Wikipedia

Talk:Philosophy/Archive 13

< Talk:Philosophy
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Rick Norwood in topic Replies
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Another go

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I've had another attempt at the introduction. I've conceded that we won't start by what philosophy is not. And I concede we need the main branches mentioned up front.

But we do need to have something about the method being rational enquiry, since this is the one thing that all definitions agree on, and we do need something about the subject matter being whatever is general or fundamental. There also needs to be less etymology, since all experts agree that the etymology is misleading. Quinton's magisterial article in the Oxford Companion doesn't even mention etymology, Warburton says it is misleading. Also the very first Wikipedia article by Sanger says that is is misleading. There you go. Dbuckner 10:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the previous version was more to-the-point. I would prefer to go back to it. This one is simply too wordy. I have tried to work with it anyway, however. In omitting logic it seems to focus on the original, rather than modern, notion of the term.
Which words would you omit? The definition I have given is consistent with, and shorter than, any other of the modern introductions. You haven't given any reason why we should omit the reference to rationality, and no reason why we should give overmuch time to the etymology, which everyone agrees is irrelevant. Dbuckner 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I've reverted to your version. Perhaps we can agree on that. Dbuckner 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the reference to rationality. Of course, most academic subjects would be considered rational by their proponents--I'm not surely how to cleanly summarize the difference between the use of reason in phil./math. vs. other academic fields. I've tried adding a nod to rationality just now. I'm wary of creep--every added idea will be clarified by someone; the next person will add a caveat to that clarification; and so on. It's the nature of the beast, I suppose, but it's one reason I prefer a straight-forward intro. For now, I'm not sully happy with WIT but can't express it better. I'm indifferent about the early etymology. I am very please with the knowledge/being/conduct defn. though. To my mind, that is dead-on. JJL 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be creep. My criterion is to get in the majority of what the standard authoritative definitions put in, and nothing else. That would be: the method is rational enquiry, the subject matter is the most general and fundamental questions to be found in the 4 main branches (logic, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology). And the etymology, if necessary. How does that suit? Dbuckner 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we need to keep creating new headings here on the Talk page? I get lost. JJL 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Wikipedia definition of philosophy

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've found the original definition from 4 years ago, probably written by Sanger. It is very good, in my opinion. About 10,000 edits later, we are no better. The whole thing is a testament to what is wrong with Wikipedia (i.e. the fact that expert qualifications are shit, and that anyone with a view on anything can edit any article). Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Dbuckner 10:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The definition of philosophy is a philosophical question in its own right. But for purposes of introducing the concept, we can say that, approximately, it is the study of the meaning and justification of beliefs about the most general, or universal, aspects of things--a study which is carried out not by experimentation or careful observation, but instead typically by formulating problems carefully, offering solutions to them, giving arguments for the solutions, and engaging in dialectic about all of the above. Philosophy studies such concepts as existence, goodness, knowledge, and beauty. It asks questions such as "What is goodness, in general?" and "Is knowledge even possible?" Some famous philosophers include Plato, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant.
"Philo-" comes from the Greek word philein, meaning to love, and "-sophy" comes from the Greek sophia, or wisdom. Originally the scope of philosophy was all intellectual endeavor. It has long since come to mean the study of an especially abstract, nonexperimental intellectual endeavor. In fact, philosophy is itself a notoriously difficult word to define; the question "What is philosophy?" is itself, famously, a vexing philosophical question. It is often observed that philosophers are unique in the extent to which they disagree about what their field "is"!
Popularly, the word "philosophy" is often used to mean any form of wisdom, or any person's perspective on life (as in "philosophy of life") or basic principles behind or method of achieving something (as in "my philosophy about driving on highways"). That is different from the academic meaning, and it is the academic meaning which is used here.

Again - The Introductory Paragraph

Latest comment: 17 years ago45 comments4 people in discussion

Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Its method is rational enquiry.[1] The main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, the theory of what things can ultimately be said to exist, and epistemology, the question of the conditions for knowledge, and the justification for claims to knowledge; ethics, the analysis of what sorts of moral values there are and the connection, if any, between values and the duty to produce them; and logic, the basic principles of reasoning and deduction.

You misunderstand the reason for putting it there. First, some standard definitions include the word 'academic', and that is my main criterion for inclusion. Second, there was some edit warring last year in which people were including mysticism, magic, astrology and New Age junk in. You have to remember this is Wikipedia. So, to rule that out, put 'academic' in the definition. I think you would actually agree with this, given other things you have said. Dbuckner 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
3: In light of the Vienna Circle, logical positivism, and Wittgenstein, you have the nerve to assert the "metaphysical nonsense": the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality IN THE OPENING PARAGRAPHY???
THESE THREE POINTS ARE ENOUGH FOR REVERSION - Dbrucker --Ludvikus 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Most standard definitions include words like 'general', 'fundamental' and so on. You still haven't grasped that your view, my view, Wittgenstein's views, are irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia for people who don't have access to standard reference works, and it is our duty to make available the standard views of modern, authorative reference works. The words the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality are not even mine. Nor would they be. Please think hard about this. Dbuckner 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it is the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy says the subject matter of philosophy is "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality". I will try and locate the philosopher who wrote that. Dbuckner 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
4: One should NOT summarily define metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, as Dbrucker does. The hyperlinks do it best for us. What should be done is transliteration followed by translation of our THREE GREATEST ORIGINAL MASTERS: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
I not mind listening to Dbrucker's philosophical views. However, they are no substitute FOR WHAT PHILOSOPHY WAS IN ITS FORMATIVE YEARS at the Roots of our English language Wikipedia, which itself is a part of the WESTERN INTELLECTUAL TRADITION.
These are not my philosophical views. I was adapting, almost verbatim, the definitions you find in standard textbooks. You still don't seem to have grasped this. One of the versions you railed against was Anthony Quinton's (Quinton is a distinguished English philosopher). Dbuckner 20:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
5: Even if we have re-discovered (in the West the existence of Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy. We still view these subjects through our Western Intellectual Tradition. And there is no way of getting around that fact. Philosophy is a part of - (certainly in the English speaking world and words we writing this) a part of it - the WIT (you know the acronym).
Break Ludvikus 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
6. metaphysics = What is? (is that an accurate translation of the questions posed by the "holy trinity" of philosophy - SPA [Socrates, Plato, & Aritotle)??? --
Not really. More accurate would be 'The investigation of being as being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature'. Dbuckner 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludvikus 18:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

7. epistemology = What is it to know, as opposed to What is known - SPA?
8. ethics = Doing the right thing- what is it? SPA?
In reading the texts of our holy trinity of philosophy are not the above accurate abstractions, still possible, into our Contemporary English speaking world. Do we really have need of Dbrucker's generalizations, and paraphrases of SPA? Ludvikus 18:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK let's take this point by point. I have made a minor reversion, by removing all but a mention of the etymology. This, as I have said many times, is consistent with the currently held view among experts that the etymology is at best irrelevant, at worst misleading. 'issues of knowledge &c' is lame, but I've left it in. Dbuckner 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The etymology is not so important. I'm fine with your change. As to the 'knowledge' etc. being 'lame', this is meant to be an intro. to the subject for someone who needed to look it up in an encyclopedia. I look [1] here, for example, and I see that there are "four core areas of philosophy":
  1. The History of Philosophy
  2. Ethics and Moral Theory
  3. Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology)
  4. Logic
I see here--boiled down to everyday language--2. conduct, 3. and 4. being/existence and knowledge, and 1. the subject's own history/literary tradition. For whom are writing? What's the intended audience? JJL 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant the word 'issues' was lame. The rest was fine (ish). 'Issues' is an overused word and does not convey anything important. Instead 'Issues of knowledge' &c, why not 'rationally critical (or systematic) thinking about knowledge' &c. It was the style, not the content I was complaining about. But leave it for now. I want to see if our friend accepts the current change. Dbuckner 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
On defining it by its branches, the problem is the same as defining medicine by its branches, rather than saying that medicine is healing people. You have missed out stuff like cosmology, the philosophy of mind, all sorts of other things. Whereas 'the fundamental reason of everything it investigates' does get to the spirit of what philosophy is about. 'The cause is more noble than the effect', that sort of thing. But as I've said, I'm taking it one step at a time. Dbuckner 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
One step at a time? Where are your concessions? Your current view (alleged compromise) is unknown tome. All I can say is that I', pretty much in agreement with User:JJL.
My position is,inter alia, as follows:

Who's Who above? My point's:

Whether you like it or not, there is no way to come to terms, on an Introduction here, to philosophy, except by/through a historical approach/perspective. And this etymology business is merely an attempt to understand what the Pre-Socratics, as well as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had in mind. Unfortunely, like most words, we did not have an official coining ceremony. What we can do, is listen to the philologists and linguists. That's what it's about. If you can go back, and do a better job of it - that is, go straight to the horse's mouth, so to speak, and give us direct quotes, or even some precise/accurate paraphrases, of these MASTERS, that's OK with me! I might even do it for you. But please don't give us your personal summaries, as an undergraduate might do in an introductory course in one of the academies you like so much to make reference to. Or engage in long-winded sentences that merely repeat abstract concepts that do not improvement on the transliterations/translations of the Ancient Greek texts which have been somewhat preserved for us. And these Ancient Greeks use ORDINARY language. So, if forced to confine oneself to THREE WORDS (can we agree on 3?), that the Ancients were concerned, in their PHILOSOPHICAL PUSUITS, with KNOWLDGE, BEING, & CONDUCT? And if we were to be asked to give an answer to a requested EXPANSION in the form of POSED QUESTIONS, could you improve upon the following:
  1. Knowledge: What is it to know?
  2. Being: What is?
  3. Conduct: What is it to do the right thing?
    (Absolutely not: What is Right?) Ask the Modern Master of Film & Rap, Spike Lee!
Yours, etc., Ludvikus 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hegel & Marx

One cannot go wrong, in one attempts to write a General Introduction to Philosophy make making a concerted effort not to offend the recognized masters. And these 2 names tell as that the History of Philosophy is NO ACCIDENT (don't think of Cars here, but of an Aristotealian accident).

According, I object one beginning with all the fine words on learned in the Modern Academies we call colleges and universities. These prejudicial words include epistemology, ontology, & [ethics]]. It also belies your Western prejudice - as much as you claim that you want to include Taoism and Zoroastrianism - to show your lack thereof - prejudice that is.
Yours, etc., taking issues Ludvikus 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On Wiki Intros

User:Lucidish thinks the following is helpful (to me his addressed it): 

  The lead should be capable of standing alone
  as a concise overview of the article,
  establishing context,
  explaining why the subject is interesting or notable,
  and describing its notable controversies, if there are any.
  It should be between one and four paragraphs long,
  should be carefully sourced as appropriate,
  and should be written in a clear and accessible style
  so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
So I've asked him/her to be more specific - which part, if any, am I not heeding? --Ludvikus 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Him.
And my advice to read those guidelines was generic. Perhaps it will be helpful to you. But I think that it would be helpful to everyone and anyone who is embroiled in controversy over an intro paragraph.
An introduction is expected to give a gift summary of the article to come. The objects of attention have been etymology, the diffuseness of formulations of philosophy, the Continental-Analytic divide, the role of Eastern and Western traditions, the "limiting" cases, and the branches of philosophy. What I find perplexing is that we can't seem to even agree, as a group, that these all deserve quick mention, since they're all going to have to play a role in the article anyway. Yet many of the recent edits have been eliminative, caging out one or more of these important materials -- and even up and beyond the reasonings of the individual editors. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Current LOCKED Intro

It says: 

  1: Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom')
  2: is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition
  3: that is concerned with rational inquiry
  4: into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?),
  being (What is?),
  and conduct (What is right?).
1: fact: 2 parts of the word, with other premises, imply it; love, especially, is a loaded modern Western word; also, why was it not enough to seek wisdom, why must one love it?; also, why is not WISDOM sufficient; is WISDOM = WIS + DOM (and wis = love, all in Anglo-Saxon?)
2: It's mine, so naturally I agree (because it's correct)
3: whos "concerned with irrational inquiry"? "inquiry" is just a long-winded word for WHY, but implies or suggests some environment, like that favored academy place. But rational comes from ratio,and the Pythagorean's concern with the nonexistence of the square-root of 2 (among the numbers, which were the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, .... The word RATIONAL comes into the Modern (WEstern) World in the Age of Reason. So I ask, why cloud the reader with a concept from the Age of Reason - as if that's where philosophy discovered itself?
4: "issue" is a relative inoccuous, and often a useful word, but quite unneeded here; my problem, rather, is with this abstract Anglo-Saxon word, and the pretentiousness that's an improvement over its cognate, namely, the infinitive (or its other forms) to know; the only think good about it I can say, is that it prevents one from being burdened with the even more pretentious word we have, namely, epistemology;
5: do I understand it correctly? That the issue of knowledge is being (What is?)?; what, no ontology, metaphysics, or even existence, as issues independent of KNOWLEDGE?
6: conduct is wonderful (I'm plesentlt surprised that action has not been iterjected here};

but I take issue with, "What is right"; here we have the implications, again, of much later times, viz., human rights, civil rights, as well those English and American bils of rights; that one reason I love (as a philosopher) Spike Lee, not only the cinematographer, but the rap artist who reintroduced us the ancient idea of doing the right thing; so we should have: conduct, What is it, to do the right thing?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Bad news for Confucius, I suppose. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish

I find this "protection" unhelpful. JJL 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Summarising the current edit dispute. At least two users (dbuckner and jjl) are substantially agreed on the version which has been cut down (perhaps jjl could confirm this? – he said 'The etymology is not so important. I'm fine with your change.'). Ben Nelson has objected that the intro is too short. I agree, but was trying to achieve a compromise with JJL, who wants a brief introduction.

User Ludvikus objects as follows.

1. He dislikes the use of the word 'rational'. I have pointed out that this is consistent with ALL introductions to the subject. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy says the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality. Oxford Companion to Philosophy (article by Quinton) says it is explicitly rationally critical thinking 'of a more or less systematic kind'. The Collins English Dictionary mentions the use of 'rational argument'. Philosophy, The Basics, says that the most distinctive feature of philosophy is its use of logical argument. W. Stace (A critical history of Greek philosophy) says that the Pythagoreans, the Eleatics, Empedocles and the Atomists Plato and Aristotle, tried to answer questions without any appeal to revelation, myth or religious knowledge of any kind, but attempted to extract the answer by using their reason, and almost without reference to sensible observation and experiments.

He objects that 'The word RATIONAL comes into the Modern (WEstern) World in the Age of Reason. So I ask, why cloud the reader with a concept from the Age of Reason - as if that's where philosophy discovered itself?' Does it not come from the Latin 'rationalis' then? Itself from 'ratio'? One of the most used words of scholastic philosophers like Aquinas and Bonaventura, Ockham and all the rest? What planet is this man on?

2. He objects to the passing mention of etymology, saying that the etymology is merely an attempt to understand what the Pre-Socratics, as well as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had in mind. Again, Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia for people who don't have access to encyclopedias. It should not be radically different from what you would find in any standard reference work. And none of the standard reference works connect the etymology with the meaning. Warburton says the etymology is "not much help". Ludvikus has asked for a precise and accurate paraphrases of what he calls 'the MASTERS'. OK, let's have Aristotle. In book 2 of the Metaphysics (983b 20 ff) he says that philosophy is knowledge of the truth, where 'truth' here means ultimate truth, i.e. that which is the cause of all derivative truths, and thus is the study of eternal truths 'for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is there any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things'. Ross's translation. Dbuckner 09:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology, Rationality, Irrationality, & Dishonesty

1. Regarding Etymology, I absolutely don't understand what your fuss is all about, or where you're comming from. Question: How do you get that [[Philosophy] = Love + Wisdom if not by etymology??? And you're totally missing the point of this analysis!!! The point is to get a sense of what those brillian ancient Greeks who started it meant by it - philosophy!!! Was not the word coined by them? Did not the concept (rather than word) evolve in their Greek language (classical)?? And how is it that this word stuck in all these European languages? Do you mean to say that its root into our modern English language by way of England, France, Roma, and Greece, is irrelevat? I disagree. Each of these peoples had, and have words like Wisdom, Knowledge, and Science, which are related, but none could stand for, or take the place of, the Greek Philosophy. The fact is that, in the beginning, THERE WAS NO PHILOSOPHY among any of the ancient neighbors. ONLY the Greeks had it. 2. Now you would like to use that other ancient wonderful word here (where it does not belong), and that word is RATIONAL. Tell me this! Who were the Rationalists? Was Lock a rationalist? Was Berkeley a Rationalist? Was Hume a Rationalist? And of course anyone who's studied at a modern Academy would say that they were not. Yet they were philosophers. EVEN IF WIKIPEDIA IS FOR THE COMMON MAN, that's no reason to use our language there in a sloppy way. And to rely on a loaded word like rational where it is misleading should be avoided if possible. And, again, you mean to suggest by it, unintentionally I grant you, that there is such a thing as irrational philosophy, inquiry, method, etc., but philo is rational. You also probably want to say that religion is not rational. Here you're probably thinking of the dualism in Catholicism wherein faith is the compliment of reason when it comes to matters of Christ. All this is true, but comes up much later. (An asside, for some reasons which I shall not mention here, I'm beginning to understand Noam Chomsky's political philosophy, or rather why he's so hard to comprehend irrespective of any disagreements with him). In short, you want to disregard the History of Philosophy where it is most important! Again, I ask you, because you claim to have studied philosophy formally, academically, why did Hegel maintain the importance to Philosophy of it - the History of Philosophy? So your use of rational inquiry as the qualification, in the opening paragraph is misplaced. And your many general references to authorities are just that - non-specific. Can you actually quote any of the source's you refer to about? I think not - because they don't exist! 3. But that's not where you're dishonesty lies. You claim that I'm irrational. You really mean to depict me, User:Ludvikus as irrational. But the word you like to use is fanatic to discribe my views as I've expressed them. Do you deny this? Is my view that of a fanatic? Let me prove my point, that you maintain that my position (unlike yours, of course) is that of a fanatic. I will do this with the following block quote of what you have written about my position: Ludvikus 14:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

== Philosophy ==

Indeed, this is in desperate need of your help. It would be much appreciated. Dbuckner 11:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To give you a flavour of the current dispute. The page Philosophy was taken over on 27 December by a person I would classify as a 'fanatic'. This person has a theory that the meaning of the word 'philosophy' can be entirely explained by its etymology, despite the fact (as I have pointed out) that most experts consider the etymology unhelpful, if not misleading.

The opening of this version will give you an idea of what one is up against.

The person persists in reverting to these long and rambling monologues. I would appreciate your help. Best wishes for the coming New Year - Edward. Dbuckner 12:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: Please excuse & forgive my many typographical errors above. But I am extremely rushed on the New Year's Eve day. There is a common tendency to construe sloppiness in writing as grounds for dismissing to points expressed. But at times is just the mere fact that we have other lives besides that of being WIKIPEDIANS. Ludvikus 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This is quite extraordinary. You say the sources I quote do not exist? That is easily settled. The Aristotle is online here. here. Plus The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy &c &c. Dbuckner 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You might also want to look at the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia here. This contains definitions of philosophy by Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. This is probably going to set off some rant about the Catholic Encyclopedia, but please note a quotation is the same quotation, whatever reference work it is actually quoted in. Dbuckner 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC). Also, whatever you say about the Catholic philosophers, they know their Aristotle and Aquinas inside out. Dbuckner 16:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:Dbuckner: Can you give PAGE NUMBERS please? Or do you really expect me to spend New Years driving, walking, leafing, and looking through all these books for QUOTES which you NEVER GIVE?? Let me tell you what a QUOTE is -- sarcasticly of course. It is usually a phrase, or sentence, preceeded by a QUOTATION, and ending in a QUTATION mark!!! Can you give me at least ONE phrase or sentence instantiating a quote, in support of your noble position(s)?

Yours truly, Ludvikus 16:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy is the article "Philosophy". Under "P". Similarly for the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. The Warburton book I don't have to hand. It is called "Philosophy: The Basics", and the quote certainly occurs in the first few pages.

I will quote verbatim from Quinton, as his is the best. The italics are mine.

"Most definitions of philosophy are fairly controversial, particularly if they aim to be at all interesting or profound. That is partly because what has been called philosophy has changed radically in scope in the course of history, with many inquiries that were originally a part of it having detached themselves from it. The shortest definition, and it is quite a good one, is that philosophy is thinking about thinking. That brings out the generally second-order character of the subject, as reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking – formation of beliefs, claims to knowledge – about the world or large parts of it.
A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature."

The quotations from Aristotle and Aquinas I have already given online references for. Dbuckner 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to continue this through the protection phase but let me make a few comments. I really like the "rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind" paragraph above. I'm not so much in favor of a short intro. as I am in favor of a focused intro., that starts with what phil. is rather than what it isn't. The lengthy tangent on the anal./cont. distinction is an example of what I felt was too much, too soon. All of these defns. seem to leave out Logic as well as the "phil. is the study of its own history (literature)" aspect of the subject that is so important in Western phil.
The comments by Ludvikus are growing more and more outrageous ("incredibly dishonest"?) and tunnel-visioned, yet I feel that Dbuckner and I are far apart in our thinking despite having come to a reasonable position prior to the lock. I think I'll hang back for a while. Thanks to those working to improve this article. JJL 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In what sense do you feel we are far apart? I agree with you about the anal. cont. distinction, for example. I would prefer a longer introduction (so does Ben Nelson) but was prepared to compromise. Dbuckner 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You appear incredibly dishonest. Here's what's actually said in the very 1st title which YOU cite - and which I happen to own, and have available at my hand's reach - the Oxford Comanion to Philosophy, "philosophy", p. 666 (the sign of the devil: 

   Most definitions of philosophy are fairly controversial,
   particularly if they to be at all interesting or profound.
   That is partly because what has been called philosophy
   has changed radically in scope in the course of history,
   with many inquiries that were originally part of it
   having detached themselves from it.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is followed by what is deemed the "shortest": "philosophy is thinking about thinking."

I will grant you that in the 2nd paragraph, the contributor A.Q., who is The Rt. Hon. Lord Quinton, Trinity College, Oxford introduces the expresion "rational critical thinking", but he also qualifies that with a long list. Here's Anthony Qinton actually says:
--Ludvikus 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that
    philosophy is rationallly critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind
    about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence),
    the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge),
    and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value).
    Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart,
    from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way
    of proceeding and by its systematic nature.
So Quinton boils his definition to three (3) elements, just as I have done: Being, Knowing, and Conduct. He's using your beloved word, rational, but it only dangles there, and serves no purpose - other philosophers do not need or use it. But all those fancy new words, they belong later in the article. To be, to know, and to do the right thing, these are the three (3) subjects of our meta-science, namely philosophy. THAT PRECISELY MY POSITION. And so we have exactly THESE THREE elements of Your Authority, Quinton, mentioned in the very 1st paragraph. THE ONLY THING LEFT is to justify NOT using RATIONAL as a qualification of PHIL.!!!
Yours truly, Ludvikus 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is to be noted that 3 important works have NO ENTRY under the heading of the term Philosophy standing alone. These are (1) Oxford Classical Dictionary, (2) Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, & (3) Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. --Ludvikus 18:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is further to be noted that the Dictionary of Philosophy & Religion contains (53) separate and distinct consequtively numbered entries under "Philosophy." Ludvikus 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The word 'rational' does not dangle in Quinton's definition!! He says the philosophy is 'distinguished' by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding. What do you understand by a 'distinctive' mark of anything?

2. You say 'So Quinton boils his definition to three (3) elements, just as I have done: Being, Knowing, and Conduct.' NO HE DOESN'T. Read it again, carefully. He means that these three elements are NOT ENOUGH. Each of the three elements (what exists, what we know, what we ought to do) has a non-philosophical counterpart, i.e. your 3 elements on their own are not enough to define philosophy. Rational thinking is the differentia that distinguishes mysticism or insights given by heaven, from philosophy. I'm amazed.

For example, he does not say that philosophy is thinking about the general nature of the world, the justification of belief, the conduct of life. He says it is 'rationally critical thinking'. Why? Because each of these three areas has a 'non-philosophical counterpart'. A religious leader can think about the conduct of life, a mystic can think about the general nature of what exists. What DISTINGUISHES philosophy from these non-philosophical ways of thinking is its 'rationally critical' approach.

3. As for other philosophers not needing or using it, Warburton says that "the most distinctive feature of philosophy is its use of logical argument". Again the word 'distinctive'. The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy says that "the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality".

4. By the way, do not confuse rationality with 'rationalism'. One's method of inquiry can be entirely rational without being a 'rationalist', of course. Dbuckner 19:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you and I cannot come to terms, there certainly cannot be any hope for Iraq, or Israel. First of all, let me ask for your forgiveness for my less than diplomatic approaches towards your view. Now let's move on to the actual subject of our dispute, namely, the FIRST SENTENCE. Here's what its now, in its LOCKED state (& next I'll wish you a better & happier, New Year): 

    Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition
    that is concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?),
    being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?).

1) I think, when the smoke vanishes, and temper(s) cool, we can agree to drop the word literally.

2) I want to get rid of rational inquiry precisely because (1) it can be confused with rationalist inquiry, and (2) there's no contrast - there's no irrational inquiry - so what does it add, but confound the introduction with a word that probably does not adequately translate into those languages that are not Indo-European rooted, or have been untouched by the Greek, Roman, and Arab empires; also, why not reasoned inquiry (I don't want that either)? Still, if both are possible, why have you chosen rational rather than reasoned? And do you really want to have it deduced that Catholics, who chose, or choose, the way of faith, indulge in irrational inqury? After all, what is not rational, is irrational, is it not? Or will you be there, a voice behind Wiki, telling people you do not mean that? There have always been great Catholics ingaging in rational inquiry. The two greatest, perhaps, are Augustine and Aquinas, the former a Platonist one might say and the latter an Aristotlean. Are you going to tell me that rational helps explain their philosophical inquiries ?

3) I want to replace knowledge with knowing. The simpler, and more ancient Anglo-Saxon word is sufficient. The pretencious later (in history) is unnecessary - it does not help at all to have it. In fact, it violates the very principles of Wiki you love so much to make reference to. I believe that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did not have need of any of these pretencsious sounding words to start the Greeks of into questioning (much better a word than inquiry - another snubby word, befitting Baron Anthony Quinton) everything without their Polytheism, or bringing in the Supernatural.

3.1 Deux ex machina is my preference here. It is sufficiently alien sounding that it's unpretencious. Or even parsimony. What makes the ancient Greek unique among all the people around them is that they brought in, as little as possible, the mythological, or mysterious, into their account of things (another fine, unpretenscious, Anglo-Saxon phrase, that's less likely to scare off its readers).

So please, get rid of your irrational inquiry, and I'm sure we'll both have a much happier, and more productive, New Year!!! Yours truly, Ludvikus 21:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would object to rephrasing it in terms of "reasoned inquiry".
As an aside, I sympathize a great deal with the position that philosophy is, in a deep sense, the love of wisdom. That has motivated me, to some degree, to push the inclusion of virtues like curiosity and the sense of wonder as features of philosophical conduct. However, it is evident that this is a contested matter, and so the etymology and virtues should only be mentioned in passing, and with all the appropriate caveats. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good morning everyone, and a Happy New Year. I see we have made a little progress.

1. I have not chosen the word 'rational'. That is the word I find in almost every definition, including Quinton's. See below for the complete passage. The emphases are mine. The key words are 'rational', 'systematic', 'logical', 'critical'. 'Reasoned' does not have the same meaning, nor does it form an adverb like 'rationally'. It has also connotations of informality, which do not fit well with 'systematic'.

2. Of course there can be irrational enquiry. What else do official investigations do? Ludvikus, isn't your place of birth also the homeland of the great Franz Kafka? He understood the process very well.

3. One may well sympathise with the position that philosophy is 'love of wisdom'. The fact remains that this does not define philosophy: it does not give its essential nature. The love of wisdom may motivate an interest in philosophy. But its rational, systematic and critical approach is its defining character.

4. On whether faith is irrational. Perhaps you have heard of Fides Quaerens Intellectum? If not, try Dr Google. Am I going to tell you that 'rational' helps explain their [Augustine and Aquinas] philosophical inquiries ? Of course. Have you ever read any Aquinas? Or Augustine? Dbuckner 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone hs occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved. (Anthony Quinton).

Uncontroversially comprehensive, he says? ha! Dbuckner 09:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

5. By the way, if you are saying that the method of rational enquiry only came into philosophy in the early modern period, you are very much mistaken. Very much indeed. Systematic, critical and rational enquiry is central to all scholastic theology (high medieval). Ambrose says "Tolle argumenta ubi fides quaeritur" – take away arguments where faith is concerned. Aquinas replies Cognitio autem nostra naturaliter ex sensu oritur, et per principia rationis procedit (Super Sent., lib. 3 d. 21 q. 2 a. 3 contra) – our knowledge naturally arises from the senses, and proceeds through the principles of reason. Although what we hold by faith may be beyond reason and sense, nonetheless we examine these things by reason. Bonaventura, replies by quoting St Peter: 'Parati, omni poscenti reddere rationem de ea quae in vobis est fide et spe' - Be prepared to give to everyone asking a reason concerning the faith and hope which is in you (Proemium in Librum Primum Sententiarum, Q2). Richard of St Victor says 'Credo sine dubio, ad quorumlibet explanationem, quae necesse est esse, non modo probabilia, sed etiam necessaria argumenta non deese' - I believe without doubt, that for the explanation of any thing whatever, what is necessary is that there do not lack just probable, but also necessary arguments'. Dbuckner 09:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the use of "reasoned" instead of "rational" is controversial, so I should explain my remark. Though I would personally agree that the best philosophy is systematic in some sense, there are two common worries associated with using systematic and rigorous inquiry as a necessary condition.
The first worry concerns the postmoderns, who can certainly be said to hold reasons for their positions, but have largely abandoned systematic argument. (I have in mind Lyotard, especially.) They address decidedly philosophical topics, but they don't do it with even lip service to logic. Yet they're still admitted as philosophers.
The second is that even many analytic philosophers may (and do) publish excellent material, and yet more or less abandon canonical form. I'm reading "The Language of Thought" by Fodor right now, and the work is mostly prosaic -- it doesn't have the rigor of, say, the Principia Mathematica, or of Spinoza's Ethics. But I would still call Fodor's work philosophical. Perhaps the difference is that it can be rationally reconstructed in canonical form, but then so can many non-philosophical arguments.
These worries are surely at odds with the views of many professionals with the highest credentials. But it's an open question as to how to deal with them. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
All definitions of philosophy are going to be controversial. Nothing wrong with a short section at some point after the introduction, to suggest where the difficulties lie, and point to further reading. For example, I disagree profoundly with Quinton's view that 'That is partly because what has been called philosophy has changed radically in scope in the course of history, with many inquiries that were originally a part of it having detached themselves from it'. I could easily show this was wrong, but that would be OR. Dbuckner 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. My "meta-worry" for the longest time has been that we're alienating the work in philosophical literature at large in favor of just a section of it, i.e., of encyclopediae. But if we're dealing just with matters in the introduction, then it would seem that we'd be prudent to look to scholarly exemplars, and encylopediae are nothing if not that. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not the best way of doing it, I agree. But the fact is that there have been many edits of this page, over many years, and not much progress (I think that's the one thing we can agree on). If we could all agree that we would tie the opening definition to what is found in standard reference works, albeit secondary sources like encyclopedias, then at least we have a way of going forward. The main problem here, however (given that I think this is the first time the main page has been locked) is that a prize troll has just come out of the woods. I'm not sure how we deal with that one.Dbuckner 08:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Fodor's work is perfectly philosophical. Don't confuse informality with lack of rigour.Dbuckner 08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are We Having Fun Yet?

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Just starting a new subhead because the old section has grown to unwieldy length. Carry on. Rick Norwood 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rick Norwoood. And Happy New Year to you, and all others!!!

The first item I propose is getting rid of the word literally. Not only because it is simply wrong, but also because the very term literally is often confusing, and is especially so in the context of how we arrive at that philsophy is love of wisdom. Here's the definition:
  literally \li-te-re-le, li-tre-le, li-ter-le\ adverb (1533)
  1	: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
  2	: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or
  injustice  Norman Cousins>
  Usage
  Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1,
  it has been frequently criticized as a misuse.
  Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis,
  but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.
 (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

So let's vote on it - just deleting the word "literally". Yes (delete)? or No? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care. "Literally" seems fine to me. "Etymologically" or "verbatim" would also be fine, though maybe a bit awkward.
Looking up a word that is modified by affixes tends to be unhelpful (i.e., the suffixes -er, -ly, -est, etc.). M-W tells us that one sense of the word "literal" is "adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression". One is free enough to interpret that in many ways (what does "primary meaning" mean?) but one way is certainly consistent with something like "adhering to etymological fact". { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't care, and some one else does not want etymology, than we agree - it will be dropped, deleted, NOT replaced.

Now I think, or hope, that we all agree, that we're seeking the meaning of the Ancients use of the term phiolosophy in the opening sentence.
So the next item on the agenda is LOVE.
Now it is extremely popular to break up the word philosophy into its parts. And it turns out that it has two: philo- and -sophy. These are not, however, called prefix and suffix, but combining forms.
The first is tracable to the ancient Greek transliteration, philos, which is not translated as love but as dear.
Accordingly, whatever -sophy was in ancient times, it was a s subject, or object, held to be dear, rather than loved, to be precise - and that's what I want - I want Wiki to be precise. I have no objection against saying something like "many say love." --Ludvikus 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood. I don't care whether or not you use the particular word "literally". I do care whether or not etymology is mentioned as etymology. I think it deserves mention, albeit a brief one, phrased informatively, with emphasis that it may or may not connect with contemporary understandings.
I have never, ever heard anybody use the term "philosophy" as if it meant "wisdom of love". If it isn't even plausible as an interpretation of what philosophers do, then it should not be mentioned at all. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear good sense

    Good sense was dear to the ancient Greeks, and so they made a sciense of it,
    and coined a word for it.

I am using a cognate for wisdom (sophos/sophia) here. Here is the definition: 

  1    sense \sen(t)s\ noun [ME, fr. MF or L; MF sens sensation, feeling,
         mechanism of perception, meaning, fr. L sensus, fr. sentire to perceive, feel;
         perh. akin to OHG sinnan to go, strive, OE sith journey  more at send] (14c)
  1 : a meaning conveyed or intended : import, signification; esp : one of a set
         of meanings a word or phrase may bear esp. as segregated in a dictionary entry
  2 a : the faculty of perceiving by means of sense organs
    b : a specialized animal function or mechanism (as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch)
      basically involving a stimulus and a sense organ
    c : the sensory mechanisms constituting a unit distinct from other functions
      (as movement or thought)
  3 : conscious awareness or rationality  usu. used in pl. <finally came to his senses>
  4 a : a particular sensation or kind or quality of sensation <a good sense of balance>
    b : a definite but often vague awareness or impression
      <felt a sense of insecurity> <a sense of danger>
    c : a motivating awareness <a sense of shame>
    d : a discerning awareness and appreciation <her sense of humor>
  5 : consensus <the sense of the meeting>
  6 a : capacity for effective application of the powers of the mind as a basis for action
        or response : intelligence
    b : sound mental capacity and understanding typically marked by shrewdness and practicality;
        also : agreement with or satisfaction of such power <this decision makes sense>
  7 : one of two opposite directions esp. of motion (as of a point, line, or surface)
  
  Synonyms
     sense, common sense, judgment, wisdom mean ability to reach intelligent conclusions.
     sense implies a reliable ability to judge and decide with soundness, prudence,
     and intelligence <a choice showing good sense>. common sense suggests an average degree
     of such ability without sophistication or special knowledge <common sense tells me
     it's wrong>. judgment implies sense tempered and refined by experience, training,
     and maturity <they relied on her judgment for guidance>. wisdom implies sense
     and judgment far above average <a leader of rare wisdom>.
     (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, the word "dear" is the best translation of philos. And sense I think incorporates the rationality which you want included. So don't you think that our image of Socrates accepting the verdict of the court, and about to drink hemlock, is the image of some one who held good sense to be dear? Is it not that which he applied to know himself? Ludvikus 20:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When you choose a word, it is a good idea to pick one that will inspire minimal ambiguity. "Sense" is one of those words we keep around out of habit in order to keep phrases like "good sense" from falling off into the land of the idiom. But since the word "sense" has grown so many "senses" (!), as evidenced by the above list courtest of M-W, it is better replaced by more specialized synonyms. The fact that candidates like "rationality", "reason", "wisdom", etc., are available to us, and are able to communicate the same idea with less anguish to the reader, indicates that we ought to prefer them. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be sensible, Ben Nelson. With a name like Nelson, it sounds like you likely have an English background. And if you're an American, it is likely some ancestor of yours came over here on the Mayflower. Are you trying to tell me that you, or others, do not understand what it means to be sensible? I honestly think you should heed the advice of Socrates here: know thyself. I think you really just want me to tell you to be reasonable. Ludvikus 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC) --- Now here is what you (I'm not going to say insensibly, or senselessly, at least simple because it does not mean without good sense) prefer:

1 reason \re-zen\ noun [ME resoun, fr. OF raison, fr. L ration-, ratio reason, computation,
fr. reri to calculate, think; prob. akin to Goth rathjo account, explanation] (13c)
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification
<gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; esp :
something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
<the reasons behind her client's action>
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible :
cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring,
or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways : intelligence
(2) : proper exercise of the mind
(3) : sanity
b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction in reason :
rightly, justifiably within reason : within reasonable limits with reason : with good cause

(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Yours truly, Ludvikus 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
PS1: You should be able to tell that I am, at least in part, a subscriber to, or a student of, ordinary language English school of philosophy. Ludvikus 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
PS2: I've omitted quoting about reasonable and rational - these only take us back to reason. Ludvikus 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Snuh? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish

I don't propose getting rid of the word 'literally'. It is there is to indicate the etymology is confusing. An etymology is confusing when the meaning of the word has changed over time, so that its original, literal meaning is no longer a guide to its actual meaning. As I already pointed out, this seems to have happened early in the history of the word. You still haven't replied to my argument that Aristotle does not use this definition (anywhere, as far as I can make out).

Ludvikus, my point is still that all current definitions of the subject do not dwell on the etymology of 'philosophy'. And you still don't seem to have accepted this point, but continue with these rambling and prevaricating personal essays. This is beginning to look like trolling. Dbuckner 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you took offense. I was merely using you English name as an illustration, in part, that I expect you to admit that you understand what it means to have good sense. But if you are as sensitive as it now appears, I apologize. Don't forget, though, that you have called me a "fanatic". But I have recently learned that Wikipedia policy discourages reponding in kind. I thought (now I know erroneously) that one may respond in kind. So when I learned that you described me as a "fanatic" I assumed that all bets were of (or whatever the metaphor is). Anyway, I'll do my best not to be retaliatory.

This is not a reply to anything. The point has been made that the etymology of 'philosophy' is not relevant to its meaning. Its meaning as given by Aristotle is that it is knowledge of ultimate truth, i.e. that which is the cause of all derivative truths. Where does Aristotle or anyone else define philosophy as 'love of wisdom'? Or put it another way: how are we going to get this article unlocked? We have to come to an agreement, and I am happy to listen to any argument you want to make. But you have given no such argument, beyond the etymology itself (which no one disputes). The question is whether the etymology is misleading or not. Dbuckner 16:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now what it's all about - as far as I'm concerned - is the opening paragraph - that's all.

And there I do not know where you stand - I've asked very specific questions. They are all above.
I assume - from your remark above - that you're distracted by my less than sensitive remarks above. I confess, I took pleasure in the opening you created for me to try to be a bit Socratically sarcastic in my discourse - but it's clear now that its counterproductive.
It's amazing to me that you and I are the only people in the world who are engaged in this LITERALLY dialogue about PHILOSOPHY in which the WHOLE WORLD is free to join in.
Are we the only one's left on the Planet - at least as far as an interest in, or love of, PHILOSOPHY is concerned? Ludvikus 09:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you rambling on about? Who are you talking to? Where I stand is that the etymology of 'philosophy' is misleading. A ctrl-F on the word 'misleading' shows I have said this 8 times. 8 times you have repeated that the etymology of 'philosophy' is 'love of wisdom'. Sure, but how does that prove the etymology is not misleading. Ande by the way, ordinary language philosophy typically considers how a word is actually used, not its etymology. There again, you show your ignorance. Dbuckner 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The four competing versions of the Introduction

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I find the current introduction (if one could call it that since it is barely a paragraph) poorer than any of the five competing introductions (A-D given below). All four had been included here on the talk page for commentary by editors as of the 29th December. I now find that it has been suddenly archived and that one intro (D) of Ludvikus has been inserted by him in the actual article and the article page locked. It was one of the entries however, that seemed to have no support, in fact it had a long criticism given of it.

23.1 (A) Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation

23.3 (B) Philosophy as hard to define

23.5 (C) Philosophy as the study of being/knowledge/conduct

23.7 (D) Philosophy as a Western intellectual subject, an defined by encyclopedias as X


The current intro I would not even honour by that name, it introduces about as little as anyone who barely knows the word would know, and even lies to them. Philosophy is not only a Western intellectual tradition nor does it concern only rational inquiry. This is an 18th century European definition.

Also it cannot be said to be literally love of wisdom. Only etymologically and not literally is it that, but also etymologically it can mean the wisdom of love.

I will again include the four competing intros below here in this talk page with all the comments already garnered on them. We can then look to choosing one of them.

(by the way, please stop inserting long quotes from dictionaries and encyclopedias, much better to just give a reference the page, unfortunately we cannot rely on lexicographers to do philosophy for us.)

We need to agree criteria for a good intro. For me the criteria are, giving a good orientation to the subject without simplifying it. Allowing someone to be quickly directed toward contemporary understanding of it the major areas etc.

I think many people consulting wiki "philosophy" page will probably be en route somewhere else, toward a certain philosophy, or the latest academic writings, or to get a global view of philosophy.

--Lucas

I agree with a lot of what you've said. However, nobody takes "the wisdom of love" to even be a plausible reconstruction of "philosophy"'s etymology. Similarly, nobody would take "agoraphobia" to mean "outside of fear" as opposed to "fear of the outside". It's just a bad candidate, and it isn't worth the reader's time. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


See my comment below on Plato's "Symposium". The problem with the word is that our ortography only goes from left to right, and because of the difference in the genitive from Greek to English, the notion of sophiaphilos got lost for some people. Otherwise they would have called it sophology. It has to distinguish itself from sophistry, since the sophist also loves wisdom.

Just noticed that the rest of intro (D) of Luvicus has been sureptitiously included in a new section that appears now just after the intro in a section called "Philosophy in Historical Context". Did anyone else agree to this new subsection? Anyone any comment on it? I included comments of it here in the section on intros, which will be included below in due course. It seems strange to start with quotes from philosophers no one has ever heard of: Grolier, Zoller and with something called the Americanized ency.(a philosophical idea that!). Also strange to have the Greek "philosophers" doing science before philosophy appeared, when the concept of science quit recently emerged from natural philosophy.

--Lucas

Ludvikus asked me to contribute. I've been staying out of this battle because Philosophy is one of those articles that seems destined for a constant state of flux. I fought passionately for months, and just about everything I fought for is now gone, in successive waves of revision.

The problem is that everyone thinks they KNOW what philosophy is, and therefore need not cite sources. This never works. An encyclopedia article should be written by people who have researched what the best writers have said on a given subject, and who are willing to report what others have said, rather than inserting their own views.

I remember a story a teacher told me about an American student who went to Oxford. He turned in his first paper, and the teacher and student sat down in the teacher's room to discuss over sherry what the student had written. "You realize, of course, that the paper you handed in is totally worthless," the teacher said. "I wanted you to go to the library and learn what the great thinkers down through the ages thought about this subject. What on earth made you think anybody would be interested in your opinion?"

Rick Norwood 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rick. I don't think we're dealing with POV issues here. Rather, we're dealing differences of opinion over what sorts of things deserve more or less emphasis in the intro (esp. etymology and "rational inquiry"; Eastern v. Western has also seemingly been an issue, both recently and as far back as I can recall). It seems as though these differences of opinion over the relative weight, and best wording, for this or that peice of information can be well-founded in the appropriate exemplar texts. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Rick. I agree absolutely. Dbuckner 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's very good we have another voice, User:Rick Norwood, and I believe that you have implied, given us, a wise, sound, and sensible recommendation: look to the Great Philosphers, what do they have to say.
Unfortunely, Ben S. Nelson, you have gone back to ad hominums, or insults. That is against WIKI Policy, which I understand, and will not let you side track me to retaliate. It is not good to have such insults on a Talk page. But with regard to content, rather than form, you seem to have created a straw mam. My position is that we should look to the acknowledged, recognized, Great Philosophers. Along that line, I find as a useful secondary source of guidance a work by Philosophy Prof. William L. Reese, of SUNY, titled Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought, 1980, ISBN 0 85527 147 7. He gives 30 philosopers, chronologically, and a couple of sences foe each, on their view on philosophy. But he also does an interesting thing. Besides committing himself to giving the meaning, or sense, of philosophy held by 30 philosophers, he does 2 more things, give a (2) History of Philosophy (Eastern & Western, separately) thereafter followed by (3) the "constituent fields" (the division of philosophy into sub-categories).
He begins with Pythagoras who saw man as of 3 types, lovers of pleasure, action, or wisdom.
Can we use all this? --Ludvikus 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
...what? What ad hominems? When did I ever use a personal attack on this page, ever? And what strawman? I haven't even referred to you in this section of the talk page at all. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, Wrong person: 

    Ludvikus, my point is still that all current definitions of the subject
    do not dwell on the etymology of 'philosophy'.
    And you still don't seem to have accepted this point,
    but continue with these rambling and prevaricating personal essays.
    This is beginning to look like trolling. Dbuckner 08:44, 2 January 2007

Sorry, Ben S. Nelson!!! --Ludvikus 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Greek philos ("love of")

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

William L. Reese begins his entry on PHILOSOPHY and says: 

  From the Greek philos ("love of") and sophia ("wisdom").

It is customary to do this kind of analysis. So we should do it - but let's precise, accurate, and better if possible. One merit of Reese is that he does not call this the literal. He says NOTHING. The implication is that it is Greek in some sense. So we should keep some such analysis.

But more than that - Greece is in the West, etc. --Ludvikus 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You won't find an argument from me on whether or not we should point out etymology. We should. And for that matter, I don't think Dean would mind mentioning the etymology, either. His point is just that, according to many exemplary interpretations, the etymology isn't necessarily useful, and that we're bound to point that out.
One of the oldest debacles on this talk page has been over whether or not "philosophy" is the intellectual property of what we offhandedly dub "The West". I remember much the same debates going on between User:Simonides and others a year ago. I was not sympathetic to the idea that philosophy is purely a "Western Thing" in the beginning, and to date I have not seen any reason to alter my views. For the branches of philosophy apply to Eastern bodies of literature, however "holistic" Eastern works are purported to be, and whatever other words they use to cash out the meaning of "wisdom". { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
1. You are quite right on the etymology - mention it, don't dwell on it. 2. I agree with Rick that we should cite sources here. Which Eastern philosophical works did you have in mind? Dbuckner 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In terms of sources, it might be a good idea for me to give a source which defends the position I sympathize with (on the broader question). Antonio S. Cua writes: "It is common today for a teacher or scholar in Chinese philosophy to encounter the query "What is Chinese philosophy?" Sometimes this query is a disguise for expressing doubt as to whether there could even be such a thing as Chinese philosophy. There is a terse answer to the question: as philosophy is a Western term, Chinese philosophy is an invention of Western-trained Chinese scholars. This answer, however, is not helpful. A better answer would be a reminder that, from ancient times to the present, ethics is a recognized branch of Western philosophical inquiry, and ethics has its counterpart in ancient Chinese thought. Both Socrates and Confucius were preoccupied with basic questions of normative ethics, questions about the manner of life that best befits humanity and about the ideals of human excellence and well-being. These questions were brilliantly pursued by Plato and Aristotle. We find comparable achievements in the works of Mencius and Xun Zi (Hsün Tzu). Xun Zi's writings, moreover, reveal significant interest and insights into some basic problems of moral epistemology, e.g., the problems of ethical language and justification as a form of argumentative discourse." ("Emergence of the history of Chinese philosophy", Comparative Approaches to Chinese Philosophy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucidish (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you Ben. That seems perfectly reasonable. A straight answer to a straight question, at last.Dbuckner 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Western?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition that is concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?), being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?)."

Is it really exclusive to Western? There are millions of pieces of Eastern philosophy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.226.67 (talk • contribs)

Some definitions of 'philosophy' by 'great thinkers'.

1. Plato calls it "the acquisition of knowledge", ktêsis epistêmês (Euthydemus, 288 d).

2. Aristotle says philosophy is concerned with first causes and principles" (Metaph., I, i). (tên onomazomenên sophian peri ta procirc;ta aitia kai tas archas hupolambanousi pantes). Note that Aristotle calls it 'wisdom' (sophos) and not 'love of wisdom'. Similarly in the Middle Ages it was often called 'sapientia', and not 'philosophia'. Later in the same chapter he says it is knowledge of ultimate truth, i.e. that which is the cause of all derivative truths.

3. Seneca says it is the study of the highest virtue (Philosophia studium summae virtutis" ("Epist.", lxxxix, 7)

4. Aquinas says philosophy is the science which considers first and universal causes, and that philosophy considers the first causes of all causes (Sapientia est scientia quae considerat causas primas et universales causas; sapientia causas primas omnium causarum considerat). (In Metaph., I, lect. ii). He also says that 'wisdom' and 'philosophy' mean the same.

5. Descartes says that philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom: "Philosophiae voce sapientiae studium denotamus" (Princ. philos., preface). Like Aristotle, he defines wisdom as the knowledge of truth through its primary causes (cognitio veritatis per primas suas causas).

6. Berkeley says it is the study of wisdom and truth" (Princ.).

7. Kant says "Wissenschaft von den letzten Zwecken der menschlichen Vernunft", which I'm not sure how to translate.

8. Quinton (quoted above) says it is is critical, rational, systematic thinking about three main subject areas (existence, knowledge, virtue).

None of these mention the 'love' of wisdom. It is the study or pursuit of wisdom, where 'wisdom' is explicitly characterised as knowledge or understanding of the fundamental principles of anything. Dbuckner 09:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at least we get somewhere by looking at philosophers and not some Americanized encylopedia from 1903! Though I'm not sure who Quinton is. However, that said, much of these quotes are insufficient and do not really give a flavour for the unique contribution these thinkers made and the way they thought of philosophy, since most of the quotes are just passing on trite assertions. For example, Descartes idea of philosophy I think was more to do with trying to find certainty or give foundations to thought.

The idea of love comes from a founding text in the canon of western philosophy, The Symposium. At that famous drinks party, can see Socrates and many others attempt various definitions philosopy. Also we'd need to look at which major thinkers we could refer to in any summarising in the intro.

I add names to the list above.

9. Spinoza

Philosophy is coming ever beeter understanding the cosmos so as to come closer to God (God is the cosmos).

10. Leibniz

Giving the best rational explanation of the world

11. Hume

Philosophy is bunk! commit it to the flames.

12. Kant

Philosophy shows us the conditions for out knowledge and morality.

13. Hegel

Philosophy is the era's time put in thought.

14. Marx

Philosophy point is to change the world not interpret it.

15. Mill

Philosophy is the rational outcome of reasonable disucssion (?)

16. Nietzsche

Philosophy is an active interpretation, the forming, willing, overcoming and shaping of life.

17. Husserl

Philosophy is an infinite task of describing all phenomena without presupossitions

18. Frege

To lay bare the logical structure of the world.

19. Russell

To clearly articulate the reasons and values of the world

20. Heidegger

Philosophy iis answering the question, Why is there something rather than nothing.

21. Quine

Philosophy is the pragmatic description of knowledge

20. Derrida

Philosophy is dead, we can only deconstruct it.

--Lucas

I agree with 69.157.226.67, the "western" part needs to be removed since other regions have philosophy (especially Eastern Philosophy). Zachorious 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Symposium, Socrates' definition of philosophy

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Which sections of Symposium did you have in mind? I can't discern much about a definition of philosophy. There are some assertions, I guess, that mention philosophy in passing, i.e. by saying that philosophy is the study of wisdom and virtue, is a critic of the love of power, etc. We also find in the lecture of Diotima a reason to believe that philosophy is NOT a species of love. "For you may say generally that all desire of good and happiness is only the great and subtle power of love; but they who are drawn towards him by any other path, whether the path of money-making or gymnastics or philosophy, are not called lovers." But these are all implications that have to be teased out of the material. They are not main points. Nor do they support the idea that love is essential to philosophy in any way that is more substantive than mere etymology.
And even, for the sake of argument, they really were main points, our task (besides providing good sources) would still call for us to ignore it. For our task is to ensure both NPOV and, preferably, a description of consensus in the field. The best way to do that, it seems, is to appeal to the exemplars of the discipline, such as in encyclopediae wherever possible, and to eliminate mention of those things that are unnecessary distractions -- especially when the text at issue is an introductory paragraph, which absolutely demands that we be terse.
There is a difference between the questions of "What is philosophy?" and "What is my philosophy?". Many of the above quotes are answers to the latter, not the former. But the former is all that counts in the present discussion.
To drive the point home, though Russell himself espoused the value of clarity, he did not characterize philosophy in this way. I recently quoted a line from Wisdom of the West (which has hastily exited stage left into the archives) where Russell explains that the definition of philosophy is hopeless, because to define it is to do it. Ironically, he would share something like your presumptions in the above post, he would not share the view you attribute to him in the sense that you're presenting it. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Appealing to exemplars is exactly what I do. I find other dictinaries and encyclopedias as precisely not good exemplars since choosing among the myriad of them is not easy and many are of dubious quality and are never referenced by philosophers themsevles.

Few, if any, even those who criticise Plato, I think, would doubt that Plato is a key philosopher. And so clearly we must go with Philosophers to define it than any of the numerous dictionaries and encyclopedias, which are often written by second-rate philosophers or even lexicographers and linguists.

Plato's "Symposium", starts out with a discussion of Love, when it is Plato/Socrates turn, he explains love as really being philosophy, that the two are linked and are like sexual love and birth at one with imortality. It is his idea of why anyone should do philosophy and his clearest explanation of what philosophy is.

Russell suggests defining philosophy as hopeless, but the prectice of it (which is also philosophy for a meterialist) he makes quite clear, because we can see how he practiced it, how he did it, clarity is apparent in all his writings. Also from his book "The Problems of philosophy" we see his concern is mainly toward epistemology. --Lucas

You haven't addressed the point: there is a distinction between metaphilosophy and philosophy. Anyway, if we can't agree to consult the mainstream for opinions on consensus, then we're destined for an edit war. If that's the case, I'd just recommend that we keep the page protected. At least then there will be peace.
Re: Symposium, cite pages? By Diotima's account -- who Socrates is (during his oration) merely parroting -- both philosophy and love are "great spirits", neither moral nor immortal. At least, that is what is said in my copy (p.26, Dover publications, "Symposium and Phaedrus").
I see no connection between materialism and the idea that philosophy equals the exercize of philosophy.
Russell's concerns were all over the map. "Problems of Philosophy" is a good book, but it doesn't give you a representation of Russell's interests. We're talking about a man who wrote articles about morality, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, epistemology, meta-ethics, Christianity, the good life, philosophy of education, world peace, international government, anti-war screeds, and such memorable essays as "Should Socialists Smoke Good Cigars?" and "Who May Wear Lipstick", etc. He is celebrated for the Principia, "On Denotation", and epistemology generally. But in certain circles, he is remembered and admired for much more. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Metaphilosophy is not a separate discipline it is just a part of philosophy really since often philosophers start out by giving us there idea of what philosophy is, it is a major part of philosophy, though I tend to tavoid the word metaphilosophy since it is usually an integral part of the particular philosophy.
Not sure what you mean about "consutling the mainstream" how much more mainstream does it get that consulting Plato and any other of the greaet phiosophers of the past.
The point of Symposium is the various definitions given of love by each of the partygoers, the medical guy says its like two forces in the universe love and hate, another says its is because of a split that occurred in ancient history and we love our other half, when Socrates takes the stage he talks of love and giving birth, the desire for immortality, for fame like eg, a novelist or a great general; but above all these he says love is the thinker going ever further on his path.
Notice also the philosophy as love of wisdom also inverts many 'phil' words hydrophilic is water lover, so a wisdom lover should be a sophiphil.
A materialist would believe that the practice, the practical things, the matter is important not just the ideas, so the practice of philosophy is defining for them, so how a philosopher practices says more about their philosophy.
Well the 'problems of philosophy' of Russell was mainly concerned with epistemology. Not sure if his morality had anything to do with his epistemology and whether it was really more journalistic. He seems best know for his Analytic epistemology not his moral stuff as you say.
Sure, it's not a separate discipline, any more than "ethics" is separate from philosophy. It's a subdiscipline that happens to have been misleadingly titled. Nevertheless, there is a difference between talking about talking about the nature of philosophy, and talking about one's philosophy of this or that; that's all. And you're talking about the latter, not the former. To the extent this is so, you're just not engaging with the topic under discussion.
The Plato quote isn't so bad, because it's actually concerned with philosophy itself. The point is not to flippantly exclude primary sources, but to bring together as much sensible material as possible in the most economical way. That's why secondary sources, like Blackwells, etc., are given a high priority for present purposes: economy of words. But you can bet that Plato's views are mirrored in secondary sources. But you can also bet that they will go beyond Plato, depending on advancements in the field.
The Russellian doctrine of emotivism has been a fairly prominent source of structured meta-ethical debate for those inclined to non-cognitivism. But many of his other contributions to ethics have been rather prosaic, but that of course has no bearing on whether or not he was a philosopher. Just to say that his thought is not exhausted about his positions on logicism and the deeper meaning of "the". You can read the article I wrote on one of his books, if you're interested in learning more.
I am not convinced that morphemic composition has a syntax. And that's what would be required in order to take your contrast between "philosophy" and "hydrophiliac" as cogent. In any case, we stray from the point: that nobody interprets "philosophy" to mean "the wisdom of love", it's not a plausible interpretation. "Philosophy" is idiomatic. The meaning of the whole word is greater than the sum and arrangement of its parts. The word, along with many compounded morphemes from a dead alien tongue, is compositionally inspired without being compositionally derived. (It seems to me that your point might increase in felicity if we were talking about morphemes of English. I.e., "horsecart" and "carthorse" seem to most naturally mean "the cart for the horse" and "the horse for the cart", respectively, and not vice-versa. But we're not talking about English morphemes, we're talking about morphemes from a dead tongue, so it isn't.)
Symposium: citation? I've got my copy here. I'm looking for something that would satisfy your earlier claim that "At that famous drinks party, can see Socrates and many others attempt various definitions philosopy". They don't give definitions, they give descriptions. Descriptions have different conversational force than definitions. If they gave definitions, then their conversation goals would not be to argue, but to merely assert facts about the limits of the conventional usage of words. But all of the characters took their disputes to be substantive.
A (truncated) copy is online, linked above. You can use that, if you want. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm just kidding. Nevertheless, that what we're engaged in.

We want to be inclusive, right? It's hard to describe the following scenaro without offending someone, but imagine an isolate human (I'd like to say from the "West", but that's loaded too) - let's say from the rest of humanity. Let's pick the Amazon. Imagine a tribe, with a recognizes elder, someone an anthropologist (a Western category) would say is considered wise within the community. Now since he does not speak (we assume) any known language that the rest of us do, our first problem would be to learn to translate his language. Once we have done that, its quite conceivable that we would discover that he would ingage himself (or herself - no sexism intended) philosophizing!!!
(1) But how are we going to make the inference?
(2) What would it mean to inform someone of his activity?
(3) Are all others, who are not interested in his discourse anti-rational, or irrational? Does the word rational help in describing his activity? Or should we not stick to the simplest words, just to be inclusiven.
(4) What role has Science played, if any, in stripping Philosophy of its Subject Matter?
(5) Why is everyone (not reallly "everyone" just two I know of HERE) BLIND to the fact that the World is Viewed and Seen primarily through Western spectacles? Again, is this not a Western wikipedia? So were not the eariest philosophers the Ancient Greeks? We will get to Buddism and Confusanism later. "Philosopy" is a western word. And does not mean that the West is better than the South, or North, East. It just means that the Greeks had something special, unique, which differentiated them from their neighbors!!! Now does that mean the the Caanonites, or the Persians, or the Egyptians, or the Hittites, did not "philosophize"?
(6) So we should begin with the Western Intellectual Tradition!!! I can imagine, as I write someone opting for Pan-semitism, and engaging in speculation about the lost Caananite civilization, saying that it way they - not Plato - who discovered the ONE - from which comes the discovery that: there is no god but God!!! Or am I addressing those who have missed the debate regarding Plato's unity/trinity: the One, the Good, and the Beautiful, which has also manifested itself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and degenerated into a movie in the United States as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly??? Or am I being here UNPHILOSOPHICAL because my subject matter violate RATIONALITY? So Hegel was not a philosopher either, right? Too irrational?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, my fellow philosophers, excuse the typos I had no time to correct Ludvikus 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
But evidently, I cannot be a philosopher. For I am a Canadian, I was born in 1982, and I don't much like Plato. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rationalism and scholastic philosophy

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

To dispel any doubt, there is an excellent article here about the relation between medieval philosophy and rationalism, showing how Scholastic philosophers were essentially Christian rationalists. "The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defence of the dogmas of Faith. It is opposed to mysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis on intuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convinced Rationalists, the only difference being that some, like Abelard and Roscelin, were too ardent in their advocacy of the use of reason, and went so far as to maintain that reason can prove even the supernatural mysteries of Faith, while others, like St. Thomas, moderated the claims of reason, set limits to its power of proving spiritual truth, and maintained that the mysteries of faith could not be discovered and cannot be proved by unaided reason." Dbuckner 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This teapot tempest is one I spend countless hours on about a year ago. Dbuckner was there. The subjects being discussed now are the same as the subjects discussed then, and these same subjects will probably still be fought over here ten years from now. "To dispel any doubt..." is hopelessly optimistic. All the given reference shows is that one school of philosophy was opposed to mysticism, not that all schools are so opposed.
Since the word "philosophy" is commonly applied to Eastern philosophy and Post-modern philosophy, the way the word is currently used in fact does not allow this article to limit the usage to Western rationalism. Wishing that the word "philosophy" were only applied to Western rationalism, or even cogently arguing that the word "philosophy" should only be applied to Western rationalism, or pointing out that in certain times past, in certain cultures, the word "philosophy" was only applied to Western rationalism, does not change the fact that the word has a wider usage today, which this article must acknowledge.

Rick Norwood 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, in reply:

  • The context is a remark made by two people that the rational method does not characterise philosophy until the 'rationalist' era. This quotation (plus my own reasonably detailed knowledge of the medieval period, 1160-1340) shows that the rational method characterises philosophy from at least the twelfth century. But the twelfth century was of course the period when the writings of Aristotle became available to the Latin occident. That was the doubt to be dispelled.
  • Further sources, which I have not cited yt, show that the method of Aristotle and even the pre-Socratics is preeminently a rationalist one ('rationalist' in the weaker sense, of course). Thus there is compelling evidence of a tradition which happens to be called 'philosophy', which has the characteristics of systematic, critical and rational investigation of fundamental truths.
  • You argue "Since the word "philosophy" is commonly applied to Eastern philosophy and Post-modern philosophy". By whom? I have produced a variety of quotations by modern writers (of which Quinton is actually quoted here), which suggest that the systematic, rational and critical approach applies to all philosophy, in the proper sense of the word. Your remarks rather conflict with your earlier statement that ' The problem is that everyone thinks they KNOW what philosophy is, and therefore need not cite sources'. Aha, so you KNOW philosophy, do you? No one denies of course that the word 'philosophy' has all sorts of senses in which mysticism, alchemy, saloon-bar chatter and post-modern rubbish all count as 'philosophy'. But this article is not concerned with those varieties. Indeed, the original introduction I reverted to early in December said exactly that. If you can produce one source from the 'Eastern' tradition of whatever-it-is that defines that tradition in a way that shows common ground with the Aristotle-Aquinas-Locke-Kant-&c tradition, then I will accept your point gladly.
  • "The word has a wider usage today, which this article must acknowledge". It is not enough to point to the obvious fact that the word 'philosophy' has different senses. You need to show that there is a sense of the word which is common to all uses. Can you do that? Otherwise you are simply inserting your own views. Dbuckner 15:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think what you are trying to do with the word "rational" is to distinguish philosophy from mysticism and theology. But you should also try to distinguish it from science too. The rationalists (Spinoza and Leibniz) would certainly agree with your definition. As to others reading their concept of rationality back into Plato and Aristotle, that is easy, since they come from them, but what about Parmenides, Heraclitus, Thales. Plato/Socrates already had the word rational in their vocabulary but did not use it to define philosophy. Again the idea of rational, is mainly associated with the Enlightenment and the love of mathematics found in a certain philosophers stemming from Pythagoras, to Descartes, Leibniz, etc...
Also I don't think you can dismiss postmodernism, though you might not like it, it still claims the name of philosophy and is taught in the philosophy departments of universities. Lyotard the philosopher of the postmodern, is a philosopher, see his page and check out where he lectured.
You obviously don't know Eastern philosophy and blame the other person for not giving a source. You should not really be arguing this point of defining philosophy if you dont have a good overview of philosophy. Again I refer you to try editing the page Western Philosophy, and while you are at it have a read of Eastern Philosophy.
A piece of advice, don't get hung up on a single word to define philosophy, it already has a word, "philosophy"! Get over it!
Note: I will put back here the four competing intros, we can hopeful come to some decision about which is best. The lock put suddenly on Luvidicus' intro is not really fair since I cant see anyone agreeing with it and it completely changed what was there before. Also his contributions on this talk page have been quite unusual, might I ask what age, or age bracket, you are?
--Lucas
The idea that "science" is wholly distinct from philosophy is a sore spot which has been the source of much acrimony and teeth-gnashing throughout 2006 (at least at my end). Simon Blackburn, in a Blackwell volume, mentions that contemporary philosophy can be seen as continuous with the best practices of all intellectual endeavor. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ben, as you see, I originally omitted the part of Quinton's definition about 'second order' nature of p. This was in deference to your view. We shall have to tackle that at some point. However, as you see, there are other issues here, and we need to take it one at a time. 08:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To Lucas: you misunderstand my point about the single word. It is generally agreed that, where a word has different meanings, it has a different article. Thus the word 'metaphysics' can mean the study of existence, as in Aristotle's metaphysics. Or it can mean New Age crystals and that sort of thing. Genuinely different subjects need to be given genuinely different treatment. On the point that "You should not really be arguing this point of defining philosophy if you dont have a good overview of philosophy. " I have a pretty good overview of philosophy, as it happens. My point is that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, to back it up with citations, rather than relying on personal and idiosyncratic views about anything. On the point about Ludivicus intro, actually it is not entirely his. The lock came in suddenly and the article is now half way edited. Dbuckner 09:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes philosophy must be distinguished from mysticism and theology, equally it must be distinguished from science and math. It has commonality as Lucidish pointed out with science, yet it also has some with theology and mysticism (eg, neoplatonism), though these are perhaps older links, or, we might like to think, have worn away in the West. So in editing this intro we must differentiate between what we would like to think philosophy is (progressive, rational, etc.) with lots of other views on it, for example, like Quine's who compared it to ancient belief in the gods. There is no doubt theology appears a good bit in philosophy, Descartes, Spinoza, Quine etc.

Dbuckner, are you making the claim that Eastern is rational or something like that, or, if is to count as philosophy it must be rational? No doubt you might clarify what your view on Eastern is. My point was that if you demand from another editor a definition of Eastern phil, it is unfair, since, to edit the intro we assume you have a general knowledge of philosophy and not just of Western philosophy.

I do not think you addressed my other points above on this, ie, of rationality and the Greek ratio, mathematics and the Rationalist philosophers Leibniz and Spinoza. I might add an argument here against rationality, in that, for many, philosophy must not be just a rationalization of the status quo, otherwise it is just ideology. Along with being rational it is also at times, critical. Rationality also leaves alot of non-rational experience outside the scope of philosophy that many might feel this is why philosophy has failed those who now turn to new superstitions.

I've not heard of the metaphysics of crytals. Not sure what you mean by articles and metaphysics in the context of rationality. "The philosophy of science" has a definite article, so what? --Lucas

Ludvikus on rationality

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
Interjecting (Ludvikus). My point, inter alia, is that we should be historical in accounting for philosophy in this article. And using the word rational is both a-historical and pretentitous. It came into circulation with the rationalists, and with Descartes ego-centric predicament. It is no accident that he is considered the First Modern Philosopher. Rationalism, which what "rational" suggests to me, is great moment in history, a break with scholasticism, etc.
Again, it comes from ratio, and has a root in the Pythagorian discovery that there is no root in the quest for the square-root of 2 among the ratios.
The ancient Greeks did not find themself in Descartes self-conscious predicament of doubting their own existence. Therefore, they did not dwell on their minds and discover within it the faculty of reason out of which the great Kant, produce his Critique of Pure Reason, a text which survived well into the 20th century, with great desciples such as Ernst Cassirer.
What the Greeks had instead was Dialectics. This the Europeans understand much better than American and Anglo's (no offense) intended. But there was Hegel, and Marx, and so many others who recognized Dialectics, rather than Rationality, as the concept central to philosophy. On the other hand, the British discovered what they considered new and in opposition to Rationality, namely Empiricism. So User:Dbucker is of a narrow school and insists that we must accept it, the Scool that say (French) Rationality is correct, and British Empiricism, and German Dialectics (Hegel) is wrong.
We are not writing here about User:Dbucker's view, that the Rationalist were correct: that philosophy is guided by rational principles, implying the faculty of reason. If you are a rationalists, good for you, but stop shoving this one school's (or philosophy's) fundamental concept down our throughts.
In addition, at a certain point in the Middle Ages, Dialectics did take hold as essential to philosophy. But it gave way to Logic. And there is a long tradition in that direction, culminating in Logical Positivism, followed by the Philosophy of Language. What about that? And how about Wittgenstein? What you need, Dbucker, is philosophical theraphy a la Wittgenstein - but it does not seem to be working. You are stuck in the Age of Reason! Ludvikus 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This COMPLETE RUBBISH. The claim that the word 'rational' (Latin, rationalis) came into circulation with the 'rationalists' is COMPLETE NONSENSE. Sorry to be using capitals here, but your ignorance, combined with your arrogance, is truly breathtaking. I have already given ample source material for you to read and digest, can you just go away and read it, and do not come back until you have a sufficiently informed view of this subject to be of use to this discussion. Actually, can you just go away. See below.
"it comes from ratio, and has a root in the Pythagorian discovery that there is no root in the quest for the square-root of 2 among the ratios". WHAT?
" In addition, at a certain point in the Middle Ages, Dialectics did take hold as essential to philosophy. But it gave way to Logic." WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. Read some basic introduction to medieval philosophy, e.g. Kretzmann, and find out how silly you are. You are making a complete fool of yourself. Please can you just go away, and stop embarrassing yourself any further, and so we can get this article unlocked. For goodness sake. Dbuckner 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On basic introductions, by the way, there is a good history online here. In it you will find clearly explained why during the early phase of scholastic philosophy (from the ninth century to the eleventh), philosophy was almost entirely concerned with logical problems. This is because, as practically every student knows, only the Perihermaneias and the Categoriae in Boethius' translation were available to the schoolmen. That is why your claim is EMBARRASSING – to everyone else, as well as to you. Go away and do not even consider coming back until you have done some BASIC reading in the history of philosophy. Since you are so fond of sayings, you presumably know the saying about 'a little knowledge'? As well as the one about FOOLS treading in places that angels fear to. Dbuckner 11:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The shouting found above is a good example of the kind of thing that makes me very reluctant to play in this particular game. But, Dbuckner, surely you are familiar with the problem with the square root of two, yes? No? Rick Norwood 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What has the problem of the square root of two to do with how, e.g. Aquinas used the word 'rational'?Dbuckner 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, now! Keep your cool, Dbucker. You're IRRATIONALITY (uniWiki behavior too) is going to make User:Rick Norwood leave - but I will not go away. Here is Wittgenstein's remedy, as well as M/Webster: 

  1 rational \rash-nel, ra-she-nel\ adjective
    [ME racional, fr. L rationalis, fr. ration-, ratio] (14c)
  1	a : having reason or understanding
  b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason :
  reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
  2	: involving only multiplication, division, addition,
  and subtraction and only a finite number of times
  3	: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers
  <a rational root of an equation>
  rationally adverb
  rationalness noun
  (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
I do not take ignorance to be perjoritive as it is a question of fact. The ignorance allegation against me is just not true, even though you assert it in an insulting way - in violation of WIKI POLICY. It will be interesting analyzing your state of mind - for the whole world to see, here, on Wikipedia. I suspect you are well read - if that's all that's required not to be ignorant. But the problem is (as Socrates made it clear) for me to have you discover the grounds of your irrationality in this instance. It is ironic that the proper use of rationality should pertain to your state of mind.
I do suspect that you have read many philosophical texts - but it seems that at least some stuff has been unable to get through to your mind or brain (I'm totally ignorant as to which you prefer). I definitely feel with you as Socrates must have felt in a dialogue with one of his students in the Dialogues. But he never left - it was usual for the other to decide to go away.
It is amazing to me how you misconstrue what I say.
It is also amazing how you deduce that I am un-read because I do not agree with you.
And all this is perhaps useful - after all, isn't the dialogue here about rationality?
And I believe it was you, or was it Ben (sorry Ben, if it was not you) who said I was a fanatic?
Isn't a fanatic also someone who is irrational? And are these not cognates of each other in the essential quality of mind or brain we are concerned with here?
And the other irony is that it is YOU, Dbuchner, who insists that we include rationality as an essential element in philosophy.
If that is so, then one of us should, like a gentleman in the time of Socrates, leave the debate.
So it boils down to which one?
However, I do not include rationality within the definition of philosophy precisely because of the population of people (I will not say you, because it might be construed as an insult) who are simply NOT RATIONAL - the rule in fact, rather than the exception.
So please do not go away! We need to explore the nature of your views - especially your inability to engage in a RATIONAL DIALOGUE - you need so much ad hominums.
Now back to the main argument(s). (1) We are dealing with the SQUARE ROOT OF TWO and its relation to RATIONALITY; And (2) the emergenge of REASON as a central concept in Europe some time after the Middle Ages. And you seem to dispell the notions of Dialectics, Logic, and exploration of the rules of LANGUAGE as alternative "essences" (for lack of a better word at the moment). You are unable to make an argument except direct me to unspecific sources.
You expect me to do the research for you to convince me of your argument.
But you have no argument - or did I miss it because of your distracting IRRATIONALITY - attacks on me? Would you kindly repeat your argument, or give an exact quote as to the role of the concept/word RATIONAL as fundamental to the explanation of what philosophy is in an opening paragraph of this Article in the English language Wikipedia? --Ludvikus 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
" You expect me to do the research for you to convince me of your argument".
No, I expect you to do the research as a basic qualification even to be talking on this page, thus saving people's time and server space. You have made a number of very stupid assertions which suggest a basic ignorance of many periods in the history of philosophy. Some familiarity with these periods, and the modes of thought and expression which characterised them, are a basic qualification to be writing about the history of philosophy. So go away and do some homework, and come back when you are ready. Meanwhile, stop cluttering up this page with your babbling. This is is not an ad hominem attack, i.e. a personal attack against you. It is an attack on the rubbish that you persist in contributing to this page. Now just go away. Dbuckner 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"It is also amazing how you deduce that I am un-read because I do not agree with you." NO, I DEDUCE YOU ARE UNREAD BECAUSE YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EVEN THE MOST BASIC FAMILIARITY WITH THE SUBJECT. Dbuckner 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Science and Philosohpy? Isn't Philosphy merely a vestiage of science - somewhat like the apopendix? That Physics. Isn't it given, in a much earlier time, in a book by Aristotle? And how was it accepted as the explanation of physical phenomena? Let us be reminded, for example, that according to Aristotle things fall to the ground because they seek their natural place. So Aristotle's Physics is physics - it's just mistaken and has been altered by Galelio, Newton, Einsten, etc. And that's what philosophy is - in history - a field successively deprived of its content and given over to another field, a specialized science. So in that sense, historically, philosophy is not really different from that field which replaced and was given a Latin name, science. But this kind of philosophical analysis can be performed only when one is versed in history. Philosophy, then, is what is left behind, or not turned over to another field. --Ludvikus 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you a fanatic, for the record. However, respectfully, I do not understand many of your points. And those points I do understand, are in error.
I don't understand why we're even talking about the square root of 2 (attributed, not to Pythagoras, but to one of his hapless students). Your original remark was a witty turn of phrase, but still seems very much like a non sequitur in this context. Especially since, if there is a point here, we can find it in the etymology of "rational", but NOT necessarily in the etymology of that etymology. Thus, "rational" comes from the Latin rationalis, of belonging to reason; its inheritance from the Latin ratio is of no significance. Though history is an important part of lexical investigation, and I believe it is the first thing to look at in the examination of a concept, we are obliged not to commit the Etymological fallacy. Otherwise, we would be calling little mice "muscles".
I don't understand why "rational" is pretentious. I can't even begin to understand that. To say it is, frankly, a cruel slight against reasonable people.
I also don't understand why Logic is opposite to Dialectics. (Pa v ~Pa) is dialectical. You have your Pa, which is the thesis, and your ~Pa, which is your antithesis. And this is also the first law of Aristotelian logic. Now I suppose that the notion of synthesis is not included in the first laws of logic, but it seems to me that it is describable in those terms. If we accept that Qx is (an instance of) one property that helps compose Px, and that Vx is (an instance of) one property that helps compose ~Pa, then the synthesis of the "dialectic" may be called (Qa & Va). This may suit all kinds of fun claims, to do with unity of opposites, a stage of production sowing the seeds of its own destruction, etc.
Dean suggests that you might not be being fair to history. I tend to agree, not just because of the Dialectics v. Logic false dichotomy, but also because the patently logical and rational attitude that the ancient Greek philosophers had. This stems from another feature that I don't understand: how it is one could purposefully conflate rationality with rationalism, when they are conventionally distinct. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The relation between science and philosophy has been well discussed over the past year. I have argued for something very much like the position you are advocating now. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for those entirely sensible remarks. (I don't agree about the science and philosophy bit, but we agreed to park that one). There is also the obvious point that Pythagoras (or his student) was Greek and probably did not speak Latin. The word 'rational' as used in mathematics has quite a different route into our language than 'man is a rational animal' (homo est animal rationale) has in logic. Dbuckner 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
PS Actually 'rationalis' is related to ratio, in the sense that 'ratio' means a reason, or nature, or even concept (it's a very hard word to translate into English, because of that. It's very frequently used in scholastic Latin, which is why my jaw dropped about a mile when Ludvikus made these extraordinary assertions. But the mathematical word 'rational' came into English at a different point - quite late, I think. Dbuckner 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I defer to your expertise, as I know nothing firsthand about the roots of the uses. (Though in my defence, I was consulting Etymology Online.) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
1 reason \re-zen\ noun [ME resoun, fr. OF raison,
fr. L ration-, ratio reason, computation,
fr. reri to calculate, think; prob. akin to Goth rathjo account, explanation] (13c)

1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification

<gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; esp :
something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
     <the reasons behind her client's action>
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes>
<the real reason why he wanted me to stay Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending,
inferring, or thinking esp. in orderly rational ways : intelligence
(2) : proper exercise of the mind
(3) : sanity
b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
in reason : rightly, justifiably
within reason : within reasonable limits
with reason : with good cause

(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated I hope this quote proves enlightening on this Latin word that entered our English language in the 13th cen. --Ludvikus 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic Philosophy, or in Academia

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One user want's to bring in the term Academic to qualify philosophy in the opening sentence. Here is the right way, in my opinion, to do it. 

    Philosophy is an occupation, or profession,
    practiced as such in most modern countries,
    by the teaching of a specified curriculum,
    by faculty members at a school, college, or university.
    The instructor is often designated a professor
    and is often a writer of published books
    or articles in recognized scholarly journals in the field.

And by the way, that's what Plato was in his Academy. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dialectic giving way to Logic

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    The Stoics (q.v. Stoicism) divided logic into rhetoric and dialectic,
    so that from the time of Stoic ascendency until the close of the Middle Ages
    dialectic was assimilated to the discipline of logic, and formed part of the trivium
    of the Liberal Arts.
         - Dictionary of Philosophy & Religion by W.L.Reese, p. 129

For "what are you talking about" User:Dbrucker Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that quote is evidence against your prior assertions that "dialectics" is "instead" of rationality. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor policy

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I have to go now, but I am going to take steps to have this user (Ludvkikus) permanently banned from Wikipedia. Dbuckner 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're at a stand-off. I say you don't understand (politelty I hope). And you say it of me - except that you're insulting! But insults asside, let me say that W. L. REESE reference (cited above) has no entry for rational. It only has Rationalism and Reason. Now with regard to Plato, in relation to Rationalism, Reese says that Plato (pages 478-9, Reese):
    envisioning dialetic as  beginning, continuing, and ending in ideas,
    was likewise basically a Rationalist

Further down, in relation to the 18th century, & Enlightement philosophers, who were thought of as Rationalists in France & Germany, Reese says: 

    the sense of the term has altered to some extent.
    Here Rationalism means following the new knowledge
    rather than traditional ways.

Reese next turns to the 19th century: 

    largely due to the influence of Hegel ...,
    Rationalism came to be  associated with philosophical Idealism (q.v.).

At this point Reese relates Hegel to Parmenides, and next to the Coherence Theory of Truth.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotation salads are so much fun, aren't they? Anyway, you said:

(Ludvikus) "At a certain point in the Middle Ages, Dialectics did take hold as essential to philosophy. But it gave way to Logic. "

But Reese said

(Reese) The Stoics divided logic into rhetoric and dialectic, so that from the time of Stoic ascendency until the close of the Middle Ages dialectic was assimilated to the discipline of logic, and formed part of the trivium of the Liberal Arts. Dictionary of Philosophy & Religion by W.L.Reese, p. 129

He does not say 'dialectics gave way to logic'. Dbuckner 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's hair-splitting, if not history, on your part! By what criteria of yours - in this context - is assimilation not give way? I did not not say disappear - the thing you ask me to do??? Be rationalal - you claim to know its meaning, no? Let's look more closely:
    dialectic was assimilated to the discipline of logic
What part of assimilation do you not understand?
If a Jew assimilates, does it or does it not, mean he's no longer Jewish?
I even gave room - in language - to a racist like Hitler - who would say that a Jew is a Jew whether he assimilated or not!
So I used the vague expression, gave way.
Accordingly there was still Dialectic, but the more dominant concept, into which dialectic had assimilated was Logic.
Similarly, I would say, in the context of PHILOSOPHY, using the vague expression, gave way {like in "humpty dumpty" - it means what I want it to mean - can you truly not understand that/ir?):
    Rationality, a.k.a. Reason, gave way to Romanticism,
    in the Western Intellectual Tradition

Why use such a loaded word in your opening to Philosophy while writing in English in the 21st century? Philosophy is Rational . . . It does not enlighten us. It easily opens the question, what is "Rationality"? And billions of people, for example, those in the East, in Eastern Russia as well as China, would point out that your bourgeois views are not rational, but mearly manifestations of your class interests, which are those of Capitalism, no?

Finally, your very own discussions here, do not incline me to say that you are not philosophical, but merely that you're not-rational. And like Jesus Christ I guess, I wish to keep you around. So please do not go away, User:Dbrucker. Just believe me. Have faith.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--Ludvikus 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The expression "gave way" describes a timeline, where at one point (t) something was sturdy, and at (t') it collapsed. (I suppose time (t) is something like "the medeival period".) To say that dialectics gave way to logic is to say that at (t), there was dialectics in full force; and at (t'), it was replaced by logic proper. But you've just provided a quote about the Stoics showing that, at an earlier time (t-1), dialectics had been considered to be a part of logic -- where you find dialectics, you necessarily find logic. If we assume that the interlying years, including time (t), drew even just a little bit from the Stoics, then we have reason to believe that your original comment is false. For, to the extent that anyone at time (t) was paying any attention to the Stoics, we would be forced to admit that a collapse of dialectics in favor of logic would be either incoherant, or a claim that logic had given way to mere sophistry. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite. The expression "give way" means yielding to, giving up to. If X has given way to Y, it means X is now not there anymore, and Y is. But "assimilating X to Y" means, making X a part of Y, or declaring it to be. The sentences are quite different. Dbuckner 08:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So if I'm a Jew, and I assimilate, and become a Christian, that's ok, right, because once a Jew always a Jew, and assimilations means I'm still there, as a Jew. Well, the Nazis certain maintained that - and did something about it.
But how about the Jewish view, where they want to preseve their identity? Is this a misuse of language on their part?
I rather think we here, again, a demonstration not of rationality, but of irrationality, as an element in philosophy.
Clearly you two have presented yourselves as trained in philosophy (according to your home pages), and also I recognize intelligence at work in your discours here.
But your argument seems to me biased in the extreme to find me wrong. And that's irrationality, vividly on display. How intelligent persons like yourselves, could write such an erroneous distinction regarding assimilation can only be explained by the role of the irrational among philosophers. And that's consistent with the views of Marx, Freud, and Wittgenstein. What I deduce from the later Wittgenstein is that I need to do a philosophica analysis (meaning a kind of therapy) of your usage. And that means that the irrational plays a role in philosophy; it is not the case that I can simply point to an error, and get an, "Ah. Good point. You are right.I'm mistaken and stand corrected." You tell me that in assimilation one needs not be concerned because one's prior identity (or whatever) is still there! Ludvikus 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Going Away

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I don't plan on going away. I'll just lurk. So, Dbuckner, you better not pout, you better not cry, ...

So you are Santa Clause? Dbuckner 15:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Mirriam Webster dictionary is now wholy discredited. For example

1 rational \rash-nel, ra-she-nel\ adjective 

   [ME racional, fr. L rationalis, fr. ration-, ratio] (14c)
 1     a : having reason or understanding
 b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason :
 reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
 2     : involving only multiplication, division, addition,
 and subtraction and only a finite number of times
 3     : relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers
 <a rational root of an equation>
 rationally adverb
 rationalness noun
 (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

I have a reason for killing you. I hate your guts. That's rational by 1a.

1b is ok.

According to 2, pi/2 is rational. The author tries to be mathematical but is out of his depth.

And 3 defines a rational number as a rational root of an equation, which is a perfect example of a circular definition.

Rick Norwood 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Rick. You're too full of love to hate anyone's guts. Love and math. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick, on my remarks about 'going away', I simply suggested to Ludvikus that he 'go away' and read some basic introduction to the history of philosophy. And by implication, not come back until he had digested its contents. Isn't that, er, reasonable? Dbuckner 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick, I'm not a mathematician, but is your criticism of the dictionary right. On 2, it says 'involving' only multiplication division &c a finite number of times. The key word being 'involving'. Thus, pi/2, because it involves pi, therefore does not involve a finite number of multiplications &c, and therefore is not rational. On 3, I don't know the conventions of this dictionary, but the corner brackets look as though they are introducing an example, not a definition, much as OED uses italics. So it's OK. Dbuckner 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with definition 2 is that it doesn't say multiplication, etc. of what. If it said "of natural numbers" then it would be ok. I see your point about 3. Rick Norwood 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An Aside on Pi and Infinity

Rick! The ancient Greeks abhorred the infinite. They would not let you start with an actual infinite set, like the set of natural numbers, or the set of reals. So you would not have pi to divide in two! What you would get is the unit (one) which, by the way, is not a number, and you could take any number of times (erxcept an infinite number), and you would apply the basic operations to such sums, products, subtractions, divisions, any number of times.

What did the Pythagoreans discover in the irrationality of the square-root of two? And by the, pi's irrationality was discovered much later.
What shocks me incredibly is the failure to recognize the connection among rationality , ratio, the Pythagoreans, and why Arithmetic gave way to (or was assimilated into) the other mathematical science - Geometry by the ancient Greeks. --Ludvikus 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Any statement of the form "The ancient Greeks (had property x)" is bound to be wrong (except maybe "The ancient Greeks wrote in ancient Greek.") You can't even say that all of the ancient Greeks were Greek! Some abhored infinity. But Eudoxus used what amounts to infinity in his "method of exhaustion". Xeno used infinity in his paradoxes to show that motion does not exist. (His mistake was his assumption that an infinite series must have an infinite sum.) Pi, which the ancient Greeks did not call pi, was represented by a continued fraction, which in modern terms would be understood as an infinite process. So, some ancient Greeks struggled with the idea of infinity.

Sorry for the aside, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Rick Norwood 14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible way forward

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

I wonder if we can all agree on a basic principle that might cut down the amount of disagreement and pointless argument. The basic principle is that, whatever our personal opinions about the nature of philosophy, which are bound to differ, we have a duty to ensure what Wikipedia calls NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The only way to do that is to appeal to consensus views in the field, using authoritative reference sources such as encyclopedias (giving preference to encyclopedias which are dedicated to the subject in question, i.e. philosophy) and standard introductory texts (giving preference where possible to texts which are given on the reading lists of university departments specialising in that subject).

For example, there are bits of Quinton's definition which I don’t like, and there are bits of Quinton's definition that Ben doesn't like (and they are not the same bits, either). That does not matter. Our view as editors does not count. What counts is the consensus view in the field we are writing about, in this case philosophy. WP:OR, which everyone here should read carefully, says " commonly accepted reference texts".

I am prepared to accept such a principle. I believe Ben (Lucidish) is, since he said so in so many words above. Rick may agree with this, since he said earlier "An encyclopedia article should be written by people who have researched what the best writers have said on a given subject". Rick, though 'best' is not the same as 'authoritative' (since a writer who is very good may have very little authority in his or her field, at the time of writing, would you accept the principle of accepting 'current consensus view'? Lucas, Ludvicus, what do you say? Dbuckner 10:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I agree. Rick Norwood 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to nominate Rick as Chairman of the Board of this philosophical project - when I realized that it was you, Dbuckner, who had written the above. I could not put it better myself. However, I think the problem is not the principles about which at least 3 of us aggree - its in their application. Anyway, I certainly am willing to give it a try - a go at it.

But also, I see a need to explain that question about the pi/2 - I'll do that above.
Optimistically, --Ludvikus 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, because those are pretty much the Wikipedia standards, and we're obliged to follow them. But there's a caveat. We must remember that part of the NPOV mandate is: where core texts disagree, we note the disagreement. So where Blackburn and Quinton are at odds, for instance, we are obliged to either note the disagreement, or remain silent. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. Dbuckner 12:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like Lucas is going to agree. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time away this weekend. But another thing I would like to agree upon is that, given the enormous work and effort it does take to reach consensus, anyone involved in this project pledges to work and help and support each other, to try and be constructive rather than unhelpful (yes, that applies to me as much as, if not more than anyone else!). In addition, each person will agree to be a 'caretaker' of the article after any work has been completed, so that we don't see any good work destroyed by people hopping on and off the train. This, more than anything else, has been the problem with this article. (Having counted, there have been 3,000 edits since it was begun. And it is in a worse state than when it started life.

I don’t see any need for a chairman or anything like that. Just a list of people who would be prepared to give comment, criticism and advice, write copy, and above all promise to love and support this article in its future life. Sounds good? Dbuckner 12:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this might actually work provided we also agree to discuss changes before we make them (aside from deleting obvious spam), to agree on the structure of the article before we make any changes in the writing, and agree to not change more than one section at a time. Rick Norwood 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. "Caretaking" is probably the one thing that this article has lacked. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Have a good time wherever you go, Bbuckner. You told me to go away, but now you're going/ (Just joking - lighten up all - let 's keep our sense of humor).

And please excuse my typos below - it's not an article (& so if it appears to be)!!!
About the chairman remark, I was joking there too. The thing about Wikipedia, it's the most Anarchistic and Democratic institution I know. And at this point, its more of the former - Noam Chomsky must love it. Here is a place where there can be no illegitimate authoriterian hierarchies.
What happens when it, Wiki, is open to ANYONE, is something none of us can predict.
What I'm amazed at is that there are so extremely few involved in our current debate - is not just four(4) or (5) individuals?
I accept and appreciate Wiki policy of Civility - but It's difficult not to be provoked into Socratic sarcasm - notice, Dbruckner, the extent to which our discourse here is governed by emotions - that's why I don't want to shroud Philosophy in the rational. The role of the unconscius is a person has been emphasized by Freud - and I don't want to exclude him from Philosophy - and I never got a response regarding the Later Wittgenstein: His view that Philosophy involved Analysis - was it like Freud's as well as like Russell's?
Also - it seems to me that none of my three (3) colleagues here (as opposed to the whole world - which remains silent still) appreciate the meaning and history of Irrational Numbers and their role in the history and development of Philosophy. Unfortunately perhaps (for some), arithmetic, geometry, or mathematics cannot be ignoredin our presentation as to what philosophy is (involving the irrational). Isn't Russell's greatest work Principia Mathematica? And his, as well as Cantor's, Dedekind's, and Frege's work, the introduction of the infinite, are these not efforts to deal with Real Number, most of which are Irrational?
My point is not that rational is not relevant, but that it involves a very loaded concept - therefore we must not put it in the opening paragraph.
Regarding Wiki and POV - I think the vast subject matter and material which is involved in Philosophy does not permit easy application to our task. It seems that everyone must be somewhat of a philosopher to write about Philosophy here. There's no way to get around that. So it's going to be a struggle of the fittest! And the fittest are going to be those who know their sources and material best - with Wiki Democracy ruling as to what sticks!!!
Now here's my content contribution remarks:
  • 1 Keep it simple in the beginning, especially in the opening.
  • 2 Begin with the ancient Greeks in this English language Wiki.
  • 3 Keep what we have in the opening:
    • 1) What is it to know?
    • 2) What is it to be?
    • 3) What is it to do the right thing?
Is there any objection to that?
Now something new here(on my part). The ancient Greeks distinguished between KNOWING HOW and KNOWING THAT. Language Philosophers in the (British) Cambridge school picked up on that. And I remember that it's also a distinction in a Dialogue in which Plato, through Socrates, points out that the Artist, or Poet, knows how to exercise his craft - but you cannot expect him to give you an accounting or explanation of what he has accomplished. The Greeks had the concept techne, which is related to our technology, but is more like skilled craft. It is what the artisan knows. :The point of all this is that it qualifies what knowledge is. It explains why most of physics is no longer Philosophy - Physics has become a profession, a craft.
It is conceivable that Academic Philosophy itself is a Craft - namely that which practiced in the "schools of higher learning". And so a philosopher has become a specialized professional, a Professor of Philosophy.
I realize by now that my style is likely to annoy my Wiki colleagues - but hey, get used to it. On Wiki everyone who wants to be a Philosopher can give it a go - its a Darwinian enviroment.
I hope youall look to my content here - rather than the (unintentionally obnoxious) form. But hey, who's to say who's right? --Ludvikus 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So, philosophy is a craft. And a philosopher is anyone who has tenure.
Another point of view is that the only true Philosopher is The Fool on the Hill, aka Nasrudin, Uncle Remus, Til Eulenspeigle, Lear's Fool, Harlequin. "The philosopher does nothing, and yet nothing remains undone." Rick Norwood 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, the reason why people have ignored your point about "irrational numbers" is that it plays on an ambiguity that is merely lexical. The sense with which "irrational" is used there is not the same sense in which people use the term "irrationality" in general. If a mathematician were to use Pi/2 in a formula, no other mathematician would look at them and say, "Your premise is itself irrational". They would say, "your premise contains an irrational number". { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, Wiki policy is not intended to be a Darwinian battleground, nor is it intended to be fundamentally democratic or anarchistic. In the end, it is the evidence that says who is right or wrong, for Wikipedia's purposes. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Craft, the distinction (not my original) roughly is between intellectual work (thinking, analyzing, explaining, etc.) on the one hand, and working with your hands. Furthermore, schools of learning today, as with Plato's academy, provide employment for intellectual workers. And though you may not think highly of professors of philosophy - that no different than not thinking highly of successors to Plato's position in Plato's academy.
Regarding irrational numbers they are, from a historical perspective, precisely irrational. This is the actual source of the word - meaning no ratio- meaning no two natural numbers forming a fraction, 2/3. A natural number here is the number 1 (one), or any number formed by adding 1 (one) to it. THERE IS NO SUCH FACTION which yields pi, or pi/2, or the square-root-of two. It's NOT a matter of semantics at all. The way out is to violate the Greek rules of Rationality. It was done by Cantor, who introduced the ACTUAL INFINITE, an irrational concept according to the ancient Greeks - and according to Cantor's adversary - Kronecker. --Ludvikus 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody asked about craft, because it hasn't been at issue.
It is a matter of semantics, because you're conflating the issues of etymology (all that derives from "ratio") with synonymy, and such conflations are the result of semantic confusion. Again, meaning begins with etymology, but it is not exhausted by it. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You (Lucidish) missed Rick's remark above regarding craft.
Regarding ratio, the etymology is merely a manifestation of something, something which you seem to be unaware of. I do not mean to be disrespectful, however, I do not see how to put it without appearing offensive (which I do not intend). The Pythagoreans faced a major philosophical crisis! They discovered that the square-root-of-two was IRRATIONAL. I am writing this with caps for emphasis. Now I am using it in a literal sense here - not a a mere label. And the meaning of the IRRATIONALITY was PRECISELY, and EXACTLY, that there was no RATIO, literally RATIO, which would be an actual, existent NUMBER.
Maybe I can put it another way. (1) Take a TRIANGLE with a Right-Angle. (2) Let each side be 1 (1 foot, 1 yard, 1 meter, it doesn't matter). Now I ask you, (!) how long is the DIAGNOL? (2) Does the diagnol exist? (3) Can you find a common Unit such that a FINITE collection of the Unit would express the length of the Diagnol? Ludvikus 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

A slip above - instead of triangle, think square - because I speak of DIAGNOL. Ludvikus 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Addendum: This is not necessarily my position: What's Rational today, may be Irrational tomorrow, and after tomorrow, maybe Rational! Hegelian Dialectic?

However, you, or your associate, have some attachment to Rational as if it was some stronger qualification. Somehow, there a way philosophers could be - I know you don't says - SUPERRATIONAL. How else do you justify the use of this term in the opening paragraph? Ludvikus 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick pointed out an alternative to 'craft', yes, but that doesn't mean he was asking for a defence.
The English language ascribes separate connotations to "rational". Full stop. The world has moved on from the ancient terror of the infinite, and so has its language. The last vestige of resemblance between the discrete meanings under discussion is the mere label, "rational". Whatever one's sympathies to Kronecker or Pythagoras, it simply goes without saying that the purpose here is to describe contemporary consensus views. Everything else is O.R., and will be treated accordingly.
The error in contrasting "rationality" and "dialectics" has already been pointed out to you, on two grounds (1, 2).
I don't care about your style of writing. I care about the fact that you, as a person, are willfully ignoring warning, argument, and evidence in order to save face on an internet forum. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Rational

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

While the history of the word "rational" links the philosophical and mathematical meanings of the word, most people would call the old philosophical meaning, with its emphasis on analogy, e.g. between the five platonic solids and the "five" planets, mystical, the opposite of the modern meaning of "rational philosophy".

The postmodernists would agree with the statement above that what is rational today may be irrational tomorrow. But, then, the postmodernists say the earth was flat until somebody decided it was round. I believe that rational thought evolved to allow humans to better survive and reproduce, and that its survival value depends on its relationship between the world of ideas and the world of things.

Rick Norwood 13:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

These would be reasons, I think, for use of the phrase "reasoned inquiry" instead of "rationality" -- iff the exemplars agreed. But Quinton wants to cage things in terms of analytic philosophy, so we're destined to note a dispute between him and the others. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Rational, Reasoned, neither words do anything. I emphatically say that we should get rid of both in the opening. That, in my opinion, was the view of the British Empiricists. If you're going to insist that we qualify Philosophy with the Distinction that it is Rational, then I will insist that you qualify it with the distinction that it is Empirical. And that's what, for example, Language Philosophy is all about. Philosophy, then, is an Emprical Enquiry - it examines the Big Questions in an Empirical way. The question about any major philosophical problem is not to be determined by the SUBJECTIVE criteria of whether the inquiry is RATIONAL or not, but whether the EMPIRICAL evidence (such as how language is actually used) supports the argument or conclusion.
Do you see my point? Rational just tangles there - it really doesn't do anything to account for philosophy. The most important issues of philosophy will only be subjected to this arbitrary label at that point. Don't you see my point? What you would like to say is Irrational (the Principle of Non-Vacuous Contrast is applied here) your opponent will accuse you at that moment of mere name-calling. What is this Rational of yours besides a mere label? At the real important point of a philosophical argument IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING! So please, drop its cognate as well, namely REASON.
There is only one legitimate use of REASON her - it is the faculty which ALL human's possess. A brain-dead human, therefore, may be said not to be human, or to have lost his humanity. And that's the way the Greeks viewed Man - as a Rational Being. So ALL Human have it, Reason, Rationality.
But you don't want that. You want to have a narrower notion - a faculty which your clever academic professional philosophers have - the ability to engage in Rational, or Reason, discourse, or inquiry.
But I say to you that you cannot do it - that's what the Rationalists tried to do - and they failed. What you are trying to do - though you obviously don't realize it - is return us all to the Age of Reason when the Great Rationalists made an effort to explain what Rationality was.
Do you get my point? The word, the way you wish to use it, is useless!!! --Ludvikus 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Your point is irrelevant. Whether or not the Rationalists were wrong, they were philosophers. Whether or not Reason is ultimately a social construct, philosophers use it -- even the postmodernists. Even you, right now, have constructed a reasoned argument. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would maintain that everyone uses reason, because that is the way our brains function, and that everyone uses unreason, because our brains do that, sometimes, too. This is my philosophy. But it is not the only philosophy. The introduction should say something about philosophy that is inclusive. Rational philosophy would make a good subhead. Rick Norwood 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Rick, then you're obliged to cite your sources which deny the role of reason in philosophy. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Exactly my point, as Rick says! I couldn't put it better. Even Hilter used reason - stupid reason, evil reason, wrong reason, false reason, very sick reason, but some kind of reason! How do you enlighten the reader by telling him that philosophy uses reason? --Ludvikus 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The structure of the article

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Currently, the article has the following structure, based on the ToC.

Contents [hide] 1 Philosophy in Historical Context 2 Branches of philosophy 3 History of philosophy 4 Western philosophy 5 Eastern philosophy 6 African philosophy 7 Philosophical topics 8 Metaphysics and epistemology 9 Ethics and political philosophy 10 Applied philosophy 11 Confines of Philosophy 12 Philosophers on Philosophy 13 References 14 Further reading 15 See also 16 External links

I find this structure both redundant and internally contradictory, not to mention needlessly complex, and suggest the following:

Contents [hide] 1 History of philosophy 2 Philosophical questions 3 Western philosophy 4 Non-western philosophy 5 Philosophers on philosophy 6 References 7 Further reading 8 See also 9 External links

None of the other sections need be eliminated. They can appear as subheads, in the appropriate place. The purpose here is to create an article that does not jump around, that is not obviously a pot prepared by too many cooks. Comments? Rick Norwood 18:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You either need a section on branches, or an intro that says something about them. I see no harm in keeping a branches section, so long as weasel words are scrapped. I don't see why "western" should be placed in opposition to "non-western" instead of "eastern". "Philosophers on philosophy" should either be prose-edited, or turned into a small section on metaphilosophy, or should be scrapped altogether: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for a mishmash of quotations.
African philosophy should be removed until we actually have content to put there. "History", "Historical context" should be merged with geographical sections.
I don't know what to think about the merger of ethics-related material into other sections. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are, at least, two kinds of "branches" of Philosophy, first, branches according to subject matter, second, branches according to place of origin. I think the first kind of branches are better called "questions": What is the nature of the universe? What is the meaning of life? How should people live? How do we know anything? In other words, ontology, teleology, ethics, and epistemology. As for branches of the second kind, my thinking in changing from "Eastern" to "non-Western" was to avoid separate sections on African, South American, native American, South Sea Island, etc. Better to have a section in which all of those other topics can be included. As for "Philsophers on Philosophy", I kinda like the section, but I'm willing to give it up if the enough people object. Also, I can see your point about putting history under the subheads Western and non-Western, rather than as a separate section. Rick Norwood 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant "branches" as in the former kind. Re: geography, it's not an issue that arises historically except with respect to the Middle East, which (I take it) has more or less arbitrarily fallen under the scope of "Western" philosophy. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle-eastern philosophy could be considered Western, in that it was influenced by Plato and Aristotle. But do you seriously think that, for example, African philsophy and native American philosophy won't have their advocates? Rick Norwood 01:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so. That way, they might be encouraged to put actual content in the relevant sections, instead of leaving them so sparse, as the present African Philosophy section is. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not reinvented the wheel here - also, avoid un-necessary trouble down the road .

There's only one way to do this - look to the academies of philosphy - the colleges and universities. Pick up their catalog and Read the subjects in philosophy that are offerred as courses towards one's degree. That's the only way to do it. The discussion above is clearly ORIGINAL RESEARCH - a label often tossed at me in this debate over the nature of philosophy! --Ludvikus 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff. Now that I have read the UWO course catalog, and learned that Anatomy and Cell Biology 201 can be described as "a series of lectures in regional anatomy supplemented by dissection, demonstration of prosected material and audio-visual aids", I am ready to write an article about it. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whose Unreasonable Here?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here's another, I think, powerful argument against the use of reason in the opening.

We all appear to be passionately interested in philosophy.
And likely at least some of us think of ourselves as philosophers.
Nevertheless, we find ourselves in the predicament of thinking the other as unreasonable.
Ben, honestly, don't you believe that I'm being unreasonable here?
Now what do you think I think of your argument? Do you think I think you are reasonable, or not?
It it precisely because of such impasses that I find the term useless and want it dropped.
It seems like character, rather that reason, determines one's point of view. And we cannot do anything about the characters which we encounter, nor can we hope to make much progress through argumentation. It has been my experience that quite the contrary holds to what one would expect. I have often been extremely disappointed by the failure of my REASONED arguments to pursuade my adversary. The result of that experience is my conclusion that people's views are significantly not swayed by so-called reasoned argumentations. Again, here we have a case in point - the debate over whether or not philosophy is a reasoned inquiry. I give you Marx (not that it's my view): Philosophy reflects Class Interests. And I give you Freud: Ben, how much of your position is determined by your 'Unconscious - or mine for that matter? --Ludvikus 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've already answered this question. When you refuse to engage in cooperative discussion, you are being unreasonable. However, to the extent that you form a conclusion which you take to be supported by premises, you are being reasonable. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stability of article and talk page

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Rick made a point way up above about not tinkering about with the article, and trying to agree things on this talk page. I wholeheartedly agree with this (moreover it is made easy by the fact the article itself is locked down.

But now for the talk page. This is also getting cluttered, mostly by comments by Ludvikus. Ludvikus, could I politely request that you make all your comments to the point, and briefly? For example, you went on for at least a page in a passage that begins 'I emphatically say that we should get rid of both in the opening. That, in my opinion, was the view of the British Empiricists.' There is no need to say as much as you did. All you had to do was to back up your opinion with a selection of quotations from British empiricists to the effect that the philosophical method does not involve reason. Thanks.Dbuckner 08:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, have you found any sources yet which support your claim that philosophy is not characterised by the method of rational enquiry? Dbuckner 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Ludvikus. It is perfectly true that the empiricist philosophers (notoriously Hume) emphasise the limitations of human reason. They are cautious and sceptical about all a priori reasoning. Hume (by means of 'Hume's fork') sets a boundary between the empirical and the a priori. Too much of metaphysics is just groundless speculation. But we should not confuse this point, with the point about whether philosophy itself is characterised by the use of reason. Hume's arguments, throughout the Treatise, are very carefully put together and generally well thought out. Even proving the limitations of reason, requires reason.

Another thought I had over the weekend was that we are getting obsessive about the word 'reason'. There are other words. For example, the 'critical' nature of philosophy, its more or less 'systematic' nature. I did some reading around this subject over the weekend, including Ayer's seminal Language, Truth, and Logic. Philosophy is about 'analysis', 'conceptual clarification', and about describing the world (remember Strawson's injunction about 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' metaphysics).

I also read Al-Gazali, who argues that philosophical works should be banned, because they might tempt believers in Islam to unbelief. All of his arguments are quite reasonable and many seem conclusive (he correctly argues e.g. that the arguments of the metaphysicians appear sound, but are in fact very weak). But Al-Gazali is not by any stretch a 'critical' philosopher. I also read through the list of propositions famously condemned in 1277 by the Archbishop of Paris. One reads " It is hereby held that grave error has been committed when either through intent or accident it is taught that reason alone can suffice to understand the nature of God or when in conflict with doctrines of faith, the conclusions of reason can be taken as authoritative". It strikes me they were not getting at 'reason' so much as the critical attitude of philosophy. Most people in presenting a case (historians, lawyers) use reason. What distinguish philosophy is its inherently critical nature of questioning everything.

So, if we cannot use the word 'reason', can we say that the philosophical method is characterised by its critical nature, and by the use of logical analysis? Dbuckner 09:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me second Dbuckner's request at the head of this section. Brevity is the soul of wit.
On the other hand, it is not up to me to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative side.
As I have often said, I think real philosophy should be logical. I'm a mathematician. But I know from experience that many (most?) modern (postmodern?) philosophers disagree. There was a very interesting article in a math journal -- I'll try to find the source if anyone is interested -- about a mathematician working with a group putting on a play about a mathematician. Everyone got along just fine, but the basic assumptions of the artists and the mathematician could not have been further apart. All of the creative types agreed that, in the Twenty-first Century, everyone knew that so-called rationalism had been completely discredited.
Also, to rely on academics is to assert that the philosophical question of whether academics or, say, longshoremen make the best philosophers has been answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Rick Norwood 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick:

  • The question was whether some or all of words like 'systematic', 'critical', 'logical', 'rational' &c characterise philosophical method. You say "in the Twenty-first Century, everyone knew that so-called rationalism had been completely discredited". But the discussion is not about whether rationalism has been discredited. The question is whether words like 'systematic', 'critical', 'logical', 'rational' &c characterise philosophical method. Which commonly accepted reference text says that a systematic, critical and logical method of approach has been completely discredited 'among philosophers'? I used to teach philosophy, and taking a course on logic or critical thinking was a prerequisite. And quite a few students got chucked out after failing this. That was a few years ago. Are you saying this has completely changed? Please, evidence!
  • You say "I know from experience that many (most?) modern (postmodern?) philosophers disagree. " Do you have references for this? Once again, it's not enough to appeal to experience or anecdotes. I thought no philosopher with any self respect uses "post-modern".
  • WP:No_original_research says that if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, and if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Dbuckner 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In reply to your last point, I'm not sure what it was. But I would certainly say the question of whether academics or dockers make the best dockers is one for dockers.

PS. I Googled "department of philosophy" and "critical thinking" and got 68,000 hits. Hundreds of department offer courses in it, so I can't help but think philosophy still emphases logic, critical thinking, analysis, clarity of expression &c.

as at any school, one of the major learning goals is for the students the students to develop general critical thinking skills." http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/Improving_Critical_Thinking_Skills.pdf

  • " Philosophy also develops skills that are widely transferable to other areas of study and to the professional world outside the university. Because of its unique emphasis on clarity, argumentation, and critical evaluation, even a single course in Philosophy develops students' powers of reasoning, teaches them to get to the heart of an issue, and to distinguish it from less important matters, clarifies and improves their communication, both written and spoken, helps them to organize their thoughts rationally and present them in a clear, coherent manner" http://philosophy.sdsu.edu

Interesting that the last one says that the emphasis on clarity, argumentation &c is "unique" to philosophy.

Note also that, in addition to encyclopedias and reference books, philosophy department prospectuses are a useful source to borrow from, plagiarise &c. Thanks to Ludivikus for that idea. Dbuckner 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick: the Quinton article is proof of what you require. The burden of proof has shifted to the negative. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus: Briefly for User:Dbuckner's sake!

  • You say, Philosophy is Rational .....
And you say, Ludvikus says Philosophy is not Rational. I didn't say this (you must have lost yourself in my verbal forest). There's a THIRD alternative: Your reliance on this single term, Rational, as explaining philosophy is misplaced. That should have had you paraphrase me as saying: Ludvikus says neither (one, or its negation).
  • But I see you've made some progress in your reading over the week-end:
You've moved your philosophical Consciousness from the Rationalists, and the Age of Reason, right up to Kant. You are now in his Critique of Pure Reason. So you're now marketing your Personal View - as if Kant did not exist - that philosophy is critical enquiry. You are (though you're not aware of it obviously) looking at all of what Philosophy is - from a Critical point of view.
  • But that's still the 18th century - irrespective of your cited readings above, which was of a more recent vintage (your philosophical thinking is excellent evidence of the role of the Irrational - don't take offense defensively, which you will most likely do anyway).
  • Regarding Rick's reference to European Post Modernism you seem totally unaware of its existence. Is that because it's in the 20th century, and your still stuck in the 18th?

PS (by Ludvikus of course, regarding Postmodernism): 

    modernism places a great deal of importance on ideals such as rationality,
    objectivity, and progress -- as well as other ideas rooted in the Enlightenment,
    and as positivist and realist movements from the late 19th century
    -- while postmodernism questions whether these ideals can actually exist at all.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Equally briefly, where did I say "philosophy is rational", and where did I say "Ludvikus says Philosophy is not Rational"? Another informatl rule of Wikipedia is that if you say someone said something, you quote exactly what they said. I tend to say things like "philosophy is characterised by its reliance on rational enquiry". I'm surprised if I said "philosophy is rational". So can you find where I said that? Dbuckner 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
On whether the critical nature of philosophy is my personal view or not, read the quotations I supplied above. Dbuckner 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote (from above) of your paraphrasing: 

    . . . that the philosophical method does not involve reason.
     Thanks.Dbuckner 08:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    Rick, have you found any sources yet which support your claim
    that philosophy is not characterised by the method of rational enquiry?
    Dbuckner 08:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    [emphasis added]
  • Neither I, nor Rick say, or deny, what you paraphrase above (read boldface), Dbuckner.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So I did not say what you claimed I said. Please be acccurate in quoting others. Dbuckner


--- Are you, User:Dbuckner for, or against, dropping rational from the opening paragraph - as it is inconsistent, inter alia, with the views of Postmodernists? --Ludvikus 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no view on the matter until someone finds reliable and authoritative sources to back this view up. Dbuckner 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Western world & knowing

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Let's agree on what's most agreeable - regarding the openning paragraph.

  • Western should link to Western world (it currently links to the disambiguation page).
  • knowledge should be changed to the more inclusive - and less pretenscious - knowing.
  • rational shall be dropped as an adjective qualifying inquiry.
  • We all agree, right?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No to what, Ben? --Ludvikus 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Two and three. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In what sense is "knowing" (which I've never seen used in this way outside of an academic context) less pretensious than the perfectly standard word "knowledge"? VoluntarySlave 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

All A are B

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

If this article is to claim that all philosophy is rational, it is not enough to show that some philosophy is rational, and it is not enough to show that all philosophy departments offer courses in rational philosophy. In the western tradition, Kant was one of the first to make the claim that reason is insufficient to answer the big questions of philosophy. In the eastern tradition, Zen is a good example of a philosophy that maintains that you must kill the rational mind in order to attain enlightenment.

Here is a philosophy course offered at Harvard (the first place I looked):

Feminist Philosophy Open to grad students and college students with consent of instructor. Prerequisites: Consent of instructor.. This course is an introduction to the major varieties of philosophical feminism: Liberal Feminism (Mill, Wollstonecraft, Okin, Nussbaum); Radical Feminism (MacKinnon, Dworkin); Difference Feminism (Gilligan, Held, Noddings); and Postmodern "Queer" Feminism (Rubin, Butler). After studying each of these approaches, we focus on political and ethical problems of contemporary international feminism, asking how well each of the approaches addresses these problems Martha Nussbaum.

Any definition of philosophy has to be inclusive enough to include this course. Rick Norwood 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but the issue at hand is not whether or not "rational" should be included in the intro at all. This other guy wants it scrapped entirely, contrary to evidence. Yes, all efforts should be made to be inclusive, but the point is, whatsisname here wants to be exclusive. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm sort of offended that the above course listing was presumed to be an obvious argument against reason. I don't know the details of "difference" and "queer" feminisms, but I do know some of Gilligan's work (i.e., vs. Kohlberg), and it has empirical bones to it. Technically, I am a liberal feminist, and a great fan of Mill's, so there's nothing obviously unreasonable there. And I've had some limited exposure to the standpoint epistemologists (in first year). Though I can't pretend to have understood a hell of a lot that was being said, it was probably due to some epistemic babel, not irrationality proper. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well put, Rick, in my opinion. Inclusivity - I agree on that.

But of course, I can hear the retort (not mine, I'm with you Rick): these people (the Radical Feminists) engage in a "critiquue", or "criticism", which itself is rational.
On the other hand, you might be physically attacked by the other side, a Feminist (and Ben & Dbrucker will enjoy this), who will hit you while saying, You sexist pig - how dare you say that we are not rational?
The point being (I'll invent a metaphor here) one (wo)man's coffee is another (wo)man's tea. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivial or Controvesial

  • I've been asked to be brief (as if it'll help).
  • Trivial: Philosophy is rational inquiry. Retort: Every inquiry is rational.
  • Controversial: Ben & Dbuckner are irrational here. Retort: No, you are (meaning me).
    • Did I make my point briefly? Yes, but too brief to pursuade irrationalist!
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Darmok and Gilaad at Tinagara. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When the word philosophy was first used by the Greeks, it meant simply the search for knowledge or science.

Soon after, through the influence of Socrates, Plato, and later, Aristotle, it took on the additional meaning of the search for wisdom or the best life."

A specific sense of the word first meets us in Plato, who defines the philosopher as one who apprehends the essence or reality of things in opposition to the man who dwells in appearance and the shows of sense.

Logic, ethics, and physics, psychology, theory of knowledge, and metaphysics are all fused together by Plato in a semi-religious synthesis. It is not till we come to Aristotle that we find a demarcation of the different philosophic disciplines corresponding, in the main, to that still current.

So Aristotle separates philosophy into disciplines but each discipline is ultimately trying to do the same thing: apprehend the essence or reality of things. Right? Zhang Guo Lao 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That would take argument. Most people wouldn't agree that ethics is about apprehending the fundamental reality of things. Plato (and all other forms of transcendental realism) would, but they're a minority position. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the photo

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The large photo doesnt belong at the top of the article. Please remove. -Ste|vertigo 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Replies

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

1. Rick:On the feminist philosophy, even Wikipedia maintains in Feminist philosophy that feminist philosophy attempts to use the methods of philosophy. And the philosophical method, as the citations show, involves rational, critical and more or less systematic investigation. Ludvikus has already made that point for me. In addition, it seems insulting to suggest that feminist philosophy couldn't possibly be rational. What actually did you mean there?

2. Rick: "If this article is to claim that all philosophy is rational, it is not enough to show that some philosophy is rational". I wasn't showing that some philosophy is rational. I was showing that some philosophers say that philosophy is rational. E.g. Quinton: "philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world …" Do you see the difference?

3. Ludvikus, on whether the definition of 'enquiry' includes 'rational'. I've already replied to this above. No it doesn't. To 'enquire' means to ask. An 'enquiry' is thus the process of asking something. Thus can be done in a rational and methodical way, or not. An 'inquiry' (note the spelling) means an official investigation of something, as in a government inquiry. Since the purpose of these is often to 'prove' the official line (note my scare quotes) these are not always rational.

4. On Aristotle, he defines philosophy as the investigation of first causes and fundamental reasons. That is in the metaphysics. I don't know about the ethics. I'll take a look.

5. On Kant, there is a difference between using reason to establish the limits of reason, and not using reason at all. What does Kant actually say here?

6. "When the word philosophy was first used by the Greeks, it meant simply the search for knowledge or science". Which Greeks? Aristotle simply says that philosophy = wisdom, and then defines wisdom as knowledge of the fundamental reasons behind anything. I've just located a Greek copy of the Metaphysics, so I'll search through to see what actual words he uses. Dbuckner 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Perseus site which gives the English of the Metaphysics in parallel with the Greek. Then you can see exactly what Greek word Aristotle uses. For example, you can see what word he uses for the 'irrationality' of the diagonal of the square. Regarding philosophy, he has two words. One is literally 'lover of wisdom' and 'loving wisdom' (philosopher and philosophising), which he uses to describe the early philosophers and what they did. The other is just plain 'wisdom', which he defines as knowledge of first principles. I think anyone who is going to argue about this should at least read chapter 1. Dbuckner 09:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The feminist quote was to show that some people still study postmodernism. Somebody, I forget who now, said it was no longer taken seriously. 2. Yes, of course I take your point. 5. As for what Kant actually says, I've never been able to get more than three pages into Critique without deciding that I needed a little lie down. 6. Origins do not always reflect current usage. Rick Norwood 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction, Consensus forum for choosing our intro

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current page (9th Jan 2006) is a locked version that occurred at an arbitrary moment in the development of this page. At that time, a number of proposed intros were being discussed here. I restore this discussion as it had been archived in my absence on New Years eve. Feel free to comment on the below intros but please be brief and to the point, long pastings of dictionary entries and discussion unrelated to that intro would be better avoided.

To propose another intro add another subsection (ie, with ===) below.

Note, also that the first main section of the arbitrary locked article, "Philosophy in Historical Context", was not in any of the previous versions. And was a part only of one of the competing intros (D). So, should we elect by concensus a mixed or different intro this section would also need to be altered or reverted to the first main section previously there, "Branches of Philosophy".

Some guidlines for intros, it should neither be too short nor overly long, about a page or less. Guidelines suggest starting with "Philosophy is...". Since there have been so many philosophers and philosophy books, encylopedias etc. don't assume that just because you have a referenced source that it is uncontestable.

I don't understand why the following are presented as mutually exclusive. Philosophy is all of these things. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved all 10 A4 pages of this into a special archive. Please don't put material like this on the current talk page, as it's too lengthy, disrupts the flow, and it is confusing when backdated comments appear on a current talk page. Thanks. Also, why on earth would anyone want to discuss these 4 definitions. They are very poorly written. What we should be doing is discussing the definition point by point, numbering each possible section and refining the wording of each. Point 1 was how much should be said about the etymology. Point 2 was about whether words like 'rational' 'methodical' 'critical' should characterise the methodology. Every other authoritative reference source says they should. Everyone in Wikipedia says they shouldn't, mostly. What makes Wikipedia different? Is it that the editors here are much better philosophers, or more authoritative? How do we decide? Dbuckner 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lucidish that they are not mutually exclusive in a sense, one could say, for example, philosophy is rational for one philosopher and for another based on dialectic or is undecidable (incommensurate), etc. Yet we do need a text for the intro so unless you propose a long intro with all four intros we need to choose, even then you would need to choose what ordering of the 4 texts would be best.

The point is not to pretend the current page is the right one, it is just a random date that it was locked. The current page is a late choice of a page that had been suddenly and drastically changed and then locked. The point is that before we go to long debates about each word, rational/etymology etc. we need to have a basis to start that basis is one of these four choices which were by mere fiat discarded and only the 4th one left and locked in position when in fact it was the one of the four that seemed to have least support.

I will include brief outlines of the four and leave the comments in the archive. So, I would suggest:

Step 1. Replace the current page immediately with a stable one from prior to December 29th, when it was radically re-written and suddenly locked. Step 2. Choose one of the four intros (the current one being one of them) Step 3. Reword that choice based on consensus here about using words like rational, Western etc. Since I expect the suggested word by word discussion to be long so we should have at least something in the meantime that is not just the view of one editor who crashed in ongoing and fruitful discussion of the previous updates and locked the page.

Also there need be value given no suggestion that the following four are "awful" as Dbuckner suggests, since the current arbitrary intro is the fourth one (D) divided into an intro and the recently inserted, first section. So if they are all awful then so is the current one even more so since it garnered the least support in archived discussions and in fact was a very late revision of the intro which was hardly discussed at all before it was locked.

(A) Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation

Philosophy is the investigation and analysis of the basic principles which are the basis of all our knowledge and activity and are normally taken for granted. As a concept and as a subject it encompases all of knowledge and all that can be known including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired. The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. This organization of the subject is still largely in use today and can be profitably used regardless of where one's answers to specific philosophical questions lie.

Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of existence in the most fundamental sense. It attempts to answer the question as to what are the most fundamental attributes that all existing things share, if any, as well as fundamental questions concerning how they relate to one another. Epistemology ...

Comments on "Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation"

(B) Philosophy as hard to define

Philosophy is that which has almost as many definitions as there have been philosophers. No simple definition can do it justice. Uncontested however, is the etymology of the word.

The word philosophy comes from the ancient Greek words philo-, to love or to befriend, and, -sophia, to be wise. It can be construed then either as the love of wisdom or the wisdom of love.

In the contemporary English-speaking academic world it is often used implicitly to refer only to analytic philosophy and, on the other hand, in non-English speaking countries, it often refers implicitly only to continental philosophy.

Some tentative definitions of Philosophy might include:

  • The study or discussion of the truths, principles and practices of knowledge, and conduct, being, and ideology
  • The provision of a solid foundation for scientific thought and for political action
  • The dissolution and relief from enigmas and mysteries ([citation needed]).
  • That which grasps its own era in thought[1]
  • An interpretation of the world in order to change it [2]
  • An attempt to answer and set boundary questions such as, "What is the good life?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

...

Comments on "Philosophy as hard to define"

(C) Philosophy as the study of being/knowledge/conduct

Philosophy is the investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. The word comes from the ancient Greek words philo-, to love or to befriend, and -sophia, to be wise, and is commonly translated as "love of wisdom". In Western philosophy, the emphasis is on the rational investigation of truths and principles; in Eastern philosophy, there is greater emphasis on a more intuitive investigation. Philosophy is differentiated from science by an emphasis on first principles over empirical methods.

Academics distinguish between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy within Western philosophy. This modern-day division of analytic and continental philosophy is problematic for understanding the current use of the word philosophy. In fact, modern usage of the term is much broader than this academic division would indicate.


Comments on "Philosophy as the study of being/knowledge/conduct"

(D) Philosophy as a Western intellectual subject, an defined by encyclopedias as X

Philosophy (literally 'love of wisdom') is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition that is concerned with rational inquiry into issues of knowledge (What is it to know?), being (What is?), and conduct (What is right?).

Philosophy in Historical Context (first section after intro)

According to the Grolier Encyclopedia (1957), "When the word philosophy was first used by the Greeks, it meant simply the search for knowledge or science. Soon after, through the influence of Socrates, Plato, and later, Aristotle, it took on the additional meaning of the search for wisdom or the best life." [1] According to the New Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica (1904), "A specific sense of the word first meets us in Plato, who defines the philosopher as one who apprehends the essence or reality of things in opposition to the man who dwells in appearance and the shows of sense. Logic, ethics, and physics, psychology, theory of knowledge, and metaphysics are all fused together by Plato in a semi-religious synthesis. It is not till we come to Aristotle that we find a demarkation of the different philosophic disciplines corresponding, in the main, to that still current." [2]


Comments on "Philosophy as a Western intellectual subject, and defined by encyclopedias as X"

  1. ^ See the article Definition of philosophy for the sources of this definition of philosophy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy/Archive_13&oldid=1142443843"