Talk:Philosophy/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

References

This is v depressing after the work last year on a consensus version. Below I have listed some definitions by reasonably notable people, on the way that philosophy is characterised by its method (i.e. only by its method). I also found on Trinity College Dublin's website a version of the introduction we last agreed by consensus last year. It is instructive which bits they used (including 'wedded to reason').

I don't understand why we don't like 'wedded'. It was suggested by an eminent philosopher who used to be an editor here. Trinity College like it. It suggests that philosophy and reason are on an equal basis (so reason is neither the handmaiden, nor is she the ultimate authority to which philosophy must appeal in every case). Moreover 'wedded' implies commitment but possibly the occasional infidelity. If anyone can suggest a turn of phrase which captures all those ideas then fine.

A

Philosophy is an activity: it is a way of thinking about certain sorts of question. Its most distinctive feature is its use of logical argument. (Philosophy the Basics, Nigel Warburton).

B

Philosophy is the activity by means of which the meaning of statements is clarified and defined. (Moritz Schlick, 'Die Wende der Philosophie' in Erkenntnis, 1, 1930).

C

Philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about

1. the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), 2. the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and 3. 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:

1. 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. 2. Everyone has 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. 3. 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 - Oxford Companion to Philosophy

D

Philosophy is an activity, a way of enquiring, reasoning, analysing, arguing, and so on. It isn't a set of claims, propositions, theories, or whatever -- it is the process that leads to those things. The dualist belief of a Christian isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith; the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief.

Peter J. King 100 philosophers

E

The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a theory but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. The result of philosophy is not a number of 'philosophical propositions' [philosophische Sätze], but to make propositions clear. Wittgenstein Tractatus 4.112

F

"Western philosophy is wedded to reason and other faculties of the human mind, unaided by any divine instrument." On Philosophical Synthesis (G. R. Malkani) Philosophy East and West, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jul., 1963), pp. 99-103

G

"Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); what existence is and what it means to be (ontology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, making no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based purely on analogy, revelation, or authority. In Greek, "philosophy" means "love of wisdom." Philosophy is based on rational argument and appeal to facts. The questions addressed by philosophy remain the most general and most basic, the issues that underlie the sciences and stand at the base of a world-view."

Trinity College Dublin Philosophy dept prospectus, using the original version of the Philosophy intro). Peter Damian (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that that article was relatively stable, and the recent changes not discussed, seems strange considering that there have been more than 100 posts in talk in just the last few days.

Your definitions do not say what you say they say. For example:

You say, "philosophy is characterised by its method (i.e. only by its method)"

Your first reference says: "Philosophy is an activity: it is a way of thinking about certain sorts of question."

Note that "about certain sorts of questions".

If philosophy were characterized "only" by its method, how would it differ from mathematics?

What is your objection to the current, referenced definition, which I chose from a long list of definitions proposed a long time ago, but referenced here recently. I chose that one primarily because it was short, and seemed to say what needed to be said.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My objection is the source is obscure, and does not agree with most standard definitions. I have given references for the original version. Peter Damian (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

9.4.2 A Its most distinctive feature is its use of logical argument. Yes, but to what ends?

9.4.2 B Hmmm, is this the 'linguistic turn'?

9.4.3 C Philosophy is rationally critical thinking... seems useful for this article.

9.4.3 C 1. Not wrong, but dangerous territory: 'My Philosophy of life is...etc'

9.4.4 D Philosophy is an activity, a way of enquiring, reasoning, analysing, arguing, and so on. It isn't a set of claims, propositions, theories, or whatever -- it is the process that leads to those things. -supports Method (but not the second sentence)

9.4.5 E Wittgenstein says 'elucidations' : that's a real neat word, by gum.

9.4.6 F Ah, so it is G.R. Malkani whom is to be blamed for that wretched analogy 'wedded'. Well, if Malkani must have their way, then so be it. Who, pray tell, is the bridesmaid, and who the groom, etc? Oh, BTW the quote (taken at face value, but out of context) is wrong in fact; faith and reason have continually jousted in mankind's thoughts and philosophies; Wittgenstein explicated religious beliefs, isn't Aquinas a philosopher as well as a theologian? Let's not open that can of worms in the lead.

9.4.7 G Trinity College. Yes, except for the dreaded 'wedded' analogy this is perfectly adequate. A previous version of the lead, is it not?

Some comments IMHO at this point in time, all care but no responsibilty taken by the management etc. --NewbyG (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep re-looking at this list and still only find one quote which says that philosophy is "a method" although several several say it is "an activity". In my dialect of English, the word "method" and "activity" are not synonymous. Therefore I am mystified why the one quote which says philosophy is a "method" is selected when more quotes say it is an activity, and clainms the latter as suporting the former. I am even more mystified that nobody seems to be able to say what that one method is. Am I missing something here? --Philogo 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoid edit war

Guys neither version is stable, both were developed in the last couple of days. Not only that but several authors (including you Peter) seem to have a habit of changing the main text prior to agreeing alternatives here. I suggest no more changes by anyone without an agreement here.

My own view on this is that we could get rid of either sentence as I don't see either as strictly necessary. If we have to have one then I would suggest:

• Method on its own is not enough to define Philosophy
• Wedded is a bit florid and could be replaced by some of the earlier suggestion

--Snowded (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

NO wrong the version I have reverted to has been stable since Feb 2007. Stable enough that Trinity College Dublin now have it in their prospectus. The earlier suggestions replacing 'wedded' were awful. Peter Damian (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest a suitable replacement for 'wedded' then. It has rather attracted some deprecation in posts to this page. The Trinity version is reasonable, but would be better without that very loose anology, with all its implications (de facto philosophy anyone?) and Malkani's quote does not inspire me, singularly, in that we do not want in any way to open up the faith-versus-reason imbrologio in the Lead Section (and weddings suggest 'religious' observances just by way of one more excellent reason to strike that pesky word). --NewbyG (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose

We will have no sentences trying to define what philosphy is, or what its methods are, or the equivalent, in this article. --Philogo 21:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not agree. The version I have reverted to has been stable since early 2007. Give me some solid arguments to replace it. See all the citations above. Peter Damian (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave a number of arguments above. I would add that the while attempt seems to dumb down the article. A secton discussig various views as to the nature of a philosophical problem would be another matter, (if it were written seriously with opposing views from texts of note. "Stable" does not mean "good" or even "useful". A lot of people might well not bother to read the rest of the article having come to this "What is philosophy" bit, assuming it was not a serious article. I find it embarrasing. But let's see what others say: is 1 for and 1 against so far.--Philogo 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Peter altered the following giving no reasons other that the wording he subsituted was "stable". Stability is hardly an argument: the view that Sun went round the earth was pretty "stable" but that did make it a superior.

Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate and very general, concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value. In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. The central elements are logic,epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, ethics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and aesthetics.

Peter should says why his substitution is better, explaining why philosophy is a method, so that philosphy cannot change its methods without ceasing to be philosophy. --Philogo 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison - This seemed reasonable — Philosophy attempts to answer the big questions with the help of reason. — though I don't think it is the best we have.

The version just above this post: also reasonable, could be improved.

The (current?) version, different from both above? : yes.

Let's discuss or propose changes on this page; I am not 'committed' to any particular version, and discussing a particular version here does not necessarily imply a commitment to that version, or any other, if that makes sense. --NewbyG (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with the latest change by Newbyguesses which seems a reasonable compromise. Although I note direct edit rather than discussion! I suppose each page has its own style of editorship. --Snowded (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting stability is a reason for keeping in the long-term, but the serious edit wars over the introduction pre Feb 2007, when Peter King & I wrote the present version, suggest that we should not change a stable version until we have consensus. It is also a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we stick to versions which achieved consensus previously, until a new consensus. So I have reverted, until then.

I don't understand the objections to 'wedded'. Why is it florid? This is a pejorative term for ornate, suggesting useless decoration. 'Wedded' is Peter King's word, and it expresses exactly the relationship required. Philosophy is not merely 'aided' by reason, which a servant or handmaiden might do, but rather the relationship is equal (and implying commitment, without absolute fidelity). Until we can find a word that expresses exactly that relation, I would like to keep.

"In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument." is itself imprecise, suggesting that it is the study of philosophy, rather than the practice which requires careful argument &c. Peter Damian (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wedded in colloquial use normally has a negative context, sticking to something that you should have given up. Now this may something about colloquial attitudes to marriage. The reference to religion and its linkage to superstition is also unfortunate in the current text (after your reversion), it takes a position rather than being a neutral statement. --Snowded (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's a position but it is a correct one. There is another use of 'wedded' which is not pejorative, but I shall change to 'committed' if that is your objection. Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter - please do not insist that other people discuss changes here before changing them but exempt yourself. Wedded not a good word, committed is I think better so that is an improvement. The religion/superstition issue you have not addressed sor the alternative suggestion from Newbyguesses which can not simply be rejected on the grounds it was not agreed by you and one other some years ago. --Snowded (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well happy for you to revert back. I only insist that the basis we start from is the original version, which did include 'superstition and religion' for some months. Peter Damian (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I see you have reverted. Can I suggest 'characterised by appeal to' which softens the harsh effect of 'religion and superstition', i.e. neither religion nor superstition are 'characterised' by this, though religion may certainly be committed to use of reason (e.g. Aquinas). Peter Damian (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way the 'religion and superstition' bit was in fact by Rick Norwood. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave for meetings in London, I will return to this tonight. Personally I still like the phrase from Newbyguesses. Sort of apologies for reversion, but we have to stop making direct edits and discuss here first it was very frustrating over the weekend when that was not complied with. --Snowded (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for making direct edits. I too have to leave for London. "Superstition is a considerable ingredient in almost all religions, even the most fanatical; there being nothing but philosophy able entirely to conquer these unaccountable terrors" - Hume. Peter Damian (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and as others have said before me Hume was wrong! Interesting new stuff on the role of religion coming out in evolutionary psychology and some cog science my the way. --Snowded (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for years, and whatever we decide will be changed by the next generation of editors. Still, we need to do our best. I explained above, Peter Damian, why your references do not really claim that philosophy is method alone. You did not respond. Also, the dislike of the word "wedded" seems to be pretty universal, so I have to ask why you are wedded to "wedded". Also, no definition that dismissed religion out of hand is going to last very long.

It seems to me that we need to say something. The two words that people seem to want in are "big" and "reason". Where can we go from there? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to quit squabbling among ourselves and find an authority that a majority of us (2 out of 3? 3 out of 5?) respect.

A couple of famous quotes on the subject.

Alfred North Whitehead, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."

George Santayana, "It is a great advantage for a system of philosophy to be substantially true."

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of Philosophy by major authors

Here is a modern textbook by Copleston paraphrasing Aristotle paraphrasing Thales: "Philosophy naturally tries to understand the plurality we experience , its existence and nature, and to understand in this connection means, for the philosopher, to discover an underlying unity or first principle."

From "What is Philosophy" by Deleuze et. al. "The following definition of philosophy can be taken as decisive: knowledge through pure concepts."

Monty Python philosophy, "Life's a piece of shit."

I don't think any of these are quite what we are looking for, though the first is tempting. I look forward to better contributions from others. I think we want to look at the writing of philosophers rather than academics. Textbooks are expecially bad, usually written in a jargon called textbookese. (Math textbooks are the exception, of course.) Rick Norwood (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

More definitions

I have added to Talk:Philosophy/Quotations the excellent 10 definitions (actually 9, because I already had Nagel's) that User:271828182 found in his garage. Once again 10 out of 10 for 'reason' or 'rationality'. I don't see any reason for changing the existing intro substantially. As a concession to the position of those who dislike 'wedded' (I don't understand why, it was written by a qualified philosopher who has written many books about the nature of philosophy, and was good enough be used by Trinity College) and change as per this diff.Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to change the existing intro substantially. As for 'wedded', it is one word, and respect to Trinity College, it is not the King James Bible, is it. The appeal to authority, is, moreover, a fallacious type of argument. I would say more here, but why bother, when argument is replied to by revert? --NewbyG (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, characterised by appeal to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.

So far there has been only one objection to my proposal. So it is 1 for and 1 against. --Philogo 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Two objections --Snowded (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Three objections -- see below for reasons. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer - 'Philosophical investigations unlike those of religion or superstition proceed by way of reasoning...' Lose the word 'appeal', certainly. --NewbyG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I note that of the 7 quotations A-G only the last claims that Philosophy is characterized by its methods. Thta 6:1 against "Method". IS that why it was chosen?--Philogo 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the definition I added to the article is one of the ten definitions on Peter Damian's list. He reverted it.

Everyone here (as far as I know) likes reason and logic. The objection is to saying that a) all philosophers are reasonable (counterexamples abound) and b) all that is reasonable is philosophy (philosophy is method).

Also, I don't think this article should dismiss religion so cavalierly.

I think we need to keep looking.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not forget about it?--Philogo 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to dismiss religion so cavalierly, in the lead section, that is not the purpose of a lead section. --NewbyG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are agreed on changing "wedded" in one case with reluctance! We are agreed on reason although I am less sure that logic adds to this. In the common sense use of the word fine, but in the meaning more common in Philosophy I am less sure as much that counts as logic is dependent on a theory of language which can be questioned. I think several of us are concerned with limiting philosophy to "method" and I would prefer to remove it. I think we are also agreed that an article on Philosophy should not dismiss religion or necessarily associate it with superstition. Is that a fair summary? --Snowded (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me we have a substantial agreement as to what we want to say in the Lead section, and desultory confusion as to how to say it best. As the page is presently rather busy, I think I will refrain from the edit which it is obvious that I would like to make just for now. Also, I'm unexpectedly called away to deal with some problems concerning my elderly parents. Looking forward with interest to seeing the further progress of this page under the capable stewardship of whichever esteemed editors get stuck in while I am off-line. Cheers --NewbyG (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we are close to agreement. Which, of course, doesn't mean we won't be fighting this same battle here next year. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Branches of philosophy

I have replaced branches of philosophy because this was part of the 2007 version, it got misplaced when the article was badly vandalised - I don't believe there was any consensus to remvove it. (If there was then by all means remove it, but most articles of this sort do have some discussion or explanation of the branches.

I think this is better balanced now, but needs rewording but it is going in the right direction. If we keep the rule of 1-3 sentences each and generally aim to improve each one that will be goodness. --Snowded (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also completely rewritten the 'ancient philosophy' section. Peter Damian (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you lost something here with the removal of Socratic method

Also completely rewritten the early modern section. The 'later modern' and 'modern' sections seem not to bad. Peter Damian (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is generally agreed that philosophy is a method": a challenge

I challenge any editor to
1. Explain how, if the above is true, that philosophy could change its method or indeed adopt a second one, without ceasing to be philosophy
2. State what the method is
3. Say how it is known it is "generally agreed" and by whom. --Philogo 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Responses to challenge

No responses! That's very disappointing. This who believe that philosophy is a method are being very mean and grudging with their knowledge. Why will they not tell us what the method is? Then we can go though our collections of so-called philosophy books and weed out the ones that don't use the one true method. What is it: do tell! Socrates himself has returned from the shades to sit at your feet and here the pronouncement. Courage! Speak! Enlighten! --Philogo 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A most eloquent silnce fell.--Philogo 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Damian's edit

A good edit, though somewhat rushed. I've polished a bit, and cleaned up a few typos, but made only minor changes.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

African Philosophy

I fully understand that philosophy in general is very west-centered. However, it would be nice for this section to lay out some of the projects that African philosophers are engaged in that are different from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. --Jbadge24

Reply

1. To the objection that few of the sources cited use the word ‘method’. Maybe not, but they nearly all use the word ‘way’, and use the word ‘systematic’. Now a method is by definition a way of doing things, especially one that is systematic. I recommend the careful reading of the Quinton quote. See also the expanded Talk:Philosophy/Quotations
2. To Philogo’s objection: certainly, whatever does not have the characteristics that are distinctive and characteristic of philosophy, then it is not philosophy. That is obvious. I don’t see the problem.
3. To Norwood’s objection that other subjects, e.g. mathematics, are distinguished by their rational, systematic, critical approach, I say to understand the word ‘distinguished’. Mathematics and other subjects are primarily distinguished by their subject matter. Philosophy has no real subject matter, other than (perhaps) the most general, primary and fundamental questions. Philosophy is thinking clearly and logically about the most fundamental questions. Period.
4. To the objection about religion, I say understand the word ‘distinguished’. Some religion, particularly the scholastic system, employs reason a great deal. But it is not distinguished by its use of reason, nor is reason the final court of appeal. Aquinas e.g. regards the truths of revealed authority as transcending reason. Reason is the handmaiden of theology, not its mistress. Happy to change the wording to make it clear that no implied disparagement of religious beliefs. Peter Damian (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Won't you try to answer my challenge above?--Philogo 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just done that. Please stop this prevarication. Peter Damian (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh so forceful and commanding Peter - but alas, not convincing. Now do stop messing about and tell us what this one true method is. There a space reserved for your response above. --Philogo 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Method of philosophizing - It is not so much a matter of 'method' as it is of 'methods'. Perhaps it is 'methodical' that is the requirement. Philosophy involves thought. (Thought is an action, or activity undertaken apparently, by certain individuals, or so they say.)

Philosophers proceed by various methods or means. They cogitate, they discuss, they write, they argue, they inquire. They think. They use words, and try to follow from one point to the next in their thinking methodically, taking no unjustified steps. --NewbyG (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To most mathematicians, mathematics is distinguished by its method, pure reason from axioms and definitions, rather than by its subject matter. Witness the new mathematical areas of coding theory and game theory. I would say the same is true of science, a method rather than a set of subjects. Not everybody agrees with this, but not everybody agrees with your definition of philosophy, either.

I would vote in favor of your definition above, if you would change one word: "Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions." If you want to go on to say that "Most philosophers agree that logic and reason are essential to philosophy." I have no problem with that, either. I would have a problem if you changed "most" to "all". As for religion, I think it is best we not mention it, at least not in the introduction. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How about "Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions through the application of reason" --Snowded (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're close to an agreement. As I've said, for the reasons I've given, I don't want to make the claim that all philosophers use only reason in their work. Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason. I don't agree, but I'm not Kant. Can we agree on:

"Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions. Logic is the characteristic method of philosophy."

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that moves us away a bit. Logic has a lot of associations connected with semantic meaning which I am not sure can be sustained. I am not arguing for being illogical, but that logic has its limits. You are right about the Kantian dichotomy though (I never liked that). How about "Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions where possible through the application of reason" --Snowded (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the reading of Kant, Rick has raised this many times before. So by way of reply, here is a link to what an Kant expert said to Rick last time. “With all due respect to Rick, he's said that he hasn't read Kant; I don't know if he's read books about Kant; but I'd ask him please not to hold up the page with what appears to be a second or third hand misinterpretation.”

The alternatives given here are no more likely to be accepted by the majority of philosophers. None of the quotations in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations use the word ‘carefully’. One uses the word ‘careful’ but that is in the expression ‘careful’ reasoning. By contrast, do a ctrl-F on ‘reason’ or ‘rational’. It’s blindingly obvious where the ‘weighted average’ lies, and that is all we are after. We are never going to get a definition that everyone agrees 100% with, we are merely trying to come up with something that reflects what the majority of secondary sources say.

Also, no one is claiming “that all philosophers use only reason in their work”. Very few if any philosophers actually do. The question is what characterises the method or way of doing philosophy that they would aspire to. Can someone try to understand this distinction.

So I don’t see any reasonable arguments at all for changing the current intro much from where it is at the moment. I.e. drop “wedded to reason” for “characterised by appeal to reason” which nicely brings in the idea of ‘appealing’ to reason.

On the notion that philosophy does the ‘big questions”, we already have that in the quote from Blackburn.Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So it currently says "Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4]"

We have also agreed that the reference to religion is wrong.

SO I think you may be saying Its investigations are characterised by appeal to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4] --Snowded (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can go with "characterised by an appeal to reason". In fact, you'll notice it is close to what I suggested above. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax: Soon we will be told that the one true method of Philosophy is, then where there was darkness there will be light!--Philogo 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that Peter Damian has said that his "one true method" is reason. Let's at least try to get along. Where he goes too far -- far beyond his sources -- is insisting that anything discovered by reason qualifies as philosophy, and that all philosophers agree that reason is the method of philosophy.

But nothing is to be gained by going around and around about this. Can we all accept one of the suggestions above? Let me put that another way. Does anyone object to

Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions. Most philosophers agree that rational discourse is the proper method to address these questions.Rick Norwood (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather stick with 'wedded to reason' than 'characterized by appeal to reason'. Appeal is just another sloppy analogy. Why do we persist in the antropologicalization error? Poor style of writing and word choices should not be allowed to detract from and distract the reader from following the discourse. My dog barks, it doesn't talk or appeal to me. And I dont 'appeal' to reason, I 'employ' reason (another analogy, yes). Reason is a concept, an abstract, not a person; reason has no ears to hear our appeal. clunkitty clunkitty. I have no problems with the current text, if that is the best alternative on offer. --NewbyG (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the version I suggest does not use the words "wedded", "appeal", or "employ". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason is a tool

Let's keep working on the lead section if necessary, if in fact it is necessary.

Reason is a 'tool' we employ when doing philosophy (among other things used, and among other activities which benefit from a reasoned approach, i.e. crossing the road). Reason is a 'tool' like a saw is a tool for cutting wood. I do not"appeal" to a saw! I use a saw, or if we absolutely must have a metaphor/analogy to artificially stimulate the reader's empathy, I employ a saw. A saw has teeth, it is not "characterized by having teeth", that just wastes words. --NewbyG (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We are still working on just one sentence and we are not necessarily been rational in the way we are going about settling this. The sarcasm and bickering doesn't help and given Wikipedia's approach we need to use sources and/or gain consensus. Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant. Picking through the threads above how about this:

Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4]

I have removed the offending analogy, kept with reason rather than rational (associations with rationalism) --Snowded (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote of the day

Whether someone has read Kant is not relevant

Am I actually going mad. Norwood said " Kant, in particular, claimed that there were philosophical questions that could only be answered by going beyond reason. " And I pointed out that some time ago Norwood admitted he had never actually read any Kant (perhaps he has since then). Very good. Every time I have worked on this article I get to the point where I can take no more. I only bother with this page because the page statistic tell me 5,000 hits a day, that's about 1.8m people in the world rely on this page for some basic knowledge about Kant, say (who I have read, and was taught by a renowned Kant scholar). This really is completely mad. Resolution: never get involved with this article again. Go on guys, do your best. Peter Damian (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to go back to Wikipedia Review. I'm finished here (yes, I know, I tend to say that. But I'm really going to try hard this time). Peter Damian (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter that is an over reaction and taking my quote out of context (although I may have been unclear in which case I apologise). In the WIkipedia people can edit by referencing primary and secondary sources. Part of the strength is that the credibility of the edit is in the edit and its references not the person doing the editing. The previous comments were verging on the ad hominem, hence my comment. Good pages have both subject matter experts and others involved in their creation. A section on Kant, and the article on Kant would obviously require heavy weight subject expertise. The point about Kant arguing that there were things beyond reason in the context of agreeing a minor statement at the start of the page was OK. It does not require primary source, it could well be secondary. Of course not all who read, understand .... --Snowded (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm finished here. I tidied up the rest of the article which was a mess. I completed most of the work on Medieval philosophy which was a wreck. Any subject-matter expert who gets involved with an encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit' is insane. Time for a sanity check. I always regret coming back to this article. Peter Damian (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am not missing the point. Norwood, an amateur with no qualifications in this subject has regularly disrupted this page for years with his idiosyncratic views, and has made this claim about Kant many times to justify the version of the introduction he would like. One again, read Persistent_misreading_of_Kant_dogs_this_page. Peter Damian (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good pages have both subject matter experts and others involved in their creation. Subject matter experts are inevitably going to leave when they get involved in the equivalent of a usenet debate. Peter Damian (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my experience temperate subject matter experts respect the contribution of others. The Wikipedia is a complex system (in the scientific sense of the world) and idiosyncratic views get sorted out in the interactions. There are processes to handle vandalism and trolls and mediation processes. I find the whole thing a fascinating experiment which works. So I think you are in a minority. I do think that people should register (I don't like dealing with IP), and should be willing to declare their expertise but no institution is perfect. I think it would be a pity if you left, I understand you have a history with Norwood, but I always thought that philosophy should engage with the world. I chose to study it based on reading Plato at 14 and being fascinating by the ideas. At 14 I knew little, but I could engage. Too much philosophy fails to do this. --Snowded (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Pleas don't give up. I think that was meant as 'please do not belittle someone' because they haven't read Kant. It was perhaps a little unclear, I see User:Snowded has already acknowledged that, always a forward-going gesture.--

The comment did not seem to deserve the 'venting' which User:Peter Damian came out with, but we are all brushing that sort of stuff aside aren't we. It is still Lent where I live, and I gave up insults and taking offence this year. It is up to each user to choose to contribute or not; it is up to each of us to accommodate to that in good faith. --

Whether anyone has read Kant is irrelevant, as long as they don't edit the Kant-related sub-section, or blab on ignorantly about Kant on the talk -page. --

Wikipedia does not have a credentials policy; a most frustrating situation for those who do have professional qualifications. Ideally only those (professional) contributors could work on the body of articles, and interested lay-persons only stick their 2 pennies in when they can produce a reff. source, or tydy a speeling missteake. --

I will put up with a fair amount of snarkiness on a page if I can respect the valuable contributions of experts there. Others are entitled to be irked when seemingly attacked though, so we ought all be careful in that regard.

Say thank you when some humble editor contributes even a comma or semi-colon, it doesn't hurt. And it balances all those other times when editors well-meant ideas are shot down in humiliating flames. --

Don't drive away our expert contributors, I think there is currently a fairly heated policy-related discussion pursuant to that objective. Not that I am meaning to chide any contributor in particular here, unless it be myself to that effect. Cheers --NewbyG (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of how much patience one has with clearly idiosyncratic views based on self-confessed ignorance of the subject matter. And I'm not in the minority, hence my link to King's page above. (I am not him by the way). He was driven off by precisely this sort of thing. And for my part I have a difficult translation project that involves a lot of time and effort. I give my time and expertise here for free. Why on earth should I? What's the point? I spent a lot of time assembling a long list of quotations from reliable sources, that prove my point beyond any reasonable doubt. But this doesn't work. Just read the threads above. I am finished with this, I mean it. Peter Damian (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Kant:

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Pure Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…"[36], but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good."

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

back to the outstanding question

My latest attempt at synthesising the various views was:  ::Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4] I think that incorporates the various views but comments? It would be nice to finish this one off. Also I made a series of changes to the branches section. I hope they were non-controversial --Snowded (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, as I say I’m going to do my best to stay out of this for reasons of mental health, but I should point out that changing to ‘use’ from ‘wedded to’ fundamentally changes the entire meaning. Look at the following quotes, all from authoritative sources.

• Reasoning is the “mainstay” of work in philosophy (Cahn & Eckert)
• Its “ultimate goal” is to arrive at a rationally justified position (Pojman)
• Philosophy’s most “distinctive feature” is its use of logical argument (Warburton)
• It is “wedded to reason” (King/Trinity College Dublin)
• Reason & scrutiny are “integral” to the very idea of philosophy (Cottingham - referenced in the Philosophy article as note 4)
• Reason is “central” to philosophy (Muhlenberg College)
• The acceptance of no other authority than reason is “The most distinctive feature of philosophy” &c
• Because of its “unique” emphasis on clarity, argumentation, and critical evaluation … (SDSU)

These do not merely say that philosophy ‘uses’ reason. Surely you can see that? Have you or anyone actually gone through the list of sources I compiled and tried to frame a definition of philosophy that was a ‘best fit’ to all of these? And now that really really has to be it. Good luck. You are probably the most reasonable person of the group of editors here, and you clearly have some knowledge of the subject (your other edits were not bad). But I hope you keep your sanity. Peter Damian (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have been through the sources Peter and I am also active in the field, particularly in the integration of cognitive science into experimental methods for doing philosophical research. On that basis aone I am unhappy with the word "rational" becuase of its multiple associations with disputes and assumptions that we should be putting behind us. I understand your liking for "wedded" but it is more allegorical than factual. Reason is a good compromise and the proposed text reflects that (and incidentally most of the quotes you reference above. --Snowded (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrestling with a straw man. Everyone agrees that most philosophers are wedded to reason. Nobody here is trying to break up that marriage. There are a few philosophers who have fooled around with other muses, or at least accused their colleagues of doing so, but everybody here loves reason all to pieces, as long as it isn't carried to extremes. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again you both misunderstand and misrepresent my point. That is essentially why I am having nothing to do with this article. It is impossible to have a reasoned dialogue with you. Peter Damian (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black?--Philogo 00:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can we have our ball back, mister?" Rick Norwood (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Brevity is the soul of wit. The day will not be won by repetition, certainly not by name calling. We have several proposals before us. I suggest we vote and move on. Whatever we decide here will be changed by future editors, that's the wiki way. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

good to summarise them Rick, but then lets talk about it. A vote in Wikipedia is a last resort of consensus cannot be achieved. --Snowded (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. Just write the article yourself, Rick. Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I proposed ::Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.[4] any objections?

I have no objections, so long as you agree that you propose to eliminate the idea that use of reason is the “mainstay” of philosophical inquiry, or its ”ultimate goal”, or its “distinctive feature”, or that reason and scrutiny and critical attitude are “integral” to its nature, or that reason is “central” to it, its “most distinctive” feature. Any such idea you propose to remove from the introduction. I just want you to be absolutely clear about this. And are you then going to remove the misleading footnote 4 (by Cottingham)? Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter the phrase uses REASON and many of your original words. I am very clear about what it means --Snowded (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. You agree you are removing an important idea from the sentence, namely that the use of reason is not merely part of it, but distinguishes philosophy, or is central to it. You seem reluctant to address this point. Peter Damian (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

in a one sentence introduction I think the reference to reason in my draft establishes it that it is central to Philosophy. I don't agree that it distinguishes it however --Snowded (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care about whether you agree or not. The question is what reliable sources say. Reliable sources are almost unanimous in agreeing that the use of reason is fundamental to philosophy. That is not the same as merely saying that philosophy uses reason. Peter Damian (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter I wish you lecture less and discuss more. I am happy to agree that reason is fundamental to philosophy, that is not the same thing as to say that philosophy is defined by the use of reason. It is also a nonsense to say that Philosophy has some privileged use of reason over other disciplines. It is central to the Humanities and Science alike. We are dealing with a simple sentence here not an extended essay. --Snowded (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again I don’t care if you agree or not. All that matters is what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say black is white, then the article says that black is white. It doesn’t really matter what we think. If the sources say that “Philosophy has some privileged use of reason over other disciplines” then we say that. Note that none of the sources I quoted above do in fact say that “Philosophy has some privileged use of reason over other disciplines”. These are your words. Nor do any of them say that “philosophy is defined by the use of reason”. These again are your words. There are reliable sources that say that Philosophy is defined by the way it makes use of reason, but that is different again. Precision in language is of the utmost importance in framing definitions or characterisations or explanations. To your last point, that we are dealing simple sentence here not an extended essay, well quite. All the more reason to be precise in our language. I also note you still haven’t answered my question about the footnote 4, the one which begins ‘"It is integral to the very idea of philosophy …’. It is a nonsense to reject the idea that reason and a critical approach are integral to philosophy, and yet retain the footnote. Are you then going to delete the footnote, as I suggested? It is also of the utmost importance that a footnote should agree with what it is a note too, i.e. it should say not much more and not much less than what it is a note too – it should merely make the same point but in a longer or more detailed way. To summarise: what we think or believe is not relevant to what goes in the article. What goes in the article should either faithfully reflect what the reliable sources say, or should be a best fit (if the sources disagree or differ, as they inevitably will). So our job is to understand what the sources say (i.e. interpret) and then come up with a ‘best fit’. Are you familiar with the idea of the least squares method? Think of the reliable sources as the points, and think of the wording in the article as the smooth line that we draw between the points. The line (the introduction) may not pass through any point (i.e. it may exactly resemble none of the reliable sources) nevertheless it will represent the least overall disagreement with the sources. Hope that finally makes my position clear. End of lecture. Peter Damian (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Well attempting to sort out what you are saying Peter, and attempting to stay reasonable. You seem to be agreeing with me on what the sources say. Namely that they support the centrality of reason to Philosophy. On that we are agreed. You may want to emphasise it more than I do but I don't think that is a major issue. As to footnotes etc we can sort those out when we have an agreed form of words. Sources on this are in any event difficult as the definition of what philosophy is depends a bit on which particular school of philosophy you belong to. For example I can easily find sources that say religion is superstition, and ones that say it is rational. In an introductory article we need a generic statement. I actually think the Blackburn quote does it without the need for an additional sentence. If we are to have it (something you originally wanted) then it needs to be non-partisan. --Snowded (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replying to your points in order. You now agree that, according to the sources, reason is “central” to philosophy. Note that some sources say that the use of reason is ‘distinctive’ of philosophy, which is a (slightly) different idea, if we are going to be precise, and I have argued that we should. Where we seem to profoundly disagree is in your claim that the sentence “[Philosophy’s] investigations use reason …” is the same in meaning as a sentence like “Reason is a distinctive feature of philosophy” or similar. You appear to be claiming that these sentences pretty much mean the same, or that the second one can be safely inferred from the first. By contrast, I am claiming that these sentences differ in meaning. Not only that, they are profoundly different in meaning. I can explain why they are different in meaning if you want. I am not going to now, because I don’t have much time and because I would like to agree on the point where we differ, because it is still not entirely clear to me, following the various conflicting points you have made, where our difference lies. On your point that the definition of philosophy depends what school you belong to, where is your evidence for that? If you read through the Talk:Philosophy/Quotations it is surprising how much different sources agree on the key points – namely that the distinctive mark of philosophy (as opposed to mythology, superstition &c) is “its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature”. Probably the point where they are most likely to disagree, by contrast, is on the view by Blackburn that you chose to open the article with, namely the psychologistic view that “the concepts by which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry.". A realist such as Frege would not agree with statement in the slightest, nor Scotus, or the early Wittgenstein, nor would I, for that matter (but my view is irrelevant). On your point that the Blackburn quote ‘does it’, well, enough said. Nor does Blackburn mention the widely-held view that reasoned argument is ‘distinctive’ of philosophy. Finally, on your point that the introduction should not be ‘partisan’, well quite. Hence my emphasis on the need for a ‘best fit’ with the available sources. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have always agreed that reason is central to philosophy - read what I write, I don't like rational due to its link to rationalism, or logic due to its link to views of language and syntax which have become controversial. Emphasising reason is something I would happily agree to, but not to say "'mainstay' of philosophical inquiry, or its 'ultimate goal', or its 'distinctive feature'" to quote you as I don't think that is accurate or necessary. The use of reason is actually central to all humanities and sciences by the way, it is not a special property of philosophy. Otherwise I think the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is a citable source and better than a University Prospectus. However there may be better ones. I don't Blackburn sees the need to spell out the use of reason, it is self evident given the other things he says. --Snowded (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry now you are making fun of me. I jolly well am reading what you are writing. Your version is "Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy." I.e. you are removing the reference to 'centrality', distinctive nature and so on. On your view that you don't want to use words like 'mainstay', or 'distinctive feature' and so on, you say you don't think that is accurate or necessary (Your words, my emphasis). Again, I don't care what you think. You need to reflect the sources. On your view that university prospectuses are not reliable sources, why not? Otherwise we can play the game of refusing to recognise any source as reliable unless it reflects your POV. But in any case, there are plenty of non-prospectus sources for 'distinctive' including Warburon and, in particular, Anthony Quinton in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. It's incredible actually how easy it is to evade WP:OR simply by selective use of sources, or re-interpreting them to mean what you want, or simply ignoring them altogether. Peter Damian (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've now inserted his 'longer' definition of philosophy into the article Anthony Quinton. This is not the first time I have used the Quinton gambit. The last time, I was defeated because it was claimed Quinton was from Oxford, and that Oxford was merely a 'village'. Also that Quinton was a peer of the realm, ergo not a real philosopher. I wonder what you will reply. Looking forward to it. Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter one of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and its something that you consistently seem to ignore in respect of several editors, or in the face of any disagreement. You accuse others of POV by selective citation, then proceed to provide your own "objective" integration of multiple citations that you select. You get yourself in a state over my wanting to say "reason" rather than "reason is central". For God's sake get some sense of proportion. You don't own this article, but you are reacting violently to any attempt to disagree with you. Given that you one consistent and repeated mantra is that you don't care what I think, then I think I will stop dignifying you with any substantial response. --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith? You say "I have always agreed that reason is central to philosophy". But do you recall saying "That said there is much baggage with the word rational, I don't think you can exclude empirical investigation etc. etc. " "[...] "rational" has too much baggage. How about something around 'coherence'?". I also tend to drop the assumption of good faith when someone tends not to answer direct questions or changes the subject. As you have done numerous times above, including directly above, where you fail to answer my point about Quinton. Earlier I produced a quote from Ayer in support of the assertion that philosophy is distinguished by its methods, and you again changed the subject. I'm sorry I do tend to make points forcefully. On the 'sense of proportion' bit, I do have a sense of proportion. Your change in wording fundamentally changes the sense of what the introduction says. So, for God's sake get some sense of proportion. You don't own this article. I think I will stop dignifying you with any substantial response. Peter Damian (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down and not get into discussing editors, we have to discuss content on this page.

No further problems. --NewbyG (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your point, Peter Damian. I do not think you understand my point. Let's find out.

Peter Damian's point: The fundamental method of philosophy is reason. The use of reason is a defining characteristic of philosophy, and philosophy is unique among disciplines in its careful use of reason.

I would appreciate it, if I have misunderstood your point, if you would clarify. I really am trying to understand. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Groan. This is not really my point. See my reply to Snowded above. The question is whether the proposed characterisation of philosophy is a ‘best fit’ to the reliable sources that we have access to. Peter Damian (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This brings us one step closer. Now the question is, what is the "best fit" to the major sources. None of your sources mention "religion", "superstition", "faith", "revelation", or "analogy". Therefore, if we are going to stick to the sources, I suggest we avoid those words. All of your sources praise reason, so we want to say something about reason. What do we want to say about reason? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning is central to Philosophy - 'All' the sources brought up for discussion here support that point. Reasoning is 'central' to philosohy, reasoning is 'integral' to philosophy - I see no indication that any presently involved editors have ever been arguing against those propositions, certainly I haven't. --

As for the correct form of words to express that, I have said I am happy for now with 'wedded', which is too flowery for my personal taste, but better than 'appeal to reason' which is such a cliche. --NewbyG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with "Reason is central to philosophy," though I slightly prefer "Reasoned discourse is central to philosophy." Peter Damian? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

" I like that one (Reason is central to philosophy) --Snowded (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually used the word 'reasoning' as compared to 'reason'. A tiny quibble, but is that distinction not worth considering? --NewbyG (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A list of proposals

This section is just a list of the proposed sentences for the lede. Please add your own proposal below. Tomorrow (Friday) we can begin to vote. Please vote here, but discuss above or below this section to avoid clutter.

1) Its investigations are, unlike those of religion or superstition, wedded to reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions or make assertions purely on the basis of faith, revelation or analogy.

2) Philosophy is thinking clearly and carefully about the most fundamental questions. Most philosophers agree that rational discourse is the proper method to address these questions.

3) The distinctive mark of philosophy is its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and its systematic nature.

4)<namely that the use of reason is not merely part of it, but distinguishes philosophy, or is central to it.> see above - (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

5) Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions.

6) No additional phrase

7) Philosophy is a study of problems which are ultimate and very general, concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value. In university courses it is studied in a manner which lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. The central elements are logic,epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, ethics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and aesthetics.

(based on University of Cambridge Phil Dpt prospectus)--Philogo 00:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

8) We will have no sentences trying to define what philosophy is, or what its methods are, or the equivalent, in this article. --Philogo 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

9) There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

Enough is enough

OK inch by inch we now agree that, according to the sources, reason is both central and integral to philosophy. But not 'distinctive' although many reliable sources say this also. There is also the apparent problem that "None of your sources mention "religion", "superstition", "faith", "revelation", or "analogy" ". As a matter of fact I have plenty more sources for the former, and plenty of new ones for the latter. But as I say, enough is enough. I promised this morning to distance myself emotionally from this article, and I will now try to do that. It would make me more unpopular than ever, as an arrogant expert bastard from hell, which I don't want to be. And at this rate of progress it will take about three weeks of unfailing effort, little thanks and yet more hatred to get recognition that the sources really do support the existing version of the introduction. And I will have to go through exactly the same process again sometime next year or even this year when another bunch of editors arrive. Life is far too short. So, that really is it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't hate you, Peter Damian, and I know well how Wikipedia can stir the emotions. I know I get a little snarky at times, but no hate is involved and no disrespect intended. So, take pride in being an "arrogant expert bastard from hell". There are worse things to be. And, while I occasionally disagree with you, I am always glad to benefit from your expertise which, excepting only mathematics, is much greater than my own. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to show I mean it I myself have altered the introduction to reflect the views of the experts here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the apparently unsourced claim that philosophy is a method, pace Ayer, Wittgenstein, Warburton et alia. Peter Damian (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is all the same to me...whether it is your own opinion or not. It is the argument itself that I wish to probe, though it may turn out that both I who question and you who answer are equally under scrutiny.

Plato, Protagoras, 333c

--Philogo 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean: what is the problem with religion, etc,? I see no reason to separate it from philosophy, in the context of esoteric mysticism; spirituality, etc.. Those are very [neo-]Platonic, but philosophy eventually degenerated from there and separated from Philosophy.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by philosophy eventually degenerated from there and separated from Philosophy? That there is philosophy & also Philosophy, the former once being part of the latter but then separated from it? If so how did Philosophy remain Philosophy if part of it, philosophy, separated from it? What do you mean by degenerated? How do you know that philosophy eventually degenerated from there and separated from Philosophy: when did it occur? Do you put this forward as historic fact or your own personal conjecture and value judgement? Please note this talk page lays considerable emphasis on precise and careful argument. --Philogo 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(I was just replying to Peter but I guess your quote was some kind of reply to him.) Of course 'philosophy' is translatable to most languages, so I was not necessarily correct except the process of degeneration and sometimes regeneration always happens. When the Scholarchs twice stopped understanding and teaching what Plato taught, neo-Platonism gave way to a few reasonable philosophies for the next few centuries, but in modern times a lot of non-noetic bunk or halfway reasonable, unoriginal ideas have been called 'philosophy' or original.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Current introduction

I, for one, am now happy with the current introduction, and withdraw my call for a vote, since we seem to have reached a consensus. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly resembles a Wikipedia article more, now. Peter Damian (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we proceed with the vote--Philogo 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version. Votes in Wikipedia are a last resort if consensus cannot be achieved and at the moment there are more options than there are active editors! --Snowded (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not know Votes in Wikipedia are a last resort. An indication of preference then. I am not unhappy with the current version, but I do not think it the best, and think it could be improved. First impressions count.--Philogo 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My source on votes is here. Any specific suggestions on improvement? I thought we made a lot of progress with the use of "reason" and keeping it simple. --Snowded (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Yes we did make progress. There no hurry is there? I think that there was a fear that if we altered anything then an almight row would break out. Seems like anger comes from being over-defensive about a particular formulation, & taking it too personally. BTW if you look at the Cambridge Dic of Phil there is no entry for philosophy. But there is one on meta-philosophy. Well worth a read. I'd like to print out our proposals and just the lede to look at quietly; how do you do that do you know - that is avoid printing everything.--Philogo 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

: I don't see any great pressure, the current formulation is good and I think (with Peter) that the whole first section is a lot better. No idea how you print by the way other than cut and paste. --Snowded (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate it and loathe it. I was being ironic when I said "It certainly resembles a Wikipedia article more, now.", which it does, of course, in its currently fragmented and disconnected state. I suggest deleting the bit which says 'its investigations use reason', since nearly all academic disciplines use reason. By omitting how reason is distinctive to the way Philosophy answers the kind of question it tries to answer (and the second emphasis is key, here), you have missed the point of those sources which talk about 'distinctive', 'fundamental', &c. Can someone read the Quinton quote and explain to me what it means? If you understand his definition then you will understand the point I have been trying to make all along. Peter Damian (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

“ 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 has 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. ibid ”

(indent)Quinton's definitions represent a particular perspective on Philosophy. I seem to remember an interesting interview between Magee and Quinton on Wittgenstein which elaborated on aspects of this. Quinton is using "rational and critical" in the context of a specific English tradition of philosophy. Personally I think it is arrogant to say that Philosophy as a discipline is distinguished by reason as that would imply that other disciplines are not self-reflective. That said I don't think the sentence adds greatly to the entry so I have no objection to its deletion ( see you have done that without discussion). I think Peter that we need to remember that the Wikipedia is not intended to be a Philosophy text book, it has a different function. So if it now looks like a Wikipedia article then I would say well done. Incidentally can I say again that it is bad form to simply delete something which has been under discussion. It could lead to an edit war. --Snowded (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(a) You say "I think it is arrogant to say that Philosophy as a discipline is distinguished by reason as that would imply that other disciplines are not self-reflective. " which shows you haven't understood the point Quinton is making. Read it carefully. Here I am, sounding like an arrogant bastard expert again. (b) This is not a particular perspective. Many other of the sources I have cited refer to this distinctiveness. E.g. "It is by its methods rather than its subject-matter that philosophy is to be distinguished from other arts or sciences" (Ayer). (c) I remember using this quote earlier and you replying that you weren't interested in Ayer's view or something like that. Can I once again remind you of WP:OR. I'm sorry I was blunt above when I said I didn't care what you think. I was simply trying to drive home the point that we aren't interested in your personal views as such, not for the purposes of writing an article like this. What we say has to reflect a balanced view of the sources. (d) We are not writing a textbook, we are writing an encyclopedia. The quote from Quinton comes from an encyclopedia not a textbook.

You keep assuming that if someone disagrees with you they are failing to understand something or lack suitable qualifications. I think the Quinton quote has value within its tradition. However we had previously agreed that "reason" represented a reasonably compromise to avoid associations with rationalism etc. Your remarks on personal views are offensive. I am being reasonably honest in declaring my position in conversations on the talk page in the interests of transparency. Your position and the tradition in which you situate yourself is evident in the positions you propose. What matters here is we avoid a POV and negotiate something (HERE ON THE TALK PAGE NOT THROUGH EDIT WARS) that is NPOV. I think you were mistake to arbitrarily delete a sentence to which you could have proposed amendments that would have satisfied some of the points you are making above and which would probably gain agreement. For that reason and to make the point that discussions take place on the talk page I have reversed your change. --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In summary, you must first understand the point Quinton is making, which you won't unless you read it very very carefully and trying and follow the logical point he is making. He is not contrasting philosophy with other disciplines, as you seem to think. And any introduction must reflect a balanced view of the sources, in accordance with WP:OR. Sorry, again, this is not intended to cause offence. Peter Damian (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the intention it does cause offence and is not accurate. See comments above --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am also now tempted to remove the quote by Blackburn which you put in originally, since you are now implying that we cannot use sources which have a "particular perspective on philosophy". Blackburn's view that philosophy is the analysis of concepts is certainly accepted by a significant majority of philosophers. But a significant minority, if not a majority, would disagree. Once again, a balanced view of the sources is required. Peter Damian (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We need a citable source which is as neutral as possible. I used the Oxford/Blackburn version. You should feel free to find others and argue the case here. I am not impressed with your ability to change your mind on previous agreements but it is of course your privilege. --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because of the selective way that sources are now being used (see WP:OR for an explanation of what 'synthesis' means), I have slapped on a few tags. Now this really is starting to look more like a Wikipedia article. No offence intended. Peter Damian (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to maintain those tags you need to argue a case on this page. I will be interested to see how you justify the OR tag. --Snowded (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of OR tag

None of the material which has been edited recently lacks citation, or has not been subject to discussion. Evidence needs to be presented to justify its inclusion --Snowded (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. On arguing a case for OR, I have already done that. WP:OR Where sources disagree, it is OR to selectively cite a view that you agree with, while ignoring others whose view you disagree with. You say that the Oxford/Blackburn view is neutral - no it is not. I have already stated that while the Blackburn view is held by a significant minority, there is a significant minority who would disagree. WP:OR requires that we represent all significant sources, giving priority to those sources which are a balanced reflection of all views.

In wiki terms a cited source is not OR simple matter of fact. It is open to you to propose an alternative but quoting a Philosophical Dictionary from a reputable publisher authored by a Professor at one of the leading Universities in the world is not OR. Do not assume that I agree with Blackburn (having had two major arguments with him over Deluze) but the purpose here is to create a cited source. Find another and argue the case here. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

2. On the point that you have misunderstood Quinton, we really are at an impasse here. To my mind it is obvious that you have misunderstood him, since you seem to think he is contrasting philosophy with other disciplines. Even a cursory reading of the Quinton quote shows he is not contrasting philosophy with other disciplines. Again, please try not to be offended, read carefully through it and try to understand what he means. I have tried to give a big hint by italicising the word 'discipline'. Another clue is what he is referring to by 'non-philosophical counterpart'. This is a clue to what he is contrasting, which will lead you understand the sense in which he, and many other philosophers who have tried to characterise philosophy, think its employment of reason is distinctive.

Peter I disagree with you in terms of the way you want to use Quinton. All you have to do is to come up with a form of words that would modify the existing sentence - try it you might get agreement --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

No, you were against the use of terms like 'distinctive', originally. Are you now comfortable that it can go in there, on the assumption that it can be made clearer what philosophy is being 'distinguished' from here? Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Please don't take offence. I know it is hard to take criticism, and I am trying to be as gentle as I can.

I have seen a few patronising and hypocritical comments in my time on WIkipedia but that takes the biscuit. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

4. I have reinserted the tag, in accordance with WP:OR.

Reversed, its the wrong tag. OR cannot related to a cited source. You might want to tag for balance but again you should argue the case here rather than just edit the page. You do not own that page, you have an obligation to use the talk page. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong here, but I am not sure. WP:WEIGHT is the policy in question, and since that is part of WP:NPOV I am reinserting the tag. In academia there is the concept of 'selective citation', which is the problem here. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have put in the POV template, which I think is correct for WEIGHT. Peter Damian (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

5. It strikes me that since the points that Quinton et al are making, while obvious to trained philosophers, are not obvious even to educated but untrained readers, and for that reason the introduction does need work. It needs to be accessible to a general audience. Peter Damian (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So suggest some words that will be NPOV and understandable. There is good will here although you seem determined to assume that people who don't agree with you are in some way intellectually deficient. --Snowded (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of that. I simply said you did not understand the Quinton quote. Peter Damian (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Its how you are coming across Peter

POV Tag

Just over a week ago Peter Damian accepted the current Oxford quote with the addition of a sentence referencing reason and the need for all arguments to be examined. We have now had an extensive discussion over the form of the sentence with Peter withdrawing from the discussion, then deleting the sentence, then re-entering the discussion and now adding a POV tag in respect of the Oxford quote. In addition an expert tag has been added by Peter.

Apologies for this. My position as a veteran of many years on this article - I was invovled as long ago as the Larry Sanger days - is that anyone who gets involved in this page is fundamentally insance, and needs their head examined. The inconsistencies you are seeing in my behaviour are largely the result of conflict between the rational side of me which tells me not to get involved (as I say, I am working on a very difficult translation project), and the mad side which somehow still believes that it is possible to make some headway, despite all the evidence to the contrary. By all means remove the POV tag. Peter Damian (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the introduction has to provide a cited source or sources. At the moment we have the Oxford Dictionary which has to be regarded as authoritative. There is no reason why we should not either (i) find another similar authoritative source which is more acceptable to the group as a whole or (ii) maybe quote two contrasting authoritative sources. The Columbia History of Western Philosophy for example opens thus "Philosophy is the attempt to give an account of what is true and what is important based on a rational assessment of evidence and arguments rather than myth, tradition, bald assertion, oracular utterances, local custom, or mere prejudice" Given that this seems closer to some or Peter's passions one compromise would be to insert this definition as well as the Oxford one (thus trans-atlantic alternatives) at the start and delete the sentence which is not based on cited material. How does that strike people as a suggestion? --Snowded (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that one very much. I was going to suggest removing 'religion', which is clearly contentious, and replacing it with 'mysticism', 'mythology' or similar. Peter Damian (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The is also a rather nice Islamic one which from memory goes "Philosophy is the art of arts and the science of science". I think its Sufi but not sure. --Snowded (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK there is a large class of quotes which aim at an informal or epigrammatic characterisation of philosophy, such as this one, also the one by Russell in the quote box which you sadly removed earlier. Rick Norwood has a store of these. I think they are useful as amusement, but I think more rigorous formulations should be used in the main article or the introduction. I'm not sure what the Islamic one actually means. What does it mean? Peter Damian (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider the proposals!

I suggest that more would be acheived if the discussion were based on the (currently nine) proposals listed above. There is nothing to prevent the addition there of furher proposals--Philogo 10:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is merit in that, but Peter has now challenged the main definition as well. Given that all nine would be consensus statements I am inclined to go with a second cited definition (see above). However the discussion is open to all, including those of us who have clearly failed to understand AQ. --Snowded (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is nothing to stop an editor adding further proposals.--Philogo 11:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Or synthesising those proposals or suggesting an alternative, or seeking consensus to a general set of principles before drafting. However, given all of the previous discussion I think we are a lot safer sticking to citations. --Snowded (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 8) We will have no sentences trying to define what philosophy is, or what its methods are, or the equivalent, in this article. has the merit of avoiding these issue and these bad-temepered metaphilsophical discussions. The cambridge Dictionary of Philospohy (wisely in my veiw) offer no "definition" of philosophy, but has a interesting article on metaphilosophy. Those really interested in this partilcular metaphilosophical issue could edit an article metaphilosophy--Philogo 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) PS and we would delete the first and third sentences.--Philogo 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 9) There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations has the advantages of (a) truth (b) numerous citations in support (c) refers the interested reader to relevant materials (d) does not presuppose that there either is any "definition" of philosophy or what that definition is. --Philogo 11:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)PS instead of the current first and third sentences. --Philogo 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, the {{POV}} tag is fully justified regarding the lead.--Philogo 11:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the POV has some justification. I think you are suggesting deleted the Oxford Dictionary sentence (which is cited) and the final sentence "Its investigations use reason, striving to make no unexamined assumptions.[4]". If that is the case I oppose. In fact the middle sentence is duplicated in the next section and could go. There has to be something up front and I think the only way of doing this, to avoid disputes over words, is to simply quote and cite 2/3 introductory statements (which is what I think the Oxford quote is, not a definition) from acknowledged international authorities together with an opening clear statement that there is no agreed definition. We have one introductory statement from the UK one there at the moment, one US suggested by above and ideally we should add in from from Asia. --Snowded (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are agreeable that the lede should say that there are no agreed definitions would you support the wording in proposal 9.? IF we agreed that that was OK THEN we could consider whether we need say more. So I am proposing that the first sentence of the lead should be, proposal 9:

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations

My suggestion is that the first sentence should be as per proposal 9 (or something similar) and then be followed by 1/3 sentence quotes from cited Dictionaries of Philosophy as illustrations. There are three there, but I think we could add some more and it would be a valuable asset for people coming to this page (who will generally not be professional philosophers. My argument for dictionaries is that these represent authoritative attempts to synthesis the field. If we quoted every definition by every philosophical school then there would be too many. See the section below--Snowded (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well taking that a bit at a time do we agree that the first sentence shall be :

There is no agreed definition of the word philosophy, despite many attempts to provide one, see Talk:Philosophy/Quotations --Philogo 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quinton's theme

I like the Quinton quote a lot. I do not find it hard to understand, but rather very clear and to the point. I would be happy to see it in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to have a few quotes then I would agree, both the long and the short come from Oxford_Companion_to_Philosophy so fits into the citation pattern. I also agree that its not difficult to understand .... --Snowded (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be direct quotes. WP:WEIGHT has suggestions on how to blend and balance views where they are different. We should agree on the fundamental points each source is making, then achieve a balance. I think there was some confusion about the meaning of the Quinton quote, i.e. confusion about the sense in which the use of reason 'distinguishes' philosophy, so any wording would have to avoid this. There is also another sense in which the use of reason distinguishes philosophy, and this would somehow have to be accomodated. Where we do seem to have made some progress, is in agreeing the need to balance the various sources in some way. Peter Damian (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good! You were right, Peter Damian, I did not understand the first sense in which you asserted that reason "distinguishes" philosophy. I do now, thanks to the Quinton quote, which explains that very nicely. Now, if I could understand the second sense in which reason "distinguishes" philosophy, I would be happy. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sense 1 The Quinton sense is that there are questions like 'what is the purpose of life', 'how did the universe begin', 'is there a God', 'is there life after death', which people often think about or discuss in bars or cocktail parties and so on, in an informal, unsystematic and uncritical way. These are the 'non philosophical counterparts'. Quinton is saying that philosophy is distinguished from these by its "explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature". I don't feel Snowded completely understood this point because of two remarks he made (i) that Quinton's definition "represents a particular perspective on Philosophy". Surely not - one of the commonest complaints of professional philosophers is the misconception that philosophy is something easy you can chat about in a pub, without serious attention to sources, logical argument, analysis and so on. (ii) Snowded said that "it is arrogant to say that Philosophy as a discipline is distinguished by reason as that would imply that other disciplines are not self-reflective". This also implies a misunderstanding. Quinton's point is not to contrast philosophy with other disciplines. Rather, he is contrasting the philosophical approach to cocktail-party questions, with the cocktail-party approach to the same questions. For the cocktail-party approach is not a 'discipline' at all. It is merely drunken and informal.

its an interesting question. Its easy to say that in contrast with a cocktail party method philosophy is distinguished by reason (although some cocktail parties could compete with some of the seminars I remember). However to extend that into the definition of philosophy is to imply that the questions addressed by philosophy are otherwise only handled by cocktail parties. In fact several sciences and many humanities also address the same subjects as philosophy using reason albeit from the perspective of their discipline. --Snowded (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I am merely explaining the meaning of the Quinton sense of "distinct". Many other sources agree with his view, and many real life philosophers hold it. If you think other sources disagree with this, please cite them and we can consider them. The view you have just outlined may well be correct, but you do not count as an authoritative source (and neither do I - I am just gathering the sources and explaining them where necessary). Peter Damian (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note also that if you want to show there are sources that disprove proposition A, it is not enough to find a source that does not mention A, or claim it, or whatever. You have to find a source where it is explicitly claimed that not-A. For example, when I objected to the neutrality of the Blackburn source, it was not because there were other sources which do not mention philosophy being about 'concepts'. It was because there are many sources where it is claimed that philosophy is about things in reality, not just concepts. Indeed, you can find some of them in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. That is most important. Once again, it is not what I think that must go into the article. Even if what I think is true, and even if I can give powerful arguments for it. We must provide reliable sources that support our claim, and we must respect the balance and weight of the different sources. That is the essence of Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking me to prove or why? If its that other disciplines address the issues of philosophy then that is fairly easy. A lot of cognitive science for example is specially addressing issues of consciousness. However I am not sure why. I am happy to accept that any Dictionary of Philosophy is going to some degree to be biased. Equally I am certain that we can not agree a neutral definition of philosophy. I have not read anything that would contradict a proposition that philosophy uses reason, but I could find opposition to "rational" unless it was qualified as "not-rationalism". Hence my suggestion that we provide a few one/two sentence citable sources. Blackburn, Columbia, the Quinton short version with a preliminary statement that There is no agreed definition, but here are some citable sources. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking you to prove anything. I am simply asking you to back up any claim you make with reference to reliable sources. Also, you need to apply WP:WEIGHT to be sure that the source supports a significant or majority type view. Is that reasonable?Peter Damian (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the above Peter, I am suggesting a series of cited sources some of which use the word rational. If you want to get into free form text then its is going to be hard if not impossible to get agreement as multiple sources can be cited. I'll find a few extreme empiricists to make the point. I don;t think that is the way forward. Two/three short definitions from different sources all cited. Please respond to that. --Snowded (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Using a selection of cited sources would be messy. Also, the real difficulty is to agree which sources best reflect WP:WEIGHT. A form of words is the least of our difficulties. My suggestion would be to come up with a list of the main claims that have been made about philosophy (I already have compiled such a list) then come to an agreement per WP:WEIGHT. I'm still not sure whether you agree to the idea of balancing like this. Can you explicitly provide the cites - I have two of them, where is the Columbia. Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] here they are (1) "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. ", "the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth etc. In philosophy, the concepts by which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry.", ""[Philosophy] is the attempt to give an account of what is true and what is important based on a rational assessment of evidence and arguments rather than myth, tradition, bald assertion, oracular utterances, local custom, or mere prejudice" Peter Damian (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sense 2 The second sense in which the use of reason 'distinguishes' philosophy is that philosophy is not just about the big, cocktail-party questions. 'It excludes nothing from its examination, but includes all things in heaven and earth, man and God, in its enquiry'. I.e. unlike the other departmental sciences and subjects, philosophy is not restricted to any particular subject or question. It has no distinctive subject-matter at all. The only thing which distinguishes it is its systematic, critical, methodical, rational approach.

I can agree with everything you say with the exception of the final sentence. Given that we are talking of the whole compass and history of philosophy you can say reason and critical, possible systematic, method is superfluous given those words, rational has too many associations. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are applying your own POV. It may be correct. Can I remind you again that Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not your own beliefs. Please back up this assertion with some reasoned arguments based on sources. Given that a significant number of sources use the term 'rational', find some sources that say that the method of philosophy is not rational. Also 'rational' is an adjective, 'reason' is a noun. You are objecting to the use of an adjective, but not the noun directly related to it? Please explain. Peter Damian (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to my earlier response. Please read and respond to the suggestion I have made, rather than the one you think I may be making --Snowded (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Which 'earlier response' is that? This page is very busy now. And I wasn't replying to a point you were making. I was responding to the fact that you repeatedly make claims that you don't back up using reliable sources. Peter Damian (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points above Peter, you said the same thing twice. Oh and please stop making this personal and throwing out accusations. --Snowded (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, which two points? Given the length of this thread, which are the two points you are making? Peter Damian (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The two senses of 'distinct' are obviously connected, but they are also obviously different. The first sense requires that philosophy has a distinct subject matter, from which it is separately distinguished from other approaches (cocktail party, mysticism, mythology). The second sense requires that philosophy has no distinct subject-matter at all. Peter Damian (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this Quinton's theme one othe nione proposals?--Philogo 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter Damian. This is the sense that I was objecting to before. 'It excludes nothing from its examination, but includes all things in heaven and earth, man and God, in its enquiry,' sounds good, and taken in context I think it clearly means that nothing is too big for philosophy. But taken literally, it says that nothing at all is excluded from philosophy, provided only that the method used to study it is reason. But, in that case, all of science and mathematics is philosophy. This was once true, but is true no longer. How do we help the reader of this article understand the more specialized use of the term "philosophy" today. I would hate to have the article suggest that "philosophy" is what's left over after the scientists and mathematicians have picked all the good parts. The only way I can think to avoid this is to say something about philosophy tackling the "big questions". Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

so-called major field 'philosophy of mind'

Who ever defined 'philosophy of mind' (as if it is not part of metaphysics) as a major field? According to the soul article, and what I have read before, the mind form is only part of the soul system of forms which has 2 other parts: emotions/spirit and desire. Of course emotions/spirit and desire are not necessarily on the level of mind/nous--noeta/noema, the latter of which only may be forms and emotions/spirit and desire may be doxa. However, there is arguably an ideal human [system of] form[s] which includes the forms the soul consists of. The proper name for the metaphysical field is 'philosophy of consciousness', consciousness including the mental/noetic and vital/biological (which so-called philosophy of mind says may be unified,) as well as the emotions/'spirit' and desire in between (so is the former pair unified that simply?) Philosophy of consciousness also seems to include the ideal system of forms of reasonable intelligence, Logos, which is higher spiritual and has to do with 'The One'/monad 'Good'/Agathon 'Virtue'.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear agreement on the branches of philosophy. It therefore follows that to avoid NPOV any major field recognised somewhere should be listed. When I edited this field I used links to other Wikipedia pages. Also you will find Philosophy of Mind as a section in many a bookshop, text books and university courses. Snowded (signed by PD).

Agreed. The philosophy of mind was always a separate branch (just as Aristotle's De Anima was a separate book). It is sometimes put under Metaphysics, but many sources list it separately. Peter Damian (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-applying tag

I am re-applying the tags to the article. This is not a trivial issue, nor is it about one word. I would like to reach agreement here that even on the talk page, we will try not to give our own views about what philosophy is. We will rely on authoritative sources. Also (to avoid the inevitable cherry-picking and selective use of sources) we will apply WP:WEIGHT, meaning we try to strike a balance between different sources, where they differ. Can you say below if you agree with this or not. Peter Damian (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

" The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each "

• Support. Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose its trivial as Newbyguesses said when he removed them. Also Peter Damian is being inconsistent saying one thing one day, then reversing by the next. --Snowded (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, what you are opposing is the bold statement above. You are disagreeing that "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each "?Peter Damian (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

opposing your process Peter, you are exhausting. See below --Snowded (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I vote in favor of truth, justice, and the American Way. But then, I'm a strange visitor from another planet. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)