Talk:Philosophy

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy until they reached their status as autonomous disciplines? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that Ludwig Wittgenstein understood philosophy as a linguistic therapy that aims to dispel misunderstandings caused by the confusing structure of natural language? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that Isaac Newton's opus on physics was at the time considered a work of philosophy? Source:
  • ALT3: ... that Bertrand Russell advocated philosophy as a means to free oneself from prejudices and self-deceptive notions derived from common sense? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Beaufort
  • Comment:

References

Sources

• Tuomela, Raimo (30 September 1985). Science, Action, and Reality. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-277-2098-6.
• Shivendra, Chandra Soti (2006). Philosophy of Education. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-81-7156-637-2.
• Joll, Nicholas. "Metaphilosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 15 May 2019. Retrieved 1 February 2022.
• Biletzki, Anat; Matar, Anat (2021). "Ludwig Wittgenstein: 3.7 The Nature of Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
• Cotterell, Brian (29 August 2017). Physics And Culture. World Scientific. p. 458. ISBN 978-1-78634-378-9.
• Maddy, Penelope (2022). A Plea for Natural Philosophy: And Other Essays. Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-19-750885-5.
• Russell, Bertrand (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. p. 91.
• Pojman, Louis P.; Vaughn, Lewis, eds. (2009). Philosophy: The Quest for Truth (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk). Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk) at 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article is certainly DYK-eligible! A QPQ has been done (hope to see HF back around these parts soon), and I have no concerns with the article content that would be a problem for DYK. I'm unsold on the hooks, though -- there's a seed of a great hook in ALT0, but it needs more concision to shine. Allow me to propose...
  • ALT0a: ... that most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
  • ALT0b: ... that most of the sciences formed part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
• ALT0b is a little more terse in a way that tends to work at DYK, but "individual" is a meaningful enough word in this context that I'm giving options with and without it to allow for some flexibility. Are you fine with these? Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • And another that just occurred to me, given all three are explicitly mentioned in the article. I think this is the best bet:
    • ALT0c: ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
  • Thoughts again? Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @Vaticidalprophet: Thanks for the suggestions, they all make good candidates. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @Vaticidalprophet: Hi, I like option "c" best, but I'm fine with the others as well. Thanks for looking at this! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Nice -- I agree ALT0c is the best too :) Putting this on new-review for somebody to approve the new hooks, but I've already reviewed the article itself. Vaticidalprophet 15:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Article recently brought to GA, long enough, neutral, hooks are cited in the article, no copyvio/closeparaphrasing, hooks are within the character limit, accurate, sourced, probably of interest. QPQ is done. No image, which is a shame. After all, Martin Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. I find a general consensus for ALT0c. Free to fly. SN54129 12:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I added an image of Newton and the apple tree to the article (Philosophy#Etymology), which could be included. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Go for it, PatrickJWelsh; actually, it's extremely apt, considering that to modern eyes, Newton was a mathematician, whereas, as the hook suggests, he would also have been a philosopher to contemporaries. Well thought! SN54129 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy as a Meta- or Sub- discipline

@PatrickJWelsh:, the fragment "are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy" seems contradictory or inconsistent to me because the prefix "meta" is used to denote a thing is beyond, above, or at a higher level while the prefix "sub" is used to denote a thing is under, below, or at a lower level. This seems to be a conflict that can be easily resolved by removing that fragment from the sentence "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy." It makes things simpler and more clear. Correct or wrong it's unnecessary information. ProofCreature (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ProofCreature,

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page!

Metaphilosophy is meta in that it positions itself "above" philosophy by taking philosophy itself as its topic.

It is, however, also a subdiscipline in that it is itself only one small part of philosophy. Possibly "subfield" would be a better term here, but I do not see any actual inconsistency in the current language.

To explicitly spell out x in this respect to y, and also y in this respect to x would, in my judgment, be unnecessarily tedious. I don't particularly think the general article on philosophy should get into metaphilosophy, but this particular sentence does not strike me as an issue.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't see the inconsistency in the language? You explained it in your comment; that it is above philosophy and a part of philosophy.

I get that I am focused on semantics, here, but the conflict implies a problem with Metaphilosophy in general.

To otherwise resolve a conflict without semantics, to have a thing be both below and above in relation to another thing, one would require a Holy Spirit like entity. Spirits seem to be antithetical to Philosophy's reliance on logic.

ProofCreature (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Reflexivity is a basic feature of consciousness. This may indeed be remarkable, but it is no demerit to any school or branch of philosophy to express and reflect upon as much. If anything, the contrary.

"Below" and "above" are entirely metaphorical, and so different parts of philosophy can be both in different respects without contradiction.

Philosophy highlights self-inquiry more than any other generally recognized discipline, but it is hardly alone in reflecting upon its own methods and operations. Any contradiction at work is dialectical and most likely does not warrant more detailed discussion in the general article on philosophy.

In any case, nothing magical is in any way required or implied. Philosophy does not need a Holy Ghost anymore than you do when, for instance, you think about the kind of person that you want to be—which is something that all of us do with respect to ourselves!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that etymologically, the sentence could sound contradictory if one tried to make sense of the term "metaphilosophy" based on the roots of its parts. However, not everything that might sound contradictory is contradictory. If the sources say that the claim is true (which they do) then this trumps the etymological impression. Patrick's explanation of the reflexive nature of philosophy could also be used to expel the etymological impression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Proof I am right about Philosophiing (like radii)(;)(Philosophying?))), Philosophiers Really Love the Way They Talk About Would They Talk About It, and Women as well, Proverbs 1:20; Love is Wisdom is Sex, Have A Blessed Day, let’s see if we can get a Philosophier page soon. Mintosoares (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh:, @Phlsph7:, I disagree with you both. My argument is entirely semantics. I disagree that a word with a prefix denoting a superiority like "meta-" should be given a secondary connotation found in the word "subdisipline".

It's easy enough to remove the conflict by removing half the sentence or even just the word "subdiscipline". Additional content in the article is not required. In this situation the correction is removal, not embelishment. The following seem correct to me:

"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial."  

"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy." 

I have no disagreement with reflexivity, but if that's "metaphilosophy" I think the article (and, if used that way, the entire academic field) is using the wrong word for it.

Tangenially:

I disagree that most words are metaphorical. Prefixes like "meta-" or "sub-" or words like "above" and "below " symbolize a real, known, idea as do most other words (There are exceptions for words that symbolize fictions like dragons or ghosts). buthat'sjustme, I suppose. It is very apparent to me that for many people they're just words, no one means anything by them; they are immaterial.

ProofCreature (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

While I acknowledge your reasoning and your position, the article should reflect what the reliable sources say. Here are some examples:

• From [1]: This book is an introduction to metaphilosophy - the branch of philosophy that....
• From [2]: ... this area ...has ... been acknowledged as a distinctive branch of philosophy ... entitled metaphilosophy
• From [3]: Metaphilosophy is a field or branch of philosophy...

If we have to change it then your second suggestions ("Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy.") would be better but my impression is that we can keep it as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Merge this page along with Outline of philosophy 2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Would also like to propose scientificalness, scientificness, scienceness, conscienceness, with some other verbs that are surrounding this study of mine called philosophias, math and con/:scienceness, thanks! Mintosoares (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

scientificness as well Mintosoares (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Con/:scienceness as a merge with conscience meaning with science (knowing) -ness (to be) and a close of the relationship between “conscience(ness)” and consciousness! Mintosoares (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Therefore the question remains, is consciousness an exquisite form that can be described through science when realizing “-scious, science” are of the same word , have a great sense for this question Mintosoares (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That'd make some sense. If nothing else there should be a prominent link in Philosophy to Outline of Philosophy. Though maybe that's accomplished by the Part of a series on Philosophy template.

ProofCreature (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There are already several links from Philosophy to Outline of philosophy. Philosophy is a regular article while Outline of philosophy is an outline, i.e. a collection of links. I don't see how merging makes sense since a long list of links does not belong into a regular article. See also WP:MERGEREASON. We could turn Outline of philosophy into a redirect to Philosophy but no reason has been mentioned why we shouldn't have an outline of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

linked in see also Cal3000000 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding an Image to the "Indian Philosophy" and "Other traditions" subsections.

I was going through the page and released the Philosophy#Western, Philosophy#Arabic–Persian, and Philosophy#Chinese subsections under the Philosophy#History section have images of a philosopher from their respective traditions, but the Philosophy#Indian and the Philosophy#Other traditions subsections do not have one.

This is a request to add an images of a philosopher from the respective traditions and to decide which philosopher or image should be added.

For the Philosophy#Indian, I believe Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara, or Swami Vivekananda would be the best as they were very influential and well known.

In Philosophy#Other traditions Japanese philosophy, African philosophy, and Indigenous American philosophy are discussed. I believe it would be the most appropriate to add a philosopher from either African philosophy or Indigenous American philosophy as the previous two traditions are not well known and Japanese philosophy is heavily influenced by both Chinese and Indian philosophy. GayaniGojo (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this oversight, I added an image of Adi Shankara. I don't think that we need an image for the section "Other traditions" but if there are concrete suggestions of well-known representative figures, we could consider them. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)