Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 3

WikiProject Philosophy from Dec 04 through Aug 05

WikiProject Philosophy Renew
A refresh is probably needed to rejuvenate this project, eh? Yorick, Jester of Elsinore
 * Not a bad idea Yorick, though I would have gone with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 1 myself. Sorry I haven't been as active moderating this group as I used to be, but real world pressures have, as they often do, taken precedence.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 17:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Help
Hello! I'm trying to address comments in Featured article candidates/1755 Lisbon earthquake, but the objections are mostly due with philosophical aspects, things that i, as a geoscientist, hardly understand. Could someone have a look? Thanks, muriel@pt 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I put some comments in the discussion section over there, and will add this to the list of short term projects here. WhiteC 01:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joining the project?
One thing that isn't clear on the project page is just how one goes about joining a project such as this ... I'm an amateur in philosophy but a pretty good copyeditor -- new to this wiki thing and still learning the standards, but that's a separate question. So do you just dig in and start editing, or what? --Sturgeonslawyer


 * WikiProjects are more voluntary affiliations than anything else. "Dig in and start editing" -- and Be bold -- is the best advice; feel free to sign yourself up as a project member, and peruse this and other projects, if you want to get a sense for the work that other Wikipedians feel needs doing. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Just noticed the project and will help when I can - I have a degree in the subject Brookie 16:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of philosophy
I wanted to alert this project to the current state of History of philosophy, since I just nominated it over at Collaboration of the week Circeus 20:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell
Many have toiled on this. I added quite a bit of stuff recently. Would appreciate any additional improvements. Would anyone support this being submitted for consideration as aFeatured article ? icut4u

A priori/A posteriori/A priori and a posteriori knowledge
I think its pretty clear that at most we need two of these three articles. But do folks think we just need one (A priori and a posteriori knowledge) or two (A priori and A posteriori as seperate entries)? Anybody have a reason for one or the other? --Kzollman 03:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I find A priori and a posteriori knowledge an ugly title. Could it be deleted and summaries of A priori and A posteriori and direct comparison be added to Knowledge? Tim Ivorson 09:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Done! --Kzollman 20:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The a posteriori page is woefully inadequate in its discussion of the historical evolution and definition of the term, especially compared to the a priori entry, which includes a (fairly thorough, IMHO) discussion of Kantian/Cartesian utilisation of the word. I'll do what I can, but it's something to be considered. 216.158.31.195 13:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Philosophically Illiterate
I'm curious about this project's view on the "gooeyness" of a large portion of philosophical writing. Picking up a modern philosophy book by someone like Foucault, Derrida, or Lacan is an exercise in futility for nearly anyone without a degree in Philosophy already, and this problem (though to a much lesser degree) seems to persist here on some philosophy pages. Are you considering trying to clarify philosophy articles to be able to be easily read and understood? WoodenTaco 03:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this to a point. I don't pick up a law book and just hope that I'll be able to understand it with no background in law.  Similarly, one should not expect to just pick up any philosophy book and be able to understand it without some background in philosophy.  (I was actually hoping that you were talking about the extremely basic level of some philosophy books that are coming out, that are trying to appeal to a large audience, but that miserably fail in teaching real philosophy.)  But the real question is, would an encyclopedia be understandable to a large audience?  Perhaps so, and perhaps things should therefore be 'dumbed' down.  Yet, if you do so, you'll lose the richness of the resource for those who have studied philosophy and do understand the writings (degree or not).  Hence my both agreeing and disagreeing with you. Jamesrskemp 15 May 2005


 * How about a "layman's introduction" section, and then go on to a section which explains it for those who have studied philosophy? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wiki links serve as resources for the layman. Adraeus 13:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. The introductory pages like philosophy, knowledge, philosophy of mind, etc. should be accessable to the uninformed.  The more detailed pages shouldn't be, but should have links to the above pages.  It, of course, ought to be possible for a particularly dedicated individual who starts out with no knowledge to be able to build up enough from wikipedia to understand every article here.  As a note to the anon who made the comment, if you find any article that you think should be more accessable please make a note on the discussion page regarding which part you don't understand.  --Kzollman 18:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * After all, the discussion page isn't restricted to discussion about article contributions. Adraeus 01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For a start, I think that the Existentialism is very well written for a layperson like myself. On the other hand, I foun Epistemology to be rather jargon-y in some places.  One of the clearest problems, I think, is constant reference to philosophical authors and assumption that the reader will know what their theories are.  That tends to lead to endless chases, clicking through biography links to find one you can understand. WoodenTaco 22:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Picking up a modern philosophy book by someone like Foucault, Derrida, or Lacan


 * There's your problem right there - steer clear of that continental rubbish. :-) Evercat 18:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear, those are fighting words. To some of us, philosophy does not consist only of truth tables. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, sorry, couldn't resist. Evercat 19:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely all the articles have to be dumbed down to a large extent. Not just inorrder to be accessable to philosphical laypeople but also because of the very nature of a wikipedia article i.e. a short introductionary thing, we don't what great big philosopical tracts (do we?). If it were posible to get points across complexly in a short peice then philosophers won't write such long works (or maby they would any way)--JK the unwise 11:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I've done a philosphy degree and I can't understand Foucault, Derrida, or Lacan type works :-) )


 * It can be quite difficult to summarize something without dumbing it down. But it shouldn't be impossible.  I find that it often helps to read several different summaries of a philosopher's thoughts before actually reading the original work.  Many philosophers don't write clearly, even though the ideas themselves are good philosophy.  At least that is my experience.  WhiteC 03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wikipedia and trying to find my way around but am concerned that the philosophy section is insufficiently sensitive to issues which are of interest to the population and where, as in any other discipline, philosphers become over-concerned with detail. For example, I have come here from the article on truth where, I may be wrong, but there is no mention of Foucault and Discourses. (Foucault suggests that different disciplines employ their own truth criteria. If you use the search area for discource this becomes apparent. The confusion between American and English spelling is a real source - sourse? - of confusion here.)


 * All this suggests that we are suffering from internecine wars rather than responding to the interest for understanding of those who look to philosophers who need to use all the tools at their disposal, for clarification of real issues. In other words, there is a tension between the History of Philosophy and Philosophical Thinking. Jeffrey Newman 07:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An aside: I find it odd that people keep classing Foucault with Derrida and Lacan. Derrida is at times willfully obscure, and Lacan probably never wrote a simple declarative sentence after he hit puberty, but Foucault has never struck me as a particularly difficult writer. Some of his works are tough, others are not. For example, the essay on Las Meninas that starts The Order of Things (Les Mots et les Choses) strikes me as pretty straightforward writing. Do people think otherwise, or are they just lumping him in as one more late 20th century Frenchie? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Another aside: I find it a bit offensive that clarity is disparaged here as "dumbing down". If a philosopher fails to make themselves understood, it may be an indication that they have failed at their task. Lucidish 16:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The best written argument as to why philosophy is difficult that I have read is in Hegel's Preface to his Phenomenology of Spirit. Perhaps one sentence is worth quoting here - in the hope that there is a place for it somewhere else? 'In the case of all other sciences, arts, skills and crafts, everyone is convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to philosophy, there seems to be a currently prevailing prejudice to the effect that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and is given leather and last, is at once in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy, since he possesses the criterion for doing so in his natural reason - as if he did not likewise possess the measure for a shoe in his own foot.' (Preface, para 67.) I was 'trained' in analytic philosophy; coming across 'continental' philosophy late in life has been a 'revelation! Do I put this on Lucidish page or leave it just here? I am still 'new'; I will, in fact, do both...(if I am technically sufficiently competent and can manage it quickly! Jeffrey Newman 07:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Leaving it here & there sounds fine. Perhaps something on the Hegel page. I don't think we have a page on philosophical literacy anywhere--I'm not sure whether it would be helpful or not. It seems to me that philosophical literacy implies good argumentative technique, but more importantly familiarity with philosophical terms and arguments that have already been made by famous philosophers.

I think that if somebody who is totally unfamiliar with, say Kant, wanted to understand his arguments, ideally, he would be able to read the page, and follow links to other pages which should be able to help him understand the unfamiliar bits. Of course, he'd have to spend a lot of time following links and reading related stuff, and it would all have to be in Wikipedia articles that don't assume familiarity with something not covered in Wikipedia. And perhaps asking questions on talk pages of obscure articles. But realistically, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia--you can't expect to gain all expert-level knowledge from just an encyclopedia, regardless of the topic. WhiteC 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We are looking for entry-point articles, which, by developing links, enable those who are interested to progress in understanding. For example, those who click on Kant, or Hegel or analytical philosophy or whatever but are not trained philosophers, may be given a link to an article on philosophical terminologies or discourse (called 'Philosphical literacy' perhaps) which is not 'dumbing down' but clarifying. It is possible that there is material of this sort already available on Wikipedia - I do not know yet what we have well enough but I think that the sort of encyclopaedia we are compiling could be enormously helpful in this sort of way. It is only as one gains philosophical competency and confidence that it becomes possible to understand which words are exchangeable and which enshrine key concepts for that particular philosopher or group of philosophers. Of course, any word/concept can be necessarily subject to scrutiny as interest and understanding develops and language itself, and logic are called in to question. Where do we go from here? On re-reading the material above, two thoughts strike me.


 * First, and most importantly, like poetry (Heidegger makes this point), philosophy in its time is a creative enterprise using thought and reason to push forward our understanding. Philosophers often therefore use neologisims since no words currently exist for the concepts or notion that they are struggling to express. As with any other art or science later generations take for granted the progress in thinking and understanding that is made. I have written this with links to demonstrate how many simple words/concepts are fundamental for philosophy which is a methodology as much as a discrete discipline.


 * Secondly, perhaps as a way forward we might contact all those who have written in this section and try together to assemble out of what we have already written an article - though I am unclear as yet what the title/topic could be. It is close to Why is Philosophy so difficult?

Jeffrey Newman 01:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Prehaps Wikibooks might be a more approprate place for the kind of article you had in mind. Could we expland this philosophy project to writting short guides to philosohy which expland and present in a more guide like style, the philosophy articles we all ready have?--JK the unwise 07:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetics and an edit to the category page
First, I'd just like to say hello and thank you to everyone collaborating on WikiProject Philosophy. This is a difficult but worthwhile effort. Second, my focus will be on Aesthetics, so I look forward to hearing from others who'd like to work in this area. Please respond and let me know you're here! If there are enough of us, we could start WikiProject Aesthetics. Finally, I've made an edit to the Philosophy Category page. Aesthetics was listed under Axiology. However, Aesthetics is not necessarily a value-based discipline. Many questions in Aesthetics are independent of values, such as "is art for expressing feelings, making statements, transforming the status quo, giving pleasure ...or is art for art's sake alone?" , "what is the nature of the relationships between art, artists, and audiences?" and "how do I know whether I'm experiencing art aesthetically?" As a result, I've taken Ethics out of Axiology as well, not only because it looked funny as a subsection by itself, but also because some ethical theories are not necessarily value-based either, notably the categorical imperative, which is based on duty alone. And then I figured, well, I never once heard the word "Axiology" in my introduction to philosophy courses, so I nixed it as being unnecessary, divisive, and confusing. Sorry for this long comment, but since it was an edit to the category page I thought I might have to explain myself. Thanks again and I look forward to our work. --Slac 04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moral Philosophy project
The existence of an WikiProject Philosophy is an excellent starting point to develop Wikipedia content on Philosophy. However, as shown I would argue by several attempts to renew this project, a clear structure of topics within philosophy is required to encourage collaboration within areas of interest and expertise. To this end, the Hierarchy Draft is useful, but having two versions of it (without an explanation of the purpose of each) is not helpful. Could those with knowledge/ideas about the overall hierarchy please clarify which version first-time readers should be looking at and perhaps remove or archive the other version?

Perhaps the best way forward for WikiProject Philosophy is to determine and define key subprojects within Philosophy on which Wikipedians may wish to collaborate. Let's add to the proposed descendents on the project page under Metadata. For example, an Ethics or Moral Philosophy subproject is needed. I am proposing the latter as it includes the term Philosophy making it clearer that this subproject will deal with formal moral philosophy rather than popular, general or non-philosophical ethics. Other thoughts? -Akiva Quinn 01:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right. I just started WikiProject Aesthetics and I think perhaps you should just start the one on ethics. If you build it, they will come. Seriously, you can't "break" Wikipedia. You gotta be bold. I will also support this project. --Slac 21:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I just came here to post this very comment. If you would like to start the moral philosophy subproject you are welcome. If not, I will do it: I already am compiling a laundry list of moral philosophy articles that need work. --Malathion 7 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)


 * I would support this to what I can. I've nominated to Christian philosophers by the way on the Biography Collaboration of the Week to anyone thats interested. Falphin 21:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We now have WikiProject Moral Philosophy, thanks to Malathion. Please join this sub-project to discuss pages on ethics or moral philosophy that need work. --Akiva Quinn 03:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In regards to WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft and WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2 -- I know that I started the original Heirarchy Draft when I started the project (though I'm pretty sure the original draft was borrowed from another pedia page that I cannot now recall.) It looks like the second draft was started by an anonymous editor, then revised by a few more, so there is no clear way to favor one over the other other than by analyzing their contents. The only way to resolve the dichotomy is to either merge them or start another. Unfortunately, I no longer have the time to do this -- but that's the situation as it stands.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 19:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * What is Objective Philosophy? --goethean &#2384; 20:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect it refers to Ayn Rand's objectivism, so I would say it was misnamed. (Earlier on, I had just assumed the 2nd list was current.)  WhiteC 20:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are correct, then things need to be changed on that draft. There's no reason why Transcendental Ideas and Epistemology would be subsections of Objectivism. --goethean &#2384; 21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Topic list/category merge?
Should the list of philosophical topics be merged with Category: Philosophy? Maybe merge isn't the right term, but right now the list has many more entries than the category; it seems like they should include the same articles, and that if one adds the tag to the end of an article, one shouldn't have to also manually edit the list page. Also, should all philosophy stubs be listed in the "expand" section of the task box? My guess is that there are too many stubs, and they'd clutter up the box, but if the goal of the project is to make the encyclopedia comprehensive... Let me know if and how these things can be done, and I'll help if I can. --AAMiller 1 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)


 * The list is long mostly due to my work on it. We have to keep it because only lists can be "policed".  That is, we can see what changes are made to any article on the list by following the Related Changes link on those pages.  This cannot be done with a Category.  If we want to add all those articles to the philosophy category, however, is a different issue.  If you want to do so you can, but it seems like a lot of work. KSchutte 15:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy portal

 * See: Category:Philosophy

I have attempted to adapt an existing category framework to the portal style, in the hope that it might be further used in the Philosophy category page, as an adjunct to a future Philosophy wikiportal. Improvements are invited. Ancheta Wis 3 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
 * Nice job! Do you think there should be some padding between each of the boxes?  Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 2005 July 3 12:49 (UTC)
 * You might also have a look at the Auto-categorization methods of Beland and Pearle to help strengthen your content family and its associated category tree. Quinobi 10:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

COTW
Do you peeps think we have enough support here for philosophy collaborations of the week? I think that might be a suitable way to improve some of our more important articles. Thoughts? KSchutte 18:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never tried a COTW before. I think that would be interesting. --Slac 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be Collaboration of the Month :) --malathion talk 22:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm. Given the overwhelming response to my edit on the task list, perhaps you are right!

I am undertaking to change the COTW around this time each week. I'll just take the one at the top of the list and bung it in, so to get your fav featured, put it in the list. Banno 22:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Changes

 * Placed community building as the main goal; those philosophers on the Wiki who do not wish to build community ties presumably will not want to join a project.
 * Removed goal of creating a general map of the philosophical articles. This is now I think a task to be carried out at Category:Philosophy - an article I've listed for a future collaboration; WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft and WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2 are viable structures, but I think they still need lots of work before they are used to structure the category.
 * Re-organised How you can help to match new goals.
 * Removed open tasks - this section was unused, and it's role mostly usurped by the Philosophy Tasks box. Tracking tasks in one place rather than two just seems to be a simpler option.
 * Re-structured templates section, and added the COTW template links.

All changes are reversible, so if you think any of this way off the mark, you are welcome to change it. My aim is simply to make the project more viable by simplifying the processes. Tell me what you think. Banno 11:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Banno -- these are fantastic changes. Thanks for putting all this effort in! I'm in favor of all of these.   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 08:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Standards and practices
This section is intriguing. For a while there has been a debate at Avoid weasel terms, and judging by Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms the community is divided roughly evenly between those in favour and those against their use. I'm one of those in favour of the guideline. That guideline seems to be unchallenged here - it underpins WikiProject Philosophy/Proposal for criticisms, for instance, apparently unchallenged. Why should this be so? Why, if the general Wiki community is divided, is there a consensus about avoiding weasels in Philosophy articles? Or is the Philosophy guideline problematic? Banno 11:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems okay as a guideline, as long as it isn't a hard and fast rule. Try to avoid weasel terms, but if you can't figure out how to do it, leave them in and let somebody else clean it up.  Of course, it would be nice if nobody ever wrote weasel terms, but realistically that isn't going to happen when anyone can edit articles.  Perhaps conscientious weaselers could just put something on the discussion page for the article like "does anyone know who said this?" or "how can I rephrase ?" Then, after a while someone who cared enough might remove the weaselism, rephrase it or attribute it.  WhiteC 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Invitation
I'd like to set up a template to be used to invite folk who edit well on a philosophy article to joint the project. Something like:

This would be placed on the user:talk of potential participants.

Does anyone know of a precedent? Spam? Worth a try? Banno 11:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am all in favor of this, though I would put it not as a box but as a plain old message. Just feels more personal that way. But yes, I feel that this is a great idea -- it should be a great way to draw in casual editors who don't often peek "behind the curtain" of Wikipedia. (For example, I bet it's not unlikely that we'll hook a few associate professors this way... )   &mdash;  Adam Conover &dagger; 08:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Banno 22:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

How much knowledge is too much?
The title says it all: Are there things that shouldn't be on wikipedia? Should there be any limit to what can go on the site (and I must say, it's been euthanized nicely, but) should there be things we simply will not add? I think you can get where I'm inclining without spoonfeeding it.....yeah, that. Is there a limit? There's so much talk on expanding Wikipedia...aren't there somethings we should intentionally neglect?

HereToHelp 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Replies (post here):


 * Absolutely. This is not a "guide to everything", it's a "guide to everything above a certain threshold of notability." But this seems off topic for this page; you might take it to Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Jmabel | Talk 19:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

congratulations
I'm a user from catalan wikipedia (hi, jmabel!!), I think this project is great: it's well organised, it has a clear list with things to do, it's quite active, it allows to invite people... Congratulations!! You should promote it in other language wikipedias, because there can be users there who can collaborate or take articles from english to translate them. Add a message in respective villages pumps ow however they are called in other languages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.93.57 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2005

Game theory wikiproject
Hello all - I may well be the only person around wikipedia who fits this description, but I know that there are some philosophers who use/think about game theory. If you are one of those, come on over to WikiProject Game theory and join in. Hope to see some folks there! --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 05:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Categorical imperative
I'm starting to butt heads with User:Ultramarine (RFAr) over Categorical imperative. I'm hopeful that our discussion will bring agreement, but in the event that it does not (as I fear it may not), I would also like it if more people would take the time to comment and discuss this article. The general questions up for debate are: For these reasons, neutral parties are requested for commenting, and perhaps we could add this article to the discussion section of the "philosophy tasks" template. --causa sui talk 22:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Should criticism of the Kantian ethical system established on the categorical imperative go in that article or in Deontological ethics?
 * 2) *I feel that it should go in Deontological ethics, but Ultramarine seems to think not.
 * 3) Is the criticism section from the old version worthy of being re-inserted?
 * 4) *I thought not, since I believe it contains a great deal of original research, and makes an argument rather than maintaining WP:NPOV. Ultramarine seems to feel that my removal of the criticism section amounts to censorship, which I admit is suspicious looking, becaue I am an admitted deontologist.


 * I for one believe that a criticism section should be included in the Categorical Imperative section. However, the criticism should all include specific citations from reputable philosophers.  Since the Categorical Imperative is more specific than deontology in general, it deserves to include criticisms that are specifically aimed at it on its page.  The Way 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not really under dispute. The question is what should be in the criticism section. --causa sui talk 02:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I took the bull by the horns and put the old criticisms (which had been deleted from Categorical Imperative) into the Deontological ethics page. Now, I realize they don't quite fit there either.  I am hoping this helps us figure out:
 * 1) where (if anywhere) these specific criticisms belong
 * 2) whether they should all be kept together, or split between Categorical Imperative and Deontological Ethics in general, and
 * 3) whether there are better criticisms that should replace them in either or both articles. (I guess historically Categorical Imp. and Deontological Ethics were regarded as pretty much the same thing.) WhiteC 06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)