the comparitive ignorance of modern-day philosophers and scholars with Eddy, I can easily understand why it might have been removed from the list of schools. So my mission will be to show why its a valid, if little-known school.

So, I'll do some homework on the topic and be back. What I'll do is compare what Eddy, the founder of Christian Science]] wrote on the subject and a discussion of it by some other sources. In 1881, she opened a school in Boston Massachusetts to teach her particular "school." So the real issue, informationally, is where her particular theory fits into an overall discussion of the larger topic. In this discussion, I am playing a massive game of "catch up" as I was originally a philosophy major in college, but haven't done much with it, so give me some time to do the research, and I'll be back. Today, I'm more comfortable with history than philosophy. Combining the two topics I've been reading a great book on the origins of the Greek schools of Philosophy. Lots of Greek in that book, and its iteresting that scholars in 1900 actually assumed that every "liberal arts" graduate be fluent in both Latin and Greek. Fortunately, I'm a historical throwback, so I can actually follow the most of the Greek while I'm much more comfortable with the Latin. So, I'm starting there and working my way forward. I'll cite that Greek Philosophy book later. Bottom line, just because few modern people know what Eddy taught, doesn't mean that she didn't have a contribution to make on the larger topic. Thanks SimonATL 01:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi - it would be interesting to take a look at the book(s) you're reading. I know your intentions are good, and I think I can see how how CS might fit into metaphysics, but it's just not a main school of metaphysics.  This template in particular has had a rough history, since people complain it contains too much information, so for the sake of simplicity many schools of thought are already left out in favor of larger schools.  I think where we should add CS is maybe an article instead of this template - for instance, List of schools of metaphysics.  I'm unsure if there's already an article for that - if not, then maybe you could start it.  FranksValli 04:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry. I've read some about CS and some of CS, and came to the conclusion this certainly should not be put into the philosophy template. Yes, it is a school but not a school of philosophy. Of course, it uses some philosophy, but it is not a philosophy itself. Quantitatively, this religion (see Christian Science) uses as much philosophy in its course as the study of French language uses Wittgenstein: very little. Must we also put French in the philosophy template? Every argument of (above) is valid in the case of CS.
 * I have a more general warning here, since religious cases show up in here once in a while. What to do with them? Remember, religion is only one of the objects of analysis and criticism in the schools of metaphysics. There it is an object under study, not the authority over study. In religions it is the other way round. Confusing is that religion tends to name itself a 'school of metaphysics'. However, in reality, a 'school of metaphysics' is not the same as the metaphysical thingies themselves. The philosophical school of metaphysics is analysing and criticizing metaphysics (call it NPOV) while the religious school of metaphysics is professing a metaphysics (which is POV). The philosophical school of metaphysics is testing for change of metaphysics (possibly followed by changing its modes and methods) while religion resists all change (even the testing for change). You can even observe this on Wikipedia, in this template's history: users trying to add religious links into this template never have added this template to the religious page linked to. I guess, this template will not even be accepted on that page!
 * Three general criteria:
 * The pages linked to should be philosophical.
 * Users trying to put links into this template, should first put this template on the page concerned, and then see if it is accepted there at all. Acceptance over there is necessary (although not sufficient) before linking from here to there.
 * This template has an integrity of its own: a range of subjects, a maximum size, an order. When choosing is necessary, more important subjects are included and less important subjects are dropped.
 * These are natural demands put to all pages linked to, not only to religious pages. For CS this means: 1. CS is not a philosophical school of metaphysics, but a religion - 2. This template has not been accepted at the CS page - 3. even if it would fulfill criteria one and two, it is -in my view- too minor a subject.
 * -- ActiveSelective 10:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Physicalism / Materialism
It seems unnecessary that both of these are listed, but I'm not sure which one to delete. Materialism has had a much longer history within philosophy than physicalism, and many do not realize there is even a distinction between them. However, Physicalism seems to be a 'larger' school than materialism as it states that everything is physical but not necessarily matter. Or is the difference between them great enough so that they should both remain on the template?--Laplace&#39;s Demon 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I put physicalism back (as well as naturalism). I hadn't noticed this remark of yours otherwise I might not have. I guess I am just starting to wonder how many schools this template should have on it? Should we go for broke and include even closely related schools (e.g. physicalism/materialism/naturalism) or should we trim the list down to major and distinct schools? - Atfyfe (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Space at top of the template


Suggest this space needed for padding not included in the template as at present but on the pages affected. Anyone recall particular examples, or is it most/all here? Regards, David Kernow 12:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, why edit 500 page when you only have to edit one? -- infinity  0  21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I suppose it's about as easy to give a bot the task as it is for a human to edit one page. I guess I'm disappointed to see a good template carrying ballast. Regards, David 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List of stuff to do
- Bypass redirects - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy_(navigation)&limit=500&from=0 - Template is too long. Why are there loads and loads of schools? I'm going to delete a few. -- infinity  0  21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ordinary Language
I don't see the ordinary language movement in philosophy as minor at all. Between 1930-1970, it became widely popular to try solving all philosohic problems by a close look at ordinary language. For example, traditional philosophy might ask in the abstract "What is truth?", but when we look as specific places where it is used in ordinary language, the role of the "word" truth is always very clear. If a reporter asks "Mr. President, is it true you plan to invade Iran?" instead of "Mr. President, do you plan to invade Iran?" the additional term "is it true" serves to imply that there are rumors around that he plans to invade Iran. There is no mystery as to what truth is, here what the word "true" is doing is very clear. As with this, ordinary language philosophers held that we could dissolve all philosophic problems by bringing out their use in actual language. This was a big an remains to be a huge influence on present-day philosophy, just look at the popularity of Wittgenstien or Ryle. (atfyfe 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

Here is what I think ought to be deleted
I won't delete these, but if they come under fire by someone else, here is my vote for what schools ought to be given the boot:

Advaita Vedanta · Agnosticism · Atheism · Humanism · Theism · Vedanta · Yogacara

Religious positions all belong in a template for religion, not philosophy. That is why a University has two different departments--because they are two different subjects. --Atfyfe 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooh yes that's a very good point, I guess I wasn't thinking when I kept adding those... delete away! But why delete Humanism? -- infinity  0  08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Humanism doesn't appear to be a position in philosophy. As a graduate student in philosophy the only time we come accross the term "Humanism" is studying F.C.S. Schiller, however he used the term to mean what we would today call pragmatism. I respect the idea of humanism, and I might even be willing to call myself a humanist, but I cannot see it as a philosophic position. I suspect Humanism belongs as a (normally) atheistic alternative in the realm of religion, and therefore belongs on a religious template. If anyone has ever heard of humanism being discussed in a graduate level philosophy course, I'd love to hear it. / I also removed theism because it really isn't a school of philosophy. Many philosophers (pragmatists, rationalist, empiricists, etc.) can be theist, but I fail to see it as a school. I suspect determinism falls to the same criticism. --Atfyfe 20:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Humanism in philosophy is a rejection of quantitative approaches to cultural studies. In a world where everyone is subject to rationalization, commodification, and scientific analysis, humanism is an approach to social sciences, psychology, neuro-biology, etc., which states that humanity is more than the sum of scientific observations and objective analysis. The human component adds all forms of mystery to baffle scientists, therefore humanism rejects the scientific perspective in favour of a qualitative approach, which allows for the expression of human experience and emotion. This is the philosophical approach behind humanism, religion isnt even a part of it, humanism simply allows for the existence of a soul and of God, while many empirical disciplines would completely deny this based on lack of evidence; a humanist would simply say, 'that is my opinion.' Therefore I would not remove this from the template, particularly as this is a branch of philosophy from which many social sciences derive. Please read Talk:Humanism. SCmurky 08:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is a philosophy. Humanism is the generalization of the "homo mensura axioma" of Protagoras of Abdera (Ancient Greek sophist) meaning "humanity is the measure for all things". In humanisms, humans are put at the centre (without necessarily denying gods, ideal principles of harmony, or materialist principles like atoms - it just doesn't put any of these at the centre of philosophy). So humanisms tend to be social philosophies: humans live collectively and at the same time they are individuals. They are dualist: partly subjective since the human point of view is chosen, partly objective since the human and the human society do materially exist. One could say that for example Marxism is "a humanism" (but not that Marxism is Humanism).
 * But I disagree with SCmurky. Humanism does allow quantitative and scientific research. It is not just subjectivism or humanitarianism, even though some Humanists tend to over-emphasize the subjective side. In the 17th century it was reborn as a reaction against religion and it did stimulate more scientific perspectives other than the usual revelation, official believes and superstition. Today Humanism might criticize the lack of human perspectives in the materialist sciences and, even more so, the inhumain economical abuse of sciences, but it does not oppose science as such.
 * For all this, I say: leave humanism in the template. ActiveSelective 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you both want the Humanist school in philosophy to be, but I just don't see Humanism as an actually existing school in philosophy departments and journals. I should admit that I am only aware of Analytic philosophy departments, and so Humanism might be a large school in Continental philosophy, but from my reading of its entry that doesn't seem likely. Various philosophers have used the term "Humanism" now an again, but it has never gained usage. Schiller used the term "Humanism" but was then grouped as a "Pragmatist", I believe Sarte used the term humanism, be he is grouped as an Existentialist. Protagoras is grouped as a Relativist, or occasionally a pragmatist. If you look at the unabridged table of contents for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there is an entry for humanism but not as a philosophic school. / Let me just say, I do not mean to denigrate Humanism. I even buy ‘Free Inquiry’ magazine now and again. However, it is no more a school of philosophy than Objectivism. If you read the objections made against Objectivism under the "Academic Philosophy" section of that entry, similar things could all be said about Humanism. Humanism is a political, religious and social force--but it has no recognition inside the philosophic community. If you think Humanism is a philosophic school, find where it appears in an Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The three major philosophic encyclopedias are the Stanford, the Edwards, and the Routladge. I also suspect if you ask a philosophy professor if they considered “Humanism” a philosophic school belonging on a list with “Positivism”, “Pragmatism”, “Rationalism” ect. that 95% of them would say it doesn’t belong. Perhaps all of them. (Again I know nothing of what in the world Continental philosophy is up to these days, so my bet only applies to analytic professors).  Heck, the dang entry for Humanism has a logo, what philosophic school has a logo? Humanism is clearly directed towards the common man and society, not towards professional philosophers. – User:Atfyfe


 * Okay. So I followed your advice and did look around. You know what? You got me convinced. Meaning, I think it does not necessarily need to stay, nor necessarily need to go. ActiveSelective 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In comparison with the topics you mention, I would have to say that Humanism is distinct from each of them. Existentialism appears to share a majority of qualities with humanism, even accepting theistic, atheistic, and agnostic existentialists. I feel that the Humanist article is poorly written, with too much emphasis on religeous perspectives, in time I will seek to change this. My main argument for the retention of Humanism is its influence on social sciences, psychology, and neural-biology, in its recognition of the limitations of quantitative/scientific analysis, in that you cannot define a human soul (bad example perhaps?) as a synaptic process. However I feel to some extent that existentialism trumps humanism. SCmurky 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Atfyfe did not say that Existentialism is Humanism, he said that one instance of the word being used in the history of philosophy was being applied to Existentialism, Pragmatism, and Relativism. Ultimately, all of those school were given the names they have today and Humanism now fails to name any philosophic school. I do not think the Humanism article is wrong for stressing the political and religious aspects of Humanism, I think you are incorrect to think that Humanism is something other than that. From my own experience as a philosophy student at the University of Texas at Austin, the only time I have ever heard the term used was to refer to the Renaissance pop-philosophers like Voltaire and Diderot. Mr. Wright 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Religious perspectives are present with Existentialist philosophy as well, however they are not considered a determinent category within this field; that is the case with humanism as well. Humanism does not depend on the presence, abscence, or even an individuals identification as such. I am not a philosophy major, but I am aware of the varied philosophical perspectives that are present within these fields; humanism is one of these, environmental determinism, positivism, etc, are some more. I would say however, that while humanism shares much in common with existentalist thought, it seems to be the application of a combination of different philosophies. SCmurky 01:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

To ellipsis or not....
ATF: I see that David Kernow has added an ellipsis to the "Philosophy of" section of the template. I don't think that strikes me as a good addition. However, it's a pretty minor point. Plus, maybe it is just me. How does the rest of you feel about the ellipsis? - Atfyfe
 * I'm not wholly convinced by it either, but on the other hand I'm not convinced by the seemingly truncated feel of "Philosophy of". Revert if you/other folk wish; as you indicate, it's only cosmetic. If so, maybe add a  to the "of" to steer it away from the edges of the columns. (I suppose I was finally niggled into action having seen this template again recently!)  Regards, David Kernow 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tabs
This is beyond my programming ability, but it would be nice if we could add tabs to the philosophy navigation template. That way someone can click on a "positions" tab and we can have a comprehensive list of philosophic posiions (e.g. determinism, monism, theism, etc.). Right now if we added positions to the template it would become way to large. Just throwing the idea out there if anyone knows how to take it to fruition. Atfyfe

Transhumanism
I've added Transhumanism to the list of philosophies, unless anyone has any objections? The Fading Light 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I quote, "Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement" but it is not a philosophical school in professional philosophy. Not every cultural movement (even when it is an intellectual movement) is a professional philosophy. I don't mean to disrespect transhumanism, I just do not think it is properly typed as a philosophy. -Atfyfe 08:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaced "Eudaimonism" with "Virtue Ethics"
I think "Eudaimonism" was a good addition, and it brough my attention to the disgraceful fact that virtue ethics was yet to be included on this template. However, once we have added virtue ethics, do you think eudaimonism still deserves a seperate listing? Might someone not reach articles on eudaimonism through the article on virtue ethics?

For those not aware of virtue ethics, it now considered the third major area of ethics (against Kantian deontology and Millian consequentialism). It was originally put forth by Aristotle, but only recently made a huge comeback in the 1950's thanks to GEM Anscombe (then later Foot, McDowell). -Atfyfe 08:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, I see utilitarianism up there (i.e. consequentialism), but deontology isn't listed! Ack! We have really neglected the major ethical schools. -Atfyfe 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aristotelianism?
I don't know if Aristotelianism ought to be listed as a school. Philosophers today certainly say "I am an Aristotelian" but that usually means they are a Virtue Ethicist (which is already on the list). I don't think there is a group of philosophers who say "I am an Aristotelian" and mean they are a part of a school of philosophy defending most (or all) of Aristotle's positions. Except for in ancient greece where one might have said "I am an Aristotelian" in opposition to "I am a Platonist" does it seem to make sense to count "Aristotelianism" as a school. Same goes for "Kantianism". Most people who say that mean that they are a "Deontologist" in ethics. However, I think there is more of an argument for "Kantianism" or "Neo-Kantianism" than there is for "Aristotelianism". What do people think? - Atfyfe 00:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
The eternal debate on this template is if Ayn Rand's Objectivism belongs here. Below is the text from the entry on Objectivism, which I think shows why Rand does not belong on the template. Here are some highlights against Rand (for the pro-Rand stuff you can read the whole text):


 * "Most academic philosophers have long considered Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention."
 * "Rand is not found in many of the comprehensive academic reference texts, including the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (1995) or the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.), each over a thousand pages long, nor is there an entry for her on the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A lengthy article on Rand appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy], and she has a brief entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Chandran Kukathas, a political theorist, which includes the following passages:'The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. [....] Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.'"

Religion is religion - not philosophy. Evolution is a scientific theory - not a philosophy. Atheism is a position taken - a belief - not a philosophy. But Objectivism is a philosophy. You are expressing a personal POV or engaging in origional research to classify it in some category that is not philosophy. There are many, many verifiable, valid sources that can be cited showing Objectivism as a philosophy. This is an encyclopedia with specific rules for editing. It doesn't matter that someone doesn't like the content or the style of a given philosophy.

Please note that the first paragraph of the page on Ayn Rand in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - one of the very sources listed on the template itself - describes Objectivism as a philosophy that has had great impact. Steve 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ATF: It isn't that I find objectivism wrong, and I grew up loving Rand, but as a philosophy graduate student I have come to realize she was no philosopher. When people ask me about her, I call her a popularizer of philosophy. Furthermore, this is not my "personal POV" and that you would think that really undermines your argument. The rejection of Rand as a philosopher is widespread and well known. It would be POV to call her a philosopher, it would be NPOV to treat her as the philosophic community treats her--as a non-philosopher. There may be a lot of lay-sources calling Rand a philosopher (and Jesus and various poets and...) but what counts is professional philosophic sources. Of those, the number that treat Rand as a philosopher are rare. You are right that the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists her, and while that is good evidence in her favor, her absence from the Stanford encyclopedia, 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, etc. is much more evidence against her. These encyclopedias didn't just "run out of room", they left her out because as the professional philosophic dictionaries and encyclopedias they express the professional opinion that she is not a philosopher. One or two philosophers here and there (e.g. Tara Smith) is not enough, they continue to be outsiders in their belief. Ayn Rand has had a "great impact" but not in philosophy, but as a public figure. - Atfyfe 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Atfyfe, I understand the points you are making. But Rand is and probably always will be under attack by the academic mainstream - many of whom wish to write her out of philosophy altogether.  That strong bias alone ensures that her representation in journal compendiums would be lite.  And those who buy that argument point to her absence in this or that reference as if it were the same as a valid source saying she is not a philosopher.  Why her philosophy excites such intense like and dislike is a question for some other discussion - but that it does is an obvious fact.  She wrote philosopy in the classic tradition by choice.  When I say that denying Rand is a philosopher is personal POV I mean that valid, verifiable sources have been provided and they are being ignored or 'interpreted' or 'explained' and that is a form of origonal research or personal POV.  I'm not attempting to attack you, or Buridan, but to frame the argument in terms of WP Policy.  Steve 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * no, steve, it is pretty clear that you only promote rand on very little basis, assuming that 'little basis' is proof. when that little basis is the exact opposite of proof.  you won't find anyone saying kant is not a philosopher either, but you will never see him excluded from encyclopedias of philosophy.  being in one or two and supported by a series of minor academics is not sufficient to demonstrate that someone is a philosopher of that something is a philosophy, there is only one test of that, and it is whether the practices of a significant number of current or past philosophers address his or her issues in writing.  if herman mellville gets more citations than rand in the philosopher's index, that does not mean that he is a philosopher, it means that she is not.  there is no 'academic mainstream' to philosophy, there is just philosophy.  if you make good arguments, you are included, if not, you are excluded.  she is excluded for primary sources of the field, she is not in the field.  --Buridan 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Buridan, you continue to make up your own rules as you go along. You decide in your mind who is a philosopher, which cited authorities you'll accept, what the standards should be.  That's so wrong.  I follow WP policy in providing valid, verifiable sources.  This very template has amoung it's external links sources listing Rand as a philosopher.  But you never find any source acceptable - if it is for Rand.  Steve 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not making up rules. Your sources always fit into one of 3 categories: not neutral (known Rand promoters), not verifiable (the sources that you claim support rand, actually do not claim it in the manner  you say), not of merit for philosophy (they are not philosophy, or they fail to identify philosophical works as different from non-philosophical works.   If you had any reasonable source, I would give way, but your sources are at best problematic, and usually as people have shown in other debates... nonsense.  The standards are fine, your application of them leaves much to be desired.  Your constant reversion based on your contrivances are also disagreeable.  Find a good solid source, something canonical, and show us the actual text that is not biased.   You are promoting Rand, my position is that to be neutral we cannot promote Rand, we have to treat her as the majority of the world of philosophy treats her, with mild skepticism at best. --Buridan 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Randism is not a major school of philosophy and as such will never be included in this template, which is large enough as it is. -- infinity  0  13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Major" isn't part of the heading - if it were that would be a problem since the concensus has been to delete material that specifies "major" as a criterea or part of a title. This is a navigation template and as such it should have the most frequently used links presented - do a google search and see how many hits you get for Objectivism versus any of the others.  But in the end, it will stay if there are valid, verifiable sources for its entry because that is WP Policy.  Steve 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ATF: Let me explain what the anti-Rand crowd are not saying. We are not saying Rand was not a "major" philosopher, nor are we evaluating her philosophy and calling her a "bad" philosopher. We are saying she is a public figure who was not a philosopher. The standard that, at least, I am using to make this judgment is here place in professional philosophy. This can be judged by her entries in professional encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy as well as her appearance in major works of undisputable philosophers. To meet this criteria the Pro-Rand crowd have provided several pieces of good evidence in her favor (Randian Tara Smith at UT, Nozick's claim that Rand is unappreciated, her entry in the internet encyclopedia), however, I hold that the anti-Rand crowd has much more evidence against her (her absence from the Stanford Encyclopedia, 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, etc., the refusal of Duke University to take a 1-million dollar grant to appoint a Rand scholar, the very existence of this debate over her status, which doesn't exist for many others, and so forth). Given a consideration of all the evidence, the anti-Rand crowd judge her not to be a philosopher as evaluated by the philosophic community, and therefore should not be included on this template. This is the same debate we have over "transhumanism" and "Jesus", etc. Often these are cultural, political, or religious movements that mistakenly label themselves "philosophy". Lastly, Rand was an important and influential person. Very much so. But not in the arena of philosophy, and that is what this template is about. - Atfyfe 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Atfyfe, your arguments would carry more weight but for the fact that Ayn Rand antagonized the very crowd who "judge her not to be a philosopher." It would be as if the Republicans, when they held a majority, declaring that Democrates weren't to be considered as politicians for the purpose of elections.  The powerful bias towards analytic philosophy in the academy today is a fact that has to be taken into account if we are to achieve valid encyclopedia articles.  The existence and intensity of the debate is more an indicator that this philosopher is not liked.  Because one side of the argument says she isn't a philosopher but has only thin arguments and no sources to back that up certainly isn't impressive.  I'm afraid your argument boils down to "the anti-rand crowd judge her to not be a philosopher" and therefore she should not be included.  You are correct that there are cultural, political, or religious movements that are mistakenly put on philosophy lists - but they aren't explicitly lableled philosophies by reputable sources and don't contain books on ethics, epistemology, and political philosophy.  If we each sit in our comfortable arm-chairs and attempt to weigh the motives of Duke University, the motives of Stanford's editors, divine a magical number of references required to be a philosopher, etc. we are just falling liable to either personal POV or origonal research.  In the end, it is still a matter of honoring WP Policy.  Valid verifiable sources are the rule. Steve 18:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are not allowing Ayn Rand's Objectivism or Transhumanism on the list due to preceived "flaws" in their thinking then why is Marxism on the list? I will remove it unless anyone has any objections? The Fading Light 15:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Marxism, unlike the other two, is over 100 years old and is widely recognized as a philosophy/philosophical perspective, not only in philosophy, but other fields. it is a valid school of thought in philosophy, with roots as old as utilitarianism. --Buridan 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because something is old doesn't automaticly grant it any value whatsoever, otherwise things like Tree Worship would count as a valid philosophy. The Fading Light 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * old philosophy i should have said, is still philosophy. pop philosophy is not philosophy.  granted some marxisms, just like some anarchisms and some green movements have pop philosophies.  However, marxism has a long standing philosophical tradition and the worst part is that many of the other schools mentioned have incorporated some of it into their body of knowledge, so it does not even make sense to talk about some aspects of their theory without acknowledging marxist philosophy.  my argument is that marx and marxism has always been philosophy, so to remove it.... is a bit like removing the analytic school.  you are removing something that has always been philosophy.  removing objectivism is removing something that never was philosophy.  --Buridan 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Buridan's argument that Objectivism is not a philosophy is his personal POV. Here are the facts, backed up with citations.

Objectivism is popular and well known as a school of philosophy - a Google search for "Objectivism" finds over a million hits - and it is also recognized as a philosophy by many valid, verifiable sources. Objectivism has it's own Wikipedia article which states that it is a philosophy. Here is the quote retrieved from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Objectivism:

"Objectivism. Rand’s 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. She wrote both technical and popular works of philosophy, and she presented her philosophy in both fictional and non-fictional forms. Her philosophy has influenced several generations of academics and public intellectuals, as well as having had widespread popular appeal".

The article cites other valid, verifiable sources showing that Objectivism is a philosophy.

If the "Schools" section of this template is going to show some schools but not others, then that section should be removed or the template should be deleted. Steve 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted to the version that had both Objectivism and Marxism (since I assume it would be easy to find valid, verifiable sources for Marxism). Steve 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * it does not matter what I think, i was making the argument for comparison between objectivism and does not belong and marxism does belong. Objectivism does not belong as that is what the standards of the project have dictated, i was giving my opinion as to why that is, in comparison to why i think Marxism does belong.   The project members determine the content of this tool, not 'valid verifiable sources', which is for articles. --Buridan 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Buridan, that's not correct. All editors stand equal in the editing of template content.  There are no special privileges granted to some but not others.  That said; I'm a member of the WP WikiProject Philosophy - If you like I'll send you an invite.  The General Standards section in the project say two things that are pertinent here.  One, Wikipedia's policies and standards for articles remain in affect (like those on valid, verifiable sources).   Two, cite sources.


 * There are concerns as to whether this template should exist at all. Take a look at the guidelines on [|Template namespaces - Introduction]:
 * "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."
 * "Templates should not be used to create serialized links to external sites, with the exception of Wikimedia sisterprojects, such as Wiktionary."
 * "Templates should also not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function."
 * But of much greater import is an attempt to push a personal POV or origonal research by censoring valid entries to a template's content.


 * I believe the template is a great addition to all philosophy pages - it's useful and encourages exploration. But the Schools section has to be maintained according to WP policy.  Valid, verifiable sources have been given to justify Objectivism being in the schools section.  Steve 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you'll find that templates are not articles, templates are managed by projects. Please follow the template guidelines on the template talk page. --Buridan 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of what templates are. Please follow WP policy - do not delete properly sourced entries.  Steve 01:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right and there you go again, there is no one that says objectivism is a school of philosophy that is like these school other schools of philosophy. you don't have citations, or sources that can put objectivism on this list without putting a whole bunch of other things on the list, like new criticism, or historicism.   follow that 'what should not be on this list, please, or make an argument, a solid argument against it.  also I think you did 3rr again. --Buridan 08:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've provided sources - you haven't. The 'what should not be on this list' is an editor's suggested guideline on a talk page - not a WP Guideline much less WP Policy.  I've also provided solid arguments, and as long as you make the unbelievable argument that Objectivism isn't a philosopy, I need say no more.  I think we both may have done a 3rr - but then I haven't been the one deleting valid, verifiably sourced entries. Steve 12:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the history. You're right.  I did a 3rr - but you said "again" and this was the first.  You missed doing a 3rr by about 3 hours.  I'll make a point of not violating that in the future.  And I'll ask you to watch the policy on deleting properly sourced entries.  Thanks, Steve 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Randianism should NOT be included in this template because it is not philosophy, apart from to Randianists. I do not think Marxism should be in this template either, but please keep that a SEPARATE issue. Please stop having the mentality "OMG Marxism is in the template but Randianism is NOT, the leftists are winning!". That is so NOT the point. I should think that we can agree that Marxism has better merits to be in the template than Randianism. However, I don't think those merits are enough. Its ideas might be incorporated into many schools, but are these schools in this template too? It's not *that* major. -- infinity  0  10:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Objectivism is declared deficient in some fashion and then comes a call for the link to be deleted. But that's personal POV.  On Marxism, I think its link should be included as well as Objectivism's - this isn't about 'left' versus 'right' and it isn't about what 'Randians' or 'anti=Randians' think or want.  It is about providing navigational links to schools of philosophy - to make WP more useful.  Objectivism has an article - it should be linked to. Steve 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the pov is in the addition, not the a. not adding, or b. deletion of objectivism from schools. it is not a school, it is not widely considered philosophy by experts in philosophy as evidenced by lack of citations in well respected philosophical media or mention as a philosophical school. stop your campaign of promotion, it is pov. --Buridan 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Buridan, you continue to ignore all of the citations made. You make empty and unsourced assertions then delete sourced entries. I suspect you will never accept a source if it goes against your campaign to eliminate all references to Rand or Objectivism.  There is another point that should be made regarding this navigation template.  Philosophy exists outside of the academy as well.  It is intended for all people - even those not at a university.  A school of philosophy is supposed to have followers/adherents/students.  There are millions of people that recognize Objectivism as a philosophy which they may or may not agree with.   Steve 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * nice good faith there steve. i have not ignored any citation of any merit.  i made my arguments, you have yet to find any refutation.  objectivism is not a philosophic school steve, that's the end of the story.  you can take your billions of people who have philosophical beliefs and call them philosophers if you want, but in my world there are lines to be drawn between what is and is not philosophy and that line exists as a function of published philosophical works recognized as canonical or otherwise of merit in philosophy.  I do not deny that Rand did something, i don't think she did it for millions, and i don't think it was philosophy.  Others might label her philosophy, including herself, but the arguments above stand.  If she was a philosopher, everyone would call her a philosopher, most reliable sources do not mention her as a philosopher and never will, as that would likely be a test of being a reliable source or not.  I think what we have here is about 5 editors on wikipedia who really want to promote rand as a philosopher and popularize her as that.  I think that is a npov violation on the order of calling ayn rand a great american novelist, or the intellectual leader of a school of thought.  she is not widely considered to be either except by a very small group of promoters.   give up the promotion.--Buridan 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote we ditch Rand and Marx. I actually like Rand and I am well read in her work, so I am more comfortable saying she should not be included. On the other hand I dislike Marx and the Continental tradition he is a part of, so I am less comfortable asserting that he should not be included. This is not a political figure template or a public intellectual template, and so if Marx is both of those but not a philosopher then he goes too. I had just presumed that Marx was sufficently important to Hegel and that crowd on issues of metaphysics and such to warrant being on the template, but if he isn't then he can go too! - Atfyfe 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, We ought to drop the POV name calling. The pro-Randian crowd will say the anti-Randian crowd is making a POV judgment that Rand is not a philosopher, while the anti-Randian crowd will say that the pro-Randian crowd is making a POV judgment that Rand is a philosopher. So which side is asserting their own POV is exactly what we are debating over. To simply say the other side is violating the POV-rule, is to beg the question. Which side is violating the rule is what we are debating over. Second, this statement illustrates a confusion: "You make empty and unsourced assertions then delete sourced entries." Yes, the pro-Rand crowd is making a sourced claim. However, the anti-Rand crowd is also making a sourced claim that she is not a philosopher. Sources that both explicit deny her status as a philosopher as well as sources that make the claim by leaving her out of their dictionary or encyclopedia of philosophy. Consequently, both sides are sourced. The pro-Rand crowd is making a sourced addition and the anti-Rand crowd is making a sourced removal. The question before us is not as clear-cut as who has sources and which side violated a wikipedia rule. We must weight the sources on each side and we must judge which side is being POV. Lastly, no one should see this as a left v. right debate. I think we can all agree that Robert Nozick is very clearly an important philosopher and that John Rawls is an important philosopher, despite the fact that one is a "righty" and the other is a "lefty". This is a debate over how inclusive the definition of philosophy should be. No one should claim that Rand is undisputedly a philosopher, but the fact that she is on boarderline doesn't mean she obviously isn't a philosopher. It means exactly that she is a boarderline case and now we are left to weight the evidence as what the objective, NPOV standard is for who is a philosopher and who isn't. Furthermore, looking to the philosophic dictionaries and encyclopedias, I think that Rand fails that standard. - Atfyfe 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points... The 'anti-Rand crowd' isn't providing sources - he is treating an absence of an entry in chosen works as if it were a source.  Then he uses his non-source as the thin justification of for removing an entry that is sourced.  And, saying she is 'borderline' would be a case of begging the question or of origonal research.  But this isn't really about Rand.  We are talking about Objectivism.  It is a school of philosophy that has a number of philosophers making contributions, a great many intellectuals discussing it, dozens of professors teaching it, etc.  And consider that the argument is about a link - a link to an article in this very encyclopedia - an article that labels Objectivism as a philosophy.  This encyclopedia is intended for use by anyone that can get onto the internet - and if you judge the popular interest in a philosophy by its Google hits, then Objectivism would merit a navigational link.  Steve 08:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Google hits is exactly not the way we should judge who is a philosopher or what is a philosophy. It is a professional disipline, like sociology or physics. We wouldn't judge science by google hits, and it is to degrade and insult philosophy as a disipline to say it should be judged by google hits. Creationism gets 5,610,000 hits on google, does that make is more of a science than "Statistical mechanics" which gets a mere 1,180,000 hits? - Atfyfe 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

objectivism consensus
the general consensus of the editors and creators of this article seems to be that objectivism is not to be included. Am I wrong here? there seems to be very few proponents of inclusion.--Buridan 13:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Buridan, I just finished reading the talk page and no such consensus is visible. So, yes, you are wrong.  In your last edit-summary you accused me of violation the 3rr rule.  That is wrong too.  Look at the history page.  More than 3 reverts in a twenty-four period is a violation and I haven't done that.  Valid, verifiable sources have been provided (and sound arguments have been made).  When you delete that entry you are violating WP Policy.  Steve 16:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * the concensus is there steve. you are the only one arguing your position.  you violated the 3rr in principle, go read the policy page. --Buridan 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not violated the 3rr rule. I have read the policy page.  You are the one who needs to read it.  Here is the quote describing the policy, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period."  That is directly from the [Wikipedia:Three revert rule] page.  Please stop making false accusations.  The policy goes on to say that a person can be blocked for "edit warring" which is how I would describe you continuing to delete all of my entries.  You still haven't explained away your deletion of validly sourced material. Steve 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I remove your npov violating additions. that is not deletion. and you don't have any source that validates this addition.  --Buridan 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is Ayn Rand's Objectivism a Philosophy?
Request for Comment: Is Ayn Rand's Objectivism a Philosophy? This is a dispute about if Objectivism is a philosophy. Please read the dispute under the 'Ayn Rand' sub-heading on this talk page.

Basic Points
 * Ant-Rand: Ayn Rand is a public figure not a philosopher. She puts forth claims in epistemology, ethics, metaphysics and in other philosophic areas but those claims never generated any interest by the professional philosophic community. The reason she is important an famous is for her influence in the political, culutural, and public sphere; not the philosophical.
 * Anti-Rand: Ayn Rand is often said not to be a philosopher by respected sources and normally not included in philosophic dictionaries and encyclopedias. Treating Rand as a philosopher is the rare exception, not the rule of the professional philosophic community. The rule is that she is not a philosopher.
 * Pro-Rand: Ayn Rand is included in several respected philosophic dictionaries and encyclopedias. She also considered a philosopher by several respected and important philosophers.
 * Pro-Rand: Ayn Rand is neglected by professional philosophy for their political biases and for her hostility towards academic philosophy during her life. (Request and statments provided by: Atfyfe 07:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Comments
 * Yes, it is a philosophy. Sources have been provided (see Notes section).  WP includes an article on Objectivism as a philosophy.  Template should have a link to the article. Steve 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, objectivism is not a philosophic school and Rand is only a philosopher if we consider a broad array of other non-philosophers to be philosophers. If we are inclusive of anyone labeled a philosopher... ever, then yes Rand is a philosopher.  Else, all we have for citations and sources are either not reliable, do not represent her as a philosopher, or are clearly biased and promoting the non-neutral position. --Buridan 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Add Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to the template. The article is very interesting and informative. Use a pipe, so it appears as Objectivism.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we voting? :) If so, I say Don't add. I have enjoyed her work over the years- and to be sure, she created her own philosophy, and.... is it accurate to say she has created her own school of thought? Yes. Is it as significant as the other schools listed.... It sure doesn't seem that way to me. Sethie 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Rand's claims do generate debate among professional philosophers, Robert Nozick and my ex-colleague Roderick Long are examples of philosophers who have written about her in their role as professional philosopher. She is often treated as a philosopher by other professional philosophers, and she is also often not treated as a philosopher by professional philosophers, but neither is the rule.  Nor is it clear that how she is treated by professional philosophers should be any more relevant to diciding the debate than how she is treated by amateur philosophers. Bmorton3 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually it is relevant. This is wikipedia. If you she doesn't generate any press by WP:RS's, in this case, people publishing in RS's as philosophers- we just can't include her! Sethie 17:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many valid, verifiable and respected sources have been given. Here is another one: Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D, visiting professor at NYU, writes, "Ayn Rand is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century." This is in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, page 1.  It is a book-length,scholarly examination of Ayn Rand's philosophical thought.

Is Buridan on an anti-Rand crusade?
Buridan has been removing Ayn Rand, her philosophy Objectivism, and her books from various philosophy lists around Wikipedia. He has been rather forceful wherever he's done this. See List of basic philosophy topics, List of philosophers born in the twentieth century, Template:Philosophy topics, Timeline of Western philosophers, and List of publications in philosophy (he removed her books from the list), to name a few.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    05:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it is not a crusade. i am merely pushing the npov position.  the world does not agree that ayn rand is a philosopher.  saying she is a philosopher is equivalent to saying george bush will be remembered as our greatest president.  (he will by some, but most not).  so, should wikipedia promote the minority opinion as truth?  as encyclopedic knowledge?   my answer is no.  to include rand on philosophy pages is clearly a POV issue, we can bind biased citations to add her, yes, but then we can find biased citations to add huxley too.--Buridan 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After Buridan claimed that Rand's philosophy "...may have killed tens of millions of people" his remarks on truth, POV issues and crusades carry zero weight with me. Steve 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Buridan, pushing a position is POV. That it is someone's position outside Wikipedia is irrelevant.  Inside Wikipedia it is your position, and you are very visibly pushing it pretty hard.  In a controversy, both sides need to be presented.  See WP:NPOV.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist   06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * actually, i pushing the npov that there is no agreement that rand is a philosopher and as such she should not be represented as such on wikipedia. to present her as one, when some people disagree strongly is a pov violation.--Buridan 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rand is nowhere near important enough to be on such a small "shortlist". I'm with Buridan (here). KSchutte 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is how I see the debate so far: Both sides are pretty well sourced. It comes down to what standard will we choose for wikipedia to use to judge philosophies. Objectivism is well known, important to the world, and at least an attempt at solving philosophic issues and drawing philosophic conclusions. However, Objecitivism is considered too undeveloped and crude to be a part of professional philosophy. With the rare exceptions (e.g. Nozick), professional philosophy completely ignores Objectivism. They do not ignore Objectivism because they think it is wrong, but because they find it not up to the current standards of philosophic work.


 * So the question becomes: Are we to judge something a philosophy when it is treated so by professional philosophy, or are we to judge something a philosophy when it is put forth as one and has an impact on the world beyond the world of professional philosophy?


 * My argument is that creationism is in the same position relative to professional science as Objectivism is to professional philosophy, and that it is even more obvious that creationism shouldn't be considered a science. Therefore, on the same principle, that Objectivism ought not be included as a philosophy. We should judge positions a science or a philosophy based on the professionals in those feilds, not upon the impact of those positions on greater society. Objecitivism and creationism are hugely impactful parts of our world, and deserve to have long entries on wikipedia. However, Objectivism is not a part of professional philosophy and so ought not be included on this template. - Atfyfe 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me address your points one at a time.
 * You say, "Both sides are pretty well sourced." I disagree. Where are the sources saying Objectivism is not a philosophy?
 * You say, "However, Objecitivism is considered too undeveloped and crude to be a part of professional philosophy." Unless you have a source for that, it is just 'weasel worded' personal POV (I don't intend that as an insult - there is a style of wording that WP Guidelines refer to a 'weasel words').
 * And you still haven't shown that 'professional philosophy' by which I assume you mean the work of 'academicians' is the only source of truth in the universe of philosophy - a universe which certainly extends outside of the academy.
 * Your comparison of Objectivism and Creationism is just a sly dig at Objectivism, begs the question, is inappropriate and baseless. My sources have been respected members of 'professional philosophy'.
 * And all said and done, your position still amounts to an origonal research position that attempts to bypass the WP Policy of respected, valid, verifiable sources. Steve 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Given the edit-war going on on this template and the way both users involved are skirting WP:3RR, I've protected the template until there's a consensus here on whether Objectivism should be included. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the template per Transhumanist's request - but if the edit-war resumes, I'll re-protect quickly, and I'll make double-extra-sure to protect the wrong version, so please try to work this out here. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxism
If we are not going to include Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy why is Marxism included at all? At least Ayn Rand hasn't been used as an excuse to kill millions of people. I will remove Marxism from the list unless anyone has any good arguements otherwise. The Fading Light 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * marxism is a philosophy and a philosophic school. objectivist philosophy is not.  it is not clear that objectivist philosophy through the guise of friedman and greenspan's neoliberalism has not killed tens of millions of poor around the world.  marxism is in all the major encyclopedias of philosophy. use your judgment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buridan (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Unbelievable! Buridan claims that Objectivism killed millions of people!  And that it did this by way of a Chicago, nobel-winning economist who Objectivists didn't claim as their own and by way of Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Chairman.  I hope everyone takes a careful look at the logic in use by the one person who has been responsible for a single-handed campaign of Rand and Objectivism deletions on pages through-out the encyclopedia.    Steve 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * read closely steve, i said neoliberalisms policies may have, though it is not clear. it is just a rejoinder, the theories kill no one steve, it is the people that put them into action, for neoliberalism that the action is letting people starve, for stalinism it was mass murder.  --Buridan 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Buridan, here is exactly what you said, "it is not clear that objectivist philosophy through the guise of friedman and greenspan's neoliberalism has not killed tens of millions of poor around the world." No amount of weasel-wording or squirming around changes that into anything other than a claim that Objectivism may have I killed tens of millions of people. Steve 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Buridan, from what I have seen you are waging a one-man war on everything Ayn Rand all across the wiki so don't be surprised if I take what you have to say with a grain of salt. On a different note Buridan I do have a question, what is your political-economic leaning? The Fading Light 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I do not have a war on Rand, I remove much more non-philosophic content from philosophy materials, but the only one that people freak out about is Rand it seems. --Buridan 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though I do not agree with Buridan's purging of Rand from Wikipedia, I do agree that Objectivism (Ayn Rand) doesn't fit on this template. It's not a branch, nor a subfield, nor an established school of philosophy.  It's struggling to become established and therefore might be emergent, but you can only be sure of that in a historical context: we'll know it was emergent only after it emerges.  The template is too small to include every philosophical ism.  At one point this template grew to such a size that it garnered many complaints.  We've got to keep it concise.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist    14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When Buridan speaks about Rand or Objectivism, I no longer see his remarks separately from his personal POV statement that Objectivism "...may have killed tens of millions of people". But when User 'The Transhumanist' gave reasons for leaving Objectivism off this template it made me stop and think.
 * His first point was that Objectivism is not an established philosophy or school yet, but might become so after sufficient time has passed. There is a difference between Objectivism and other contemporary philosophies that matters in this context.  Rand purposely spurned academia.  Her philosophy is working its way into the academy from the outside, as it were, unlike its contemporaries.  I would argue that there are a number of entries in the list that are of about the same age or even younger - but beloved by segments of academia.  These are new since the fifties
 * PostStrucuralism,
 * Deconstructionism,
 * Postmodern philosophy,
 * Critical Theory,
 * Relativism
 * His second point is that template size is an important consideration. I see there is room for about 5 more entries in this section of the template without it growing any in height or width.  But maybe that is solely a factor of the display characteristics set on my browser and on my screen.  Anyway, I agree that a template should be fairly compact - it isn't the article, it is a navigation aid at the bottom of the article.  Towards the end of keeping it trim there are some entries that could be removed:
 * "Dialectical materialism" and "Marxism" are similar enough that one could be deleted and the other stay,
 * "Hermeneutics" is really a method or process rather than a philosophy,
 * "Reformational" is decidedly religious in nature and maybe shouldn't be here,
 * "Virtue Ethics" is indeed a school, but of Ethics Theory rather than of Philosophy
 * I'm not arguing for deleting any entries (except maybe "Hermeneutics", "Reformational" and either "Dialectical materialism" or "Marxism" but certainly not both). All of the contemporaries to Objectivism (some of which I abhor) should be kept even though history may not keep them on (hopefully).  And Objectivism should be kept as one understands that it has reached a sufficient mass inside of academia that when combined with its influence (and popularity) in the rest of the world it should be in a navigational aid. Steve 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

poststructuralism is the semiotic school. deconstruction is its own school, widely citable, post modernity isn't a school, but has its proponents, critical theory is frankfurt school and after, and relativism is the berkeley school. all of those can find references in philosophical literature. marxism can too. objectivism randform doesn't have that even in popular literature... it is not a school... it is just ideology.--03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You chose to miscontrue my point. I said those schools were about the same age as Objectivism.  I also said they should NOT be deleted.  As to Marxism, I did not call for it to be deleted.  I just said that if room is needed in the template (answering User:Transhumanists concern) we could use either the "Dialectical materialism" link or the "Marxism" link.  I don't try to censor beliefs that I don't like.  Steve 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. He's right. Hermeneutics isn't a philosophy or a school. It's not broad enough in scope to be either. It's further down the topic tree than this template covers. I agree it should be removed. That would create enough room for Objectivism, and since Steve explained so well how recognition of Rand is growing outside acedemia rather than within, I think Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be included in the template. The Rand articles are more provocotive than most, and really make you think. It wouldn't hurt students to read them.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * we do not need room for objectivism, as it does not belong on the template. and hermeutics is a school of philosophy, though it is also a broader movement, just like marxism.  --Buridan 14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Buridan, considering the fact that in this conversation you have claimed that "objectivism has killed millions of people" you have no credibility whatsoever to tell us what is and is not a school of philosophy. Take my advice before you dig yourself into a deeper hole and make yourself look more foolish than you do right now. The Fading Light 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * learn to read. --Buridan 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I read more books in a month than you ever will in a lifetime you cheap fraud. The Fading Light 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep this civil, I said 'learn to read' because you were posting a deliberate misinterpretation of my response to the murderous marxism rhetoric.  it was clear that you did not 'read' my statement as it was written, so I encouraged you to learn how to do that.  --Buridan 12:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BOTH of you need to stay civil.Circeus 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But on a different note, the reason I would like to see Marxism removed from the template is that this is a philosophy that has provided plenty power-hungry madmen with an excuse to kill, enslave, and rob literally millions of people starting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to North Korea to now the rising Maoists in Nepal. Marxism is nothing more than evil presented as a political-philosophy and we should treat it the same way we would treat a murderer, isolate and punish as harshly as possible. The Fading Light 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * google scholar has 24 for marxism is a philosophy, 219 for philosophy of marxism, 3200 for marxist philosophy, 150 for marxist school + philosophy etc. etc.  now objectivist philosophy, granted, has some citations too... but there are no (well 1 but it is from a webage) citations in google scholar for "objectivist school" that refer to randianism or rand's thought. --Buridan 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I used Google Scholar but with the correct spelling, "Objectivism", and got thousands of hits. And 150 hits for "Objectivist philosophy" and 51 for "Objectivism philosophy" (and, yes, the "Exact phrase" option was on). Many of the Schools entries in the template show only one or two hits and some show zero hits on Google scholar when you search for them as a "school" (with exact phrase chosen).  "Dialectical materialism school" for example has zero hits - same with   "Aristotelianism school", "Stoicism school", and  "virtue ethics school".  "Platonism school" only shows 3 hits.  I didn't try them all.  Objectivism seems to fare better than some I tried and worse than others.  This criteria shows it belongs here.  Steve 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree it depends on how you search... aristotelian search, i just rambled off some comparisons, however, for stoicism, the word you search is stoic or stoics, likewise with aristotelian schools. virtue ethics probably should be taken off as it is only a minor school of ethics, but if deontology and utilitarianism are on there, then virtue ethics needs to be there.  platonic philosophy not platonism, etc.  i think that if you become more familiar with philosophy you'll find that most of the proper words blow randianism out of the water.  --Buridan 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, Virtue Ethics is only a minor school of ethics? I don't thinks that's true anymore, certainly not in professional philosophy circles, look up the IEP's article "Virtue Theory" it's got a lot about developments in the last few decades, its really been making a comeback since Williams and McIntyre.  The SEP article on it has a huge slew of Books, anthologies, and survey articles on it that have been done recently.  Don't that it off the list. Bmorton3 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bmorton3, welcome back. I was NOT asking that any of the entries be removed - I think they should all stay and that there is room for Objectivism.  (But I did mention that "Hermeneutics" and "Reformational" might be out of place.)  Objectivism meets any reasonable criteria and would increase the utility of the navigation template.  I was only showing that it fared as well or better than some others entries using the criteria of Google Scholar hits (which wasn't a critera I suggested). Steve 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Buridan, it is better if we don't make personal comments about one another. My only intention was to show that Objectivism did show up and that some of the others, as spelled in the template, didn't.  It is my hope that we each act in ways that better the encyclopedia.  Edit wars and rhetoric that fuels them isn't helpful. Steve 04:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * that was not an attack, that was an observation. i get very few for objectivism when i use rand, only 800, which isn't bad, but it is no where near the 65000 for aristotelian or 15000 stoic entries.  it is comparable to virtue theory, at 1300... i suppose, but see my caveat above.  also nte that there is 'objectivism' without rand, which may be a minor school of epistemology in comparison to a major school of epistemology like empiricism or pragmatism.  --Buridan 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your point about the number of Aristotelian hits. My only point was that Objectivism showed up - and showed up with more hits than some of the listed schools.  Steve 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, your recomendation that Steve "become more familiar with philosophy" is uncivil, if not an attack. Please avoid ad hominem arguments, Buridan. If anything they will lower the validity of your other arguments.Circeus 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * context is important here, that is not uncivil, uncivil is threats and pseudo-threats.  the difference between googling aaristotiam school and aristotelianism school is a matter of familiarity with what things are commonly called.  he displayed his willingness to use unfamiliar terms, so i suggested that he discover and use the appropriate terms. he did try appropriate terms, now that is settled.  --Buridan 13:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is, indeed the defining appropriate to legal threats. Your comments (as those of Fading Light above) are definitely crossing the line into incivility. I advise everybody arguing here to maintain their comments on the content, not the contributor. Circeus 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * content was the issue, education or proper performance was the solution. in any case, thank you for distracting me from the topic, i have learned my lessons.   --Buridan 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Buridan, you are misrepresenting the facts, again. You have shown a reckless disregard for the truth in your campaign to eliminate Rand..  You maintain Objectivisim killed ten million people, you've compared Rand to Snoopy, you are deleting her name through-out Wikipedia, ignoring valid sources, violating WP Policy.  I'll give you another source right here. Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D, visiting professor at NYU, writes, "Ayn Rand is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century."   This is in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, page 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I have no campaign against Rand. I have a campaign for standards.  I maintain that objectivism is an ideology, not a philosophy.  I maintain that millions of people have died as a result of neoliberal policies, of which two of Rand's cohorts support.  I do not delete any valid, objective source.  I delete those you post that a nonsensical, those that are clearly biased, those that do not even relay that Rand has merit in philosophy.  --Buridan 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This: "I maintain that objectivism is an ideology, not a philosophy", I agree with. This: "I maintain that millions of people have died as a result of neoliberal policies", is irrelevant to our discussion (and a bizzare claim). Rand shouldn't be included because the philosophic community does consider her a philosopher. The number of google hits she gets, how good or evil her ideology might be, and if she is right or not; these are all beside the point.
 * Counting google hits is no way to determine who is a philosopher and what is a philosophy. Yes Rand is famous. Yes objectivism generates a lot of hits. But just because the extremely important philosophy of the ordinary language school (Wittgenstein, etc.) generates only 47,000 hits when objectivism generates 1,360,000 hits, does not mean that objectivism was 28-times more important than ordinary language philosophy! In fact, the exact opposite is true. A better standard might be a word count for the entries on 'objectivism' and 'ordinary language philosophy' in various encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy (and objectivism would lose that count). Or... tell you what I'll do a search on JSTOR (an online source for articles from the following 25 major and minor journals in philosophy and see how many hits I get for objectivism:


 * Analysis 1933-1996
 * British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1950-1998
 * British Journal of Educational Studies 1952-2001
 * Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 1995-2006
 * Ethics 1938-2001
 * International Journal of Ethics 1890-1938
 * Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 1941-2003
 * Journal of Philosophy 1921-2001
 * Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 1904-1920
 * Journal of Symbolic Logic 1936-2002
 * Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 1939-2001
 * Journal of the Warburg Institute 1937-1939
 * Law and Literature 2002-2003
 * Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 1989-2001
 * Law and Philosophy 1982-2003
 * Mind 1876-1999   (plus links to recent content 2000-2004)
 * Noûs 1967-1999   (plus links to recent content 2000-2006)
 * Philosophical Issues 1991-1998
 * Philosophical Perspectives 1987-1995
 * Philosophical Quarterly 1950-2001
 * Philosophical Review 1892-2003
 * Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1940-2001
 * Philosophy and Public Affairs 1971-2001
 * Philosophy East and West 1951-2003
 * Philosophy of Science 1934-2001
 * Political Theory 1973-2003
 * Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 1927-2003
 * PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970-1994
 * Sociological Theory 1983-2004


 * "Objectivism" generates 852 hits. Of the first 25 hits of the 852 generated, only 1 is about Rand's objecitvism and it is a book review. The other 24 hits are using the word "objectivism" as either the position that moral values are objective, the position that there is objective truths, or that colors are objective facts of the world. Objectivism may be popular to the lay world, but so is creationism. Yes there are a handful of Ph.D.s and scholars who are put forth both by objectivists and creationists to try and earn credit for their positions, but a balanced look shows that the overwhelming opinion of philosophers and scientists is that objecitvism and creationism are not members of their respective feilds. You cannot just dig up these few Rand-supporters and ignore the counter evidence. It's not a matter of finding a source to cite! Objectivism doesn't generate many hits on JSTOR because Rand's ideas are not a part of the philosophic community, and she is left out of most philosophic encyclopedias (and histories) for the same reason. The reason you can find one or two people who say things like "Rand is the most important philosopher" is because (1) they have adopted your weaker standard for who is a philosopher, and (2) by that standard she is surely the most influential philosopher of the last 100-years. However, that standard is not the one adopted by most philosophic encyclopedias and dictionaries, and that is why they don't just not say "Rand is the most important" they leave her out entirely. That should mean something to you. - Atfyfe 22:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a measuring contest of who gets the most hits in this area or that. (And, by the way, I'm not the one who started the Google business - further, it was "Google Scholar" not just "Google" so the measurement was academic hits not general popularity).  Your position amounts to origonal research replacing WP Policy.  Lumping Objectivism with Creationism is your POV and tells me that you obviously haven't looked at any of the sources I have listed.  Rand is being examined by main-stream professors at major universities.  Again, you are ignoring the most important of all of the WP policies: 'valid, respectable, verifiable sources.'  Here is another source for you:  Wallace Matson, Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley, an Analytic Philosopher who disagrees with part of Rand's epistemology and agrees with much of it and stated that her work was worth serious study. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1986. Steve 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rand does not belong on this list. Certainly not before the hundred or so other philosophers that are listed in all three of the general reference works in philosophy (See: List of philosophers born in the twentieth century and its companion lists).  I'm with Buridan (here). KSchutte 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to put Rand on the list. Objectivism is the issue under discussion.  As closely as the two are tied together, they are separate.  Objectivism is a school of philosophy and there are sources that can be cited.  Here is a quote from Sciabarra (same book listed in my post above on this page) that talks precisely to this point, "I must admit that Rand's deeply controversial public persona has left for the present generation of scholars two major, related problems: (1) the need to distinguish Rand's personality from her philosophical legacy; and (2) the task of determining what (and who) defines Objectivism as a distinct school of thought."     Given that that is from a reputable, respected source that is verifiable I only ask that WP policy be observed.   Steve 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Primarily one-person philosophies do not belong on this list: Process philosophy - A. N. Whitehead, Pragmaticism - C. S. Peirce, Objectivism - Ayn Rand.  That there have been some small number of followers who have taken up each of these banners doesn't dilute the fact that they are truly only the philosophy of Whitehead, the philosophy of Peirce, and the philosophy of Rand.  None of these one-person philosophies belong on the list, unless you want to follow Buridan's suggestion below. :) KSchutte 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The business of one-person is too much in the category of a made-up rule. This is a navigation page.  It's purpose is to provide links for users.  There are a high percentage of users that would use the Objectivist link.  Again, I have to say that WP Policy is valid, respected, verifiable sources.  You will notice that no one is fighting to get ANY other link off - only Objectivism.  I have supplied valid sources - there is room on the template - there are other names on there that could be questioned - but only Objectivism is being deleted. Steve 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear, I am not for 'removal' I reverted her addition.  She should not be added to this page, neither should objectivism.  At best she is a minor figure, at least she is not a philosopher.  In either case, she should not be on a navigation page with significant figures in philosophy or schools of philosophy.  --Buridan 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KSchutte: Your point about Rand and Whitehead might be warrented (albeit, Whitehead's Process Philosophy would deserve to be on the template more than Rand's Objectivism), but you are off base about pragmatism. Pragmatism consisted of several very important philosophers (Peirce, James, and Dewey); furthermore, pragmatism has been come back in a big way over the last 30-years (Rorty, Goodman, Putnam). I'm not defending pragmatism's place on the template (I take that as obvious), but just trying to help you out. - Atfyfe 04:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Atfyfe, have another look at what I linked, Pragmaticism. This is a distinctly Peircean term, even if the philosophy under this term is nowadays lumped together with the other schools of Pragmatism. KSchutte 21:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I apologize for assuming that you were making a rather simple mistake. While "pragmatism" obviously deserves to be on the template, you are clearly right that "pragmaticism" does not deserve to be on the list. I had just assumed by pragmaticism you had meant to be attacking pragmatism (while I am aware of the distinction). I should have read your userpage before I made my comment. You would obviously not be making such a basic mistake. I won't doubt you again! - Atfyfe 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it, my friend. We shall solve these problems together! :)  KSchutte 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

reprotected
The Wrong Version is now protected. Sort this out and then come back to the admins.Circeus 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I love "The Wrong Version". What a great page. KSchutte 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit
Please change Realism to Realism in the template. Realism is a disambiguation page and includes link to articles about literary and artistic movements. Thank you. --Russ (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cbrown1023 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested Addition to Schools section
Absurdism, anyone? It's not quite Nihilism, and it is to Existentialism basically what Cynicism was to Epicureanism. Also, now that I notice it, Cynicism is also missing. Tallyho. Artiste-extraordinaire 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure those topics aren't important enough to be on this template. Philosophy is big. KSchutte 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kantianism
Please add Kantianism to the schools list. Madhava 1947 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * done, edit tag removed :) SGGH 08:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrogant template... why don't you auto-hide?
editprotected This template is very arrogant and won't auto-hide, and so in an article on theism and atheism, the relevant templates get hidden and this Google AdSense of a template that doesn't even include those articles expands to take all the space. Could this template be made to autohide, I had to artificially downgrade theism and atheism to make them stay open because of this fat ... template. :) --Merzul 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, I'm asking for {{Tnavbar-header|'''Philosophical ... to be changed into: {{Tnavbar-navframe|'''Philosophical ... As tested on User:Merzul/Sandbox/Test. --Merzul 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I put the theism and atheism back to normal, so you can look at the bottom of theism to see what I'm talking about. --Merzul 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

unprotected
I made this template unprotected. Please be careful in editing and take care to ensure your edits have consensus. CMummert · talk 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, I think the change I want to do is relatively non-controversial. It will not affect pages where there are fewer than 3 templates, and if there are such pages, then the other ones will be hidden and this one will not, and that's unfair, considering how fat this one is :) --Merzul 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shoudn't the box on the top of this page be removed, then? trespassers william 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am Skeptical Regarding "Actual Idealism" and "Gentilianism"
These both look like actual philosophies, but I am concerned about their importance. We generally try to keep the list of schools here as short as possible, and so might "actual idealism" be covered by "idealism"? Furthermore, the inclusion of both "Absolute Idealism" and "Gentilianism" is excessive.

- Atfyfe 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * agreed, fixed, removed thomism too --Buridan 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical theory?
Should critical theory link to Critical theory or Critical theory (Frankfurt School)? To me, the first seems broader, but perhaps I am missing something. Akriasas (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

axiology, subjectivism
How about putting axiology back in, with aesthetics and ethics in parentheses? It would still be in alphabetical order. People might want to see its modern definition straightaway. Why not put in 'subjectivism' in there if 'objectivism' (which is new and ambiguous) is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchmelik (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Objectivism clearly and unambiguously applies to the positions of Ayn Rand, and while I doubt its place as a philosophy, I am very unclear about what you mean by calling it "ambiguous". Furthermore, I am aware of no philosophic school or purported philosophic school by the name of "subjectivism". - Atfyfe (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is unclear; maybe she thought she was objective, but people who disagree with her could think they are objective and she is subjective. However, maybe she was talking about objects, but if she is in some way subjective, it is not good to define all ideas about objects as having to do with her ideas.  Anyone could come up with something and call it"objectivism."  'Tis better to say "Randism."  Also, some people think being subjective can be as important as being objective.  There is a philosophy page on subjectivism. --Dchmelik (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of Humour??
I don't think this belongs here. Is there anything especially philosophical about the study of humour? The page Philosophy of humor now redirects to Theory of humor, which contains even less philosophical content than the Philosophy of Humour page once contained. --RichardVeryard (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

More On Objectivism

 * Infinity0, Why should we take you as NPOV on Objectivism when you are a self proclaimed Marxist and write disparaging things about Objectivism and Ayn Rand on your user page? You explicitly state your intention to antagonize people who are Objectivist or "Anarcho-Capitalist" (a common slant against Objectivists). You and others (like Buridan) are carrying on a charade of an argument, pretending to nitpick some standard, yet you are simply trying to discredit Objectivism as a Philosophy by saying that it isn't even one to start with. This is like Tanya Harding trying to win the Olympics by preventing her competition from even getting on the ice. It is a shallow tactic to dismiss and censor vs. address and debate.


 * The essential point of your and Buridan's position is "consensus" or mob rule or majority opinion. None of those are WP policy, as any controversial topic would have to be excluded as failing to meet the myth of consensus. WP Policy is meeting minimum standards and inclusion over exclusion, especially on controversial topics. Other editors have clearly demonstrated Objectivism meeting the minimum standard. The straw-man argument that if we included Objectivism we'd have to include all these others... let proponents for the other Isms make their case. Slippery slope arguments do not apply to mass-edited documents.


 * Objectivism meets the standard of Philosophy because the body of work specifically speaks in Philosophical terms such as Aesthetics, Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, etc. No where does it say that popularity or abundant academic acceptance is a requirement for anything, let alone Philosophy.


 * Your arguments are as silly as the "what is Art?" or "what is Porn?" arguments. You reject objective standards and instead rely on your own opinion "I know it when I see it"... and you apparently don't see it in Objectivism. You simply have a distaste for Objectivism, and as such want to disparage it as non-art. Your TASTE, however, does not determine what is Art or what is Philosophy. Nor do the elitists in Academia. Those same elitists will say that Norman Rockwell didn't create "Art" because his works were kitsch or popular, but even pop-Art is Art. So is, as you claim, pop-Philosophy. The only reason to use that term is to discredit the broad appeal of the populace versus the narrow appeal of Academic elitists.


 * Philosophy is much larger than academia and professors of Philosophy do not own the rights to Philosophy any more than professors of Astronomy own the stars.


 * And as for your Stanford criteria, I took a class on the Philosophy of Objectivism at Stanford. And it wasn't a political discussion nor a literary discussion. It was a break down, in Philosophical terms, of Objectivism. The Metaphysics, the Aesthetics, etc. etc. etc. Now, if Existentialism is a valid Philosophy in this list, and Objectivism is Existentially a Philosophy, since Philosophy is as Philosophy does, and Objectivism is Philosophy because it does Philosophy, it clearly should be included on this list. All your other examples are simply satellite issues regarding religion. No one purports to worship Ayn Rand as a god, so I can assume that this list is simply an excuse for you to lump Objectivism in with material that clearly has its own place elsewhere.Dublinrex 06:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Stanford criteria is a good one Dublinrex. For one, it gets us away from your charge that we are rejecting "objective standards and instead rely on your own opinion". Anyway, let me point out that the Stanford encyclopedia now does have an entry planned for Ayn Rand. Therefore I remove my objection to objectivism's inclusion on this template. - Atfyfe (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

History Format
Two things:

(1) I think Modern and Contemporary cover different time periods. Modern runs from about 1500-1900, whereas Contemporary begins at about 1900 and extends to the present.

(2) It would make sense to move Analytic and Continental from schools of philosophy to sub-categories of Contemporary philosophy (as Christian, Islamic, and Jewish are sub-categories of Medieval).

So, collectively I guess my two suggestions amount to the following:


 * History
 * Ancient - Buddhist • Chinese •  Greek •  Hellenistic •  Jain •  Hindu •  Indian •  Iranian
 * Medieval - Christian • Islamic •  Jewish
 * Modern
 * Contemporary – Analytic •  Continental

- Atfyfe (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality Template v. Philosophy Template
The following are included on the spirituality template and therefore need not be included on the philosophy template:

Acosmism · Agnosticism · Animism · Antireligion · Atheism · Deism · Determinism · Dualism · Esotericism · Gnosticism · Humanism · Libertarianism · Monism · Mysticism · New Age · New Thought · Nondualism · Theism · Thelema · Theosophy · Transcendentalism

First off, because philosophy is different from religion and spirituality, and secondly because... well, that's reason enough. Certainly religions might include philosophical doctrines and might employ philosophy to support their doctrines. But that does not make them a philosophy. After all, they are also free to employ physics, psychology, etc.

I've placed this list on this discussion page to help provide guidance for what we should be inclined to not include on the philosophy template given that people tend to often treat the spirituality template and the philosophy template as the same thing.

- Atfyfe (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New Age? Deism?
If we are going to start to include religious positions on this list, then we'll need to add agnosticism, atheism, theism, etc. I think we are right not to do so, and therefore we should be consistent and not include Deism.

The same goes for New Age. This is very clearly a position/movement that falls within the domain of religion and spirituality rather than philosophy (not that religious and spiritual movements might not employ philosophy). It should be deleted because this is a philosophy template and not a religion template.

Also: Do we need both Epicureanism and Hedonism? Since Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, might not hedonism be enough?

- Atfyfe (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to take out hedonism, which is not a love of wisdom--you could easily say sadomasochism (or any ism) is a philosophy--but these are just bad habits. Epicureanism is not completely Platonic but if you read the article you might see it is much more respectable than you may think.

Nihilism/(Theistic-Atheistic) Existentialism/Absurdism continuum
As Nihilism begets Existentialism and Absurdism in a major continuum in Continental Philosophy, I propose Absurdism to be linked for navigation under 'Schools' (a very good article already exists; see chart below contents). It is a major reaction to the previously predominant Nihilism, distinct from Existentialism, put forward by two giants, Camus and Kierkegaard. (Camus, for example, considered Existentialism to be a form of "philosophical suicide" - see 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.) Also, I suggest Existentialism be divided into separate Theistic and Atheistic articles considering the amount of material; readers could then navigate further according to their tendencies.

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Classic five?
I just added Jurisprudence to the template, and it was taken away, reasoning being that we should keep the classic 5 as they are. I don't agree with this. I learnt that Jurisprudence was part of the classic '6'. Other people believe that there are only THREE major philosophy topics: ontology, epistemology and logic. The fact that "of law" redirects to "jurisprudence" should confirm the fact that Jurisprudence should be put under branches. BurningZeppelin (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * you were mislead, there are only 5, jurisprudence is a subsection of ethics/political philosophy which deals with law.--Buridan (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't it be argued that ethics and aesthetics can fit in under metaphysics or ontology? And plus, there is no political philosophy in the main branches BurningZeppelin (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't political philosophy (and the philosophy of law) just a subsection of ethics? As they all concern questions: how should we act either as an individual or a society? C mon (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Added libertarianism
Which is in the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Unabridged Table of Contents. Carol Moore 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * which does not qualify it to be added to this list. if it were a school of philosophy, widely recognized by professional philosophers today or widely recognized before, then sure. however, it is just one of many political ideologies/philosophies.--Buridan (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism is listed in Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Unabridged Table of Contents with a long article here.
 * To be consistent you also would have to eliminate liberalism and Marxism. It was because they were there I added it. Why are they included? It seems to me it's all or nothing. Carol Moore 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * actually no, liberalism and marxism are both widely studied schools of philosophy. you can find them in almost every philosophy curriculum. libertarianism hasn't reached that level yet, in fact, for the most part, libertarianism in most philosophy is just another form of liberalism. --Buridan (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be your unsourced personal opinion, but it seems that the above description of what can go in this template would be a firmer guideline. As a good guide for what does belong, consult the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Unabridged Table of Contents[.
 * Moreover, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also has a big article on libertarianism.
 * Robert Nozick made libertarianism respectable in academia and I could provide a list of self-identified libertarian academics who bring the subject up in classes and probably teach courses.
 * Doing a quick wiki search I find that:
 * Harvard has had a course on libertarianism
 * U. Chicago has at least one paper
 * It's studied and reported in academic journals as a social phenomena, as in this article The Reluctant Right: Right-Wing Anti-Communism Among Libertarian University Students.
 * Libertarian subject books reviewed in reputable forums like The Libertarian Idea by Jan Narveson reviewed in the The Journal of Politics, Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association. I could take another 10 minutes and find lots more examples.
 * Also note that I am not at this time recommending that Libertarianism (metaphysics) be included since the wiki article lacks any historical perspective or respectable overview of the philosophy and is basically a WP:OR Objectivist rant. However, I do believe if the article ever becomes a good NPOV coverage of the issue, it should be included here. I may just gut it down to a short WP:RS article; encouragement welcome. Carol Moore 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * sorry, you can source whatever minor reportage that you want. the standard for inclusion in the template are quite clear, and libertarianism and until your list above gets above around 1000 items from widely recognized significant philosophy sources and departments, you aren't going to be close to meeting the template level.  a good guide is not an encyclopedia, as the template cannot hold everything from every encyclopedia.  Libertarianism and other minoritarian topics will just have to survive being part of the larger page on topics of philosophy.--Buridan (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Marxism is not similar to libertarianism or liberalism. It is not just a normative theory (about what ought to be), but also an explanatory theory (about what is) that has had a great effect on the philosophy of the social sciences for instance. C mon (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to take Marxism out, just want to put libertarianism in.
 * The question is, which one?
 * The political theory of Libertarianism that IS in Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * Libertarianism (metaphysics) which is NOT in the encyclopedia. However, this free will article at Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has links to several books on libertarianism and free will. Studying Libertarianism (metaphysics) more, I realized it is not a Randian rant. Just an article by some people who probably have some idea what they are talking about but didn't bother to create inline footnotes.
 * Libertarianism_(disambiguation) which covers the field, just like Marxism and Liberalism do.
 * So please opine on which one you think belongs in the template. If there is no clear opinion that one of the three does, I'll seek a third opinion, for starters. Carol Moore 21:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

none belong, the standard is thousands of respectable mentions. in other words, a school of philosophy. for most of history libertarianism was just liberalism, so.... if you put it in, i'll take it out and then i'll refer to project philosophy for consensus and it will stay out as that is where the template originates. --Buridan (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)