User talk:Gregbard/WPPHIL-Heirarchy

Critical Theory
I think Critical Theory should be a first level subcategory of social philosophy. Also, I think Deconstruction should be a subcategory of CT. Snowspinner 17:24, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Deconstruction as a subcategory of Critical theory, definately. As far as critical theory and social philosophy, are you thinking of something like:

?
 * Critical theory
 * Deconstruction
 * Social Philosophy

The problem I see with that is that not all social philosophy properly falls under critical theory. -Seth Mahoney 17:30, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite, actually. Right now Critical Theory is a subcategory of Cultural Philosophy, which is a subcategory of Social Philosophy. I think it's more proper to have Critical Theory be a subcategory of social philosophy directly, and to cut out the cultural philosophy, so it would be


 * Social Philosophy
 * Critical Theory
 * Deconstruction

Or, alternatively, to simply have CT be a top-level category, independent of social philosophy. Or we could dual-level it, so it could be a top-level category and a subcategory, because it's possible to do that. :) Snowspinner 17:34, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Oh! Yes! That makes perfect sense! I'm a fan of making it a top-level category and a subcategory of social philosophy, because a lot of it is social (arguably all of it, but arguably everything is social), but some of it at least not clearly so. -Seth Mahoney 17:40, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and implement. Snowspinner 17:53, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. Right now Critical theory is in the hierarchy twice, at two different levels. -- Jmabel 20:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what we were discussing above. We decided that it belongs both in its own category and under social philosophy, because it is often a type of social philosophy, or a way of exploring society, and it is a school of thought in its own right that can be separate from social issues.  -Seth Mahoney 23:59, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * We also discussed elsewhere the possibility of including an entry in more than one category - I think on the WikiProject philosophy talk page. -Seth Mahoney 00:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

This all looks good to me. I'm a bt hazy on how categorization is meant to work, so I'm staying out of such debates for now, but I want to voice my support, and thank you guys for stepping up and taking on this job! &mdash; Adam Conover &dagger; 01:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

One category can be subordinate to numerous others, and an article can be in many categories, but a category cannot be (directly or indirectly) subordinate to itself! The categories must form a directed acyclic graph. -- Jmabel 02:50, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * The current proposal satisfies this, no? Snowspinner 03:04, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Political Philosophy
I was just going to add this, but I wondered if there was some stated reason why such an obvious category had not been added?

If there isn't (and I suspect there isn't, since its such an important category, then its going to be some hard work working out what belongs in there and how to seperate it from more politics (rather than political theory stuff)-[Gregorya]


 * It really is Social Philosophy since Politics really is part of the society. I'll just change it to Social and Political Philosophy Yorick, Jester of Elsinore

Miscellaneous section

 * I'm liking the way this is working out so far, except the miscellaneous section. There's got to be a better way to work that.  I'm wondering, though, how we're going to work this.  For example, if we decide to have such a category, Sartre would belong in major 20th century philosophers.  It would also be useful to have a category Existentialists, which Sartre would also belong to.  We've now got two tables at the bottom of Sartre's page, and counting.  It seems like this is going to get a little cluttered.  I was thinking color coding, or something like that, but I don't know if there is a standard format for these things, and I don't think we want to end every philosophy page with a rainbow.  -Seth Mahoney 18:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the "Others" section of the heirarchy draft (if that's what you're referring to) is just there because it has entries that aren't familiar / I don't know where to put those entries, it won't actually make it to the real heirarchy. Color coding sounds like a neat idea. Lucidish 20:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories
This discussion should be continued at Category talk:Philosophy. Banno 21:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)