Talk:Philosophy/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Fresh start, recap

In this section editors are asked to contribute in compliance with Wiki policies Be polite, No personal attacks, Assume good faith. Source all claims

Proposed contents of lede (in no particular order):

1 The etymology
2 The main 4 branches (logic, metaphysic, epistemology, ethics)
3 clear/critical/logical thinking about big/fundamental questions
4 No universal agreement about the precise definition
5 it does not rely on empirical evidence, nor on revelation or authority.

Please add polite comments on the above to the bottom of the list below.

Comments on the above:-
re 3 To avoid loose talk, endless disussion, and a result that sounds like a "puff" either drop all together the "about big/fundamental questions", part or proceed with extreme caution.
re 5 Proceed with similar caution regarding "it does not rely on empirical evidence". (Are we using the term rely carefully and precisely? If anything that made use of empirical evidence was said not to be philosophy, then we would eliminate large tranches of philosophical writing. e.g. the whole of ordinary language philosophy and most of Plato's dialogs.)

• add say how issues which had been considered philosophy are now subjects in their own right
  
• add a link to metaphilosophy where a number of these issues are explored in some depth
  
• General: avoid in this article anything that disregards metaphilosophy or is an inferior potted version of it.
  
• General: the lede should exemplify and not fall far below the clear/critical/logical thinking that the subject itself demands.
  

--Philogo 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think (1) is agreed. I don't see the point of (2) when we list them all in the next section and the question of which are the main branches is controversial In particular "Logic" in the sense of symbolic logic etc. is not dominant per se. In respect of (3) we had previous agreed "reason". In respect of (4) you cannot exclude empirical evidence see previous comments. --Snowded (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that any attempt to summarise reasonably is going to end up insufficiently concise for a lead. I would suggest just etymology, branches, and a comment that varying definitions exist, and then have a section that gives the various aspects of different definitions and does justice to it, preferably citing existing analyses of the range of definitions. Putting any details of the definitions is a recipe for contention and swelling of the lead. I'm not an expert in philosophy, although I am interested in it, but I say this based on wikipedia experience more than knowledge of philosophy; I also know that philosophers (including academics and students) can usually argue one another around in circles, so if a lot of the people in this discussion work in philosophy, this sort of outside view might be useful, I thought. SamBC(talk) 15:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to some sort of process. Actually philosophers tend to agree on the main points of the definition (see Philosophy/Quotations and Definition of philosophy. Nearly all secondary sources mention the 4 branches (except for disagreement over logic). On that basis, the branches would stay. The main point of disagreement among philosophers is on the subject matter of philosophy (between realists and anti-realists) and on whether philosophy is a priori or not. I have sources supporting both views. E.g. Russell and others support the view that it is a priori. And I have located a reference for someone Snow mentioned, namely Freeman. The source is authoritative, and it is clearly not a minority view, so suggest given this a short mention in the lead. Again, this is all about sources. If Snow makes some claim about philosophy that is not sourced, I tend to ignore him. If he mentions a source, then I will take a look at it (better still if Snow actually located the source himself - in this case I did it for him as a gesture of good faith). Peter Damian (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Peter you have made claims here about philosophy which are supported by sub-pages that you created with selective quotes. Please stop trying to pretend that you are the perfect guardian of Wikipedia standards and everyone else lacks your competence. For the record I suggested Freeman as an authority if it was needed so please don't pretend that you were some how acting in a noble manner by finding one article by him. People attempt to engage with you in a process and the next thing we get is a set of patronising and inaccurate remarks. PLEASE ADDRESS THE DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO ASSERT YOUR POSITION. I summarise some for you:

• • Why do we need to mention three, possibly four branches, when a more comprehensive list (referencing other WIkipedia pages) follows. It would be easier to say that Philosophy has several branches with different degrees of emphasis over the years and they are listed below.
  • All that is needed to deal with the a priori issue is simply not to make a priori a necessary condition of philosophical investigation.
  • The prior agreement on Philosophy requiring the use of reason seems sufficient for the purpose of this introduction

If you can't engage then I think we need to abandon this attempt and move into mediation --Snowded (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, most introductions mention the three or four branches. I'm agreeing with you, as I agreed on Freeman. What's the problem? Peter Damian (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting (see above) that the introduction does not mention the branches, but references the longer list with its links to other Wikipedia articles. I made two other points as well Peter. --Snowded (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The introduction should mention the branches because that is consistent with the way nearly all other introductions deal with this. Then the links can take the reader to those articles. I have no objection to putting in the philosophy of mind into that list. On the other points I agree. There needs to be careful wording to communicate the sense in which philosophy does not 'rely' on empirical evidence (witness my example from Aquinas above). Since I don't have any fundamental disagreement with any other points made here, there is no need to address them. Peter Damian (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then lets test it - do you want to attempt another draft? I can if you want --Snowded (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want. Peter Damian (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at a new version

Taking the above discussions into account, using Peter's wording as a base, how about this. I moved the branches into the explanation to avoid making a statement on a priori. Given the use of reason I combined the reference to logic. I removed religion, as some approaches in the history or philosophy would argue that religion is reason (interestingly so do some modern approaches to evolutionary psychology). Overall I tried to reduce to a simple, non-controversial but meaningful statement. I think there is then a place for additional sections on issues such as reason, experimental v a priori etc. If we can get rid of this introduction we can focus on creating those. I have removed quotes and citations from the words, but they could go back in as references.

The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished by its use of reason and its systematic, critical approach to problems. --Snowded (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is OK. (1) The only difficulty is the 'distinguished' - as Philogo pointed out, many other disciplines, such as logic, are distinctive in the way they use reason. The contrast with mythology, mysticism, religion &c is needed to make sense of this. I am happy to defend this, but suspect the others will shoot it down. (2) On the a priori bit, I always found the word 'traditionally' works a treat. It qualifies the claim, and as most people don't know much philosophy before 1995, no one is going to challenge it. Peter Damian (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

break

Using 'traditional' in this way is surely what is called using a weasel word is it not? I find 'most people don't know much philosophy before 1995' rather odd. I suppose it follows from 'most people don't know much philosophy', but restricting oursleves to those who know anything about philosophy, I would suspect that the opposite is true: i.e most people who know anything about philosophy know more about philosophy before 1995. In any case advocating putting an entry in an encycopaedia which is either not true or not supportable by "qualifying" the claim and hoping that public ignorace would not lead to any challenges seems dishonest, disgraceful even. It would be like those ads that say "Many scientists agree that No 1 Snake Oil helps more bald people than the other leading brands"--Philogo 11:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How about contrasting it with superstition or assertion? You used those some time ago and I liked them Mysticism, religion and mythology are valid forms of knowledge (talk with an anthropologist, read "Purity and Danger" by Mary Douglas, look at a whole body of work on narrative) if you want examples). Otherwise I think it is a mistake to include "a priori' in any form as it then has to be qualified, which means other things would also have to be put in and we end up with an essay. On this basis we would have:

The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. --Snowded (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

break

I suggest that what we really should do is explain that the word philosophy as the name of an [academic] discipline is different from the way the word often used in the vernacular, i.e. as an outlook or set of beliefs, as in X's philosophy of life. That confusion IS very common, and the lede would be very helful if this distinction were made clear. It might even disabuse poor folks who might otherwise sign up for a philosophy course in the hopes that they would learn an, or worse discuss their own, 'answer to life, the universe and...everything'. It's the reason that many university propectuses have coded warnings about considerable emphasis being put on precise and careful argument--Philogo 11:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC) e.g.:

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. In the earlier stages of the Cambridge course, the central elements are logic, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of mind; later on attention is also paid to political philosophy, philosophy of science, and aesthetics. As the course proceeds the number of optional elements increases, so that in Part II there are no compulsory subjects.

University of Cambridge. Note the above makes no mention of a priori reasoning in particular, does not loosely say "BIG" issues, but says rather, in effect, that the nature of philosphy is defined by its scope, i.e the problems that its studies, and immediteley and concisely outlines the nature of those problems both in broad terms 'ultimate and very general' and in specifics 'concerned with the nature of reality, knowledge, mind, language, and value' --Philogo 11:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am just attempting in good faith to reach an agreement here on a form of words which we can agree is not a POV. I think the draft I did, building on Peter's handles all the points you mention above with the exception of the popular v academic use. --Snowded (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Snow: agree. Phil: you make a number of points. Again, you cite the U of C prospectus. Sure, this does not mention the a priori bit. But you agreed to follow the approach set out in WP:WEIGHT, according to which we take not one, but many sources. Many sources mention the a priori. And also, as someone who claims to be a philosophical logician, you must agree that 'says that not-p' is not equivalent to 'not: says that p'. Peter Damian (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

break

Well I was just drawing your attention to the way UoC avoids desribing it a priori etc. I though we had agreed that we should not say Philosphy is restricetd to a rpiori reasoning, for heaps of reasons previously discussed. It's hard to keep track. PS Modestly forbids me to claim I am a philosophical logician, or anything else for that matter, other than your well-wichig co-ed. I though your idea of getting an agreement on hat OSRT of sentences to agree was a good one, and then we could deal with how we say it one at a time. Trouble is of course we keep distrcting each other and so on, getting cnfused with whose said what and so on.--Philogo 18:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Snow's suggestion(s) is the following: "Philosophy deals with the fundamental issues of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)." That phrasing suggests that this is the full extent of philosophy, and even with my limited background with no formal study of the subject I know that that isn't everything that even reputable (or frankly conservative) academics consider part of philosophy, the examples of aesthetics and formal logic coming readily to mind.

If the branches are to be listed, it should be in a phrase such as "common areas within philosophy include:", or if you want to use a phrase like Snow's, "philosophy deals with fundamental issues, such as how one should live (ethics) … etc". That still keeps the assumption that it's all about fundamental issues. Further, isn't that categorisation western-philosophy exclusive? I'm not certain, but as I got the impression that this article wasn't supposed to take sides between eastern and western, if I'm right about that then it ought to be avoided (per avoiding systemic bias). SamBC(talk) 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC) (PS: That's not my only thought, but it's the most important one)

break

Lets try this. We start off with Snows suggstion, if not entirely content, edit it (show deletions as strike out, additions as italics so we can follow) an paste new version below, repeat until no one has any more edits to do. If we make no pregress after say 10 versions try another approach. Be bold, you can change your mnd if you like, good faith, IMHO etc, nned for ciations recognised assumed. Here goes:

A: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.--Philogo 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I could live with the above, with a little change in wording, without changing the intended meaning (e.g. the use-reference conflation between philosophy itself and the popular use of the word 'philosophy'). Anyone? Peter Damian (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki style guide recommends definition before etymology. Also, omit unnecessary words. How about:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek word meaning "love of wisdom". The discipline of philosophy is based on critical analysis and reason, and requires a substantial knowledge of the great thoughts and thinkers of the past.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Which of the sources we have extensively discussed, to the point of physical sickness, says that philosophy "requires a substantial knowledge of the great thoughts and thinkers of the past."? Citations please. Also, we need the word 'distinguished' in the sense required by the sources. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

break

Lets try one technique at a time, and the current one is (my suggestion) copy the last suggestion, and edit it with strike out and italics. Rick's does not count because it it does not do that. PETER : you say could live with A above (label added) with a tweak or two, so go on, copy it below and then tweak it (remember del in strike-out, insert in itals. [This btw the is the way solicotors negotiate with a so-called "travelling document"])--Philogo 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Philogo's version (the one Peter is OK with is fine. Amazed we got there (if we do). I agree with Peter that knowledge of great thoughts and thinkers of the past has no authority that I know of and should not be included --Snowded (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

there are some extra ideas in Phil's definition which need tidying up - the exact form of words is difficult - but I will try and have a go at it this week. Any objections? Peter Damian (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ok if you copy A (or successor) and paste it below and then tweak it (remembering del in strike-out, insert in itals, so we can see the changes.--Philogo 12:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

break

It is awfully high-handed of you, Philogo, to say that a Wikipedia editor must edit according to a style you have decided upon, or it "does not count". My changes were according to the Wikipedia manuel of style. Do you object to moving the etymology to the second sentence?

The objection to a requirement that the great thinkers of the past be considered is well taken. I offer the following. Essentially, it says the same thing as other proposals, but the style has been chanced to conform to the Wikipedia:Manuel of Style.

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". The discipline of philosophy is based on critical analysis and reason.

I've added the Greek from the current lede. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the etymology does not have to go at the beginning. But the last sentence does not reflect what we discussed. Philosophy is distinguished from others way of approaching the same questions, by its use of reason and its systematic, critical approach to problems. The idea of a distinguishing mark is crucial, and also the idea of what philosophy is distinguished from, as a result. Peter Damian (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, of course, the sticking point we have been discussing for -- it seems like years, now. Let's see if I can come up with a formulation that you and I can both accept.

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". The discipline of philosophy is distinguished by critical analysis and reason, as contrasted with discussions of these subject that invoke authority or custom.

I'm not entirely happy with "authority or custom" but think it better than "superstition or religion". Can you suggest a better phrasing?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict btw. I suggest for the final part "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mythology or mysticism) by its critical and often systematic approach, and by its refusal to accept any higher authority than reason." A brief argument to justify why all these words are required. First, we can't say simply that philosophy is 'based on reason', for many other disciplines are. Therefore we need to say that its use of reason distinguishes it from certain other approaches to the same questions. The bracketed 'mythology or mysticism' is an attempt to spell this out for the less perceptive reader. I have omitted religion so as not to offend the scrupulous, though remind you that 'Wikipedia is not censored'. Finally, to prevent further offence, I have added 'higher authority', so as to emphasise that while much of theology is exceedingly rational and critical (my special subject after all is medieval theology), it does accept a higher authority than mere human reason (as St Thomas himself says). Peter Damian (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think less is more in this case, as long as it's not begging questions. How about:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". The discipline of philosophy is distinguished from other approaches to such questions by critical analysis and reason without appealing to a higher authority.

Still not great, and I think there's positives to this and to Peter Damian's suggestion... SamBC(talk) 13:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with either Peter Damian's suggestion or SamBC's suggestion, even though both leave poor St. Tom out in the cold. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

break

Sam, be careful: "without appealing" has a different meaning from "by not appealing". Contrast 'He can talk without moving his lips' and 'He can talk by not moving his lips'. The latter suggests a specific cause, the former suggests merely the absence of an effect. If you want to trim it, I suggest "by not accepting any higher authority than reason." The other change you make is "by its critical and often systematic approach" to "by critical analysis and reason". This changes the meaning in a number of ways. I'm happy with less=more, but not less=different. Peter Damian (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Pruning per Sam, but avoiding less=different we now have:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that one --Snowded (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost there, I think. I can just about swallow "systematic" with the qualification, although the list of philosophers who rejected system is as long as your arm. Is anyone else uncomfortable with the final flourish, though? No higher authority than reason. Sounds awfully windy. May was well give reason a capital "R"! I'd vote for "...and by the use of argument to support its claims." KD Tries Again (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

break

I'm lost agin because I cannot see what changes are made and wby whom and why, and other changes are slipped in so to speak. The version we had which Peter and Snow said wwas "almost there" version A, was as follws:

A: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.

Rick wanted the etymlogy at th end which would give us:

B: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”

Then was the idea of using the original full etymology which would give us:

C: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

--Philogo 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

break

D: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

E: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Peter Damian (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

break

I am happy with these two revisions of Rick's; what about you guys, and are there more revisions suggested?--Philogo 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There was some agreement on D, except for the windy-sounding 'no higher authority than reason'. This was intended to echo ea quae sunt altiora hominis cognitione, non sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda but perhaps something went wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how about 'by appealing only to reason'? But someone else didn't like this for a reason I didn't understand. Peter Damian (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I put a slightly modified version of KD's suggestion in as E. Note that Phil will probably accept neither D nor E because they don't use the strike-out and italicise method, but I had no time for that. Peter Damian (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at a new version contd

[arbitary break] recap versions disussed A: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems.

B: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.”

C: The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” Philosophy is a study of problems which are deals with the fundamental [/?] issues concerned with of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics) and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology)., mind and language. Philosophy as an academic discipline (?)is distinguished from the popular use of the word by its use of reason in contrast with an assertion of belief or superstition taking asystematic, critical approach to problems. The word 'Philosophy' is derived from the Greek meaning “love of wisdom.” The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

D: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

E: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Well if we don't like the strike out idea:-

F: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

[no need to mention branches, comes up in body; put back mind and language; put back full etmology; make more terse ]

--Philogo 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

break

I like E. Instead of "using only argument to support its claims" I suggest "using reasoned argument to support its claims". One meaning of "argument" is "squabble", a reading we certainly want to avoid, and, as several people have observed, "only" is too strong. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No strong feelings. Peter Damian (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So:-

G: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

--Philogo 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

..but does Philosophy make claims? --Philogo 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Period after "...reasoned argument". Which gives us:

H:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using rational argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

References can be added or not. The style manual suggests leaving the references for the body of the article, but I have no objection to them. I do think the links to subfields are important. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, citing the manual's advice to avoid unnecessary words, we could remove "and by" to yield I:

I:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, using rational argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Are we there yet? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because the manual says you can only remove 'unnecessary' words. If you remove 'and by', you change the meaning entirely. Similarly for 'claims'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

break

Which brings us to J:

J:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using rational argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

I can certainly accept J if the others can. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But you need the word 'only'. 'and by only using rational argument to support its claims'. Otherwise you get the problem, which we have already discussed, of other disciplines such as theology using rational argument, but not exclusively.

K:Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using only rational argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Rick you keep slipping back the redundant refs to branches and getting rid of mind and langauge without quite saying why. If you object say why. Nobody else has said they want branch rfs in and mind and language out (although they might). Peter objects to your removing words as unnecessary because to do so changes the meaning. Hence we are really as we were at G, i.e.:-

I would like to add my support for the branches in brackets, with links. A tiny addition, and it does something very important which allows people to get to the main subjects very quickly. Peter Damian (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

L: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature scope, and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

I rasied the point that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word) when if anything it examines and challenges claims. Thats the current objection to the current version. Nobody other than Rick seems worried at this stage by 'unnecessary word' or citaions in lede. We could leave THAT until after we have dealt with the more serious issues.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that the reason we are anxious to stress "reason" in there is to contrast philosophy with superstition (or maybe religion) and not to contrast it with other proper subjects like science, history etc. which all use reason just as much as philosophy does. Do we have good reason to contrast philosphy with superstition etc? IS ti not not someaht to damn it with faint praise? (I doubt that a 'definition' of physics or biology would think that it was worth mentioning that it was unlike superstition.) If we wanted to contrast philosophy with something, it would be more to the point to say how it different from science (which was historically a part of philosophy) and logic and mathematics. If the former occupies the empirical-a posterori-sythethic side of the spectrum, and Mathematics and Logic occupy the a priori-analytic wing where does philosophy fit in? What saves it from being cast into the flames as Hume suggested as containing nothing but sophistry and illusion, or being just unverfiable unfalsifiable nonsense of the Logical Positivists. Its no good saying it uses reason - so do ads for snake oil, and works of theology: what does not? Peter do you have a suggestion re 'claims' or have any other reservations about L. above? --Philogo 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

break

PS: What exactly ARE these "other ways of addressing these questions" to which we are at great pains to contrast philosophy? --Philogo 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We do have good reason to contrast philosophy with superstition, mythology, mysticism, because traditionally that is how Philosophy emerged in the pre-Socratic days. More importantly, all the relevant sources either explicitly say this, or imply it. Note also that the claim of science being 'traditionally a part of philosophy' is not really correct. I take your point about Hume's fork, but this is a simple introduction on Philosophy based on verifiable sources, and not OR. If the sources say that Black=White, then that is what we say. Call me condescending if you like, but I still feel you haven't quite grasped this. Many of the points you make are good ones, but that is besides the point. We are not here to do philosophy, we are here to write down what other people have said. Peter Damian (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the other ways (superstition, mythology, mysticism) were spelled out in a previous version, but it was felt that it was so obvious what these were, that they should be removed. It's somewhere in the thread above. Peter Damian (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My objection to the current version L is that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word). Are you saying it is reporting what our sources say?

--Philogo 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) --Philogo 12:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

break

(indent) OK I am loosing it, there are so many versions now and the. It seems to me we had an agreement on: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument to support its claims, and by accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". I have seen the branches removed which seems a mistake. Systematic was an issue So I have put in Rick's suggestion. Am I missing something?--Snowded (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the only objection to this version has to do with the word "claims", which Peter Damian likes and Philogo dislikes. As I've said,I am happy with either version, and think it is time to reach closure. Maybe Peter Damian and Philogo should flip a coin -- unless one or the other is willing to yield the point, I can't think of any other way to decide. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with it is this "no higher authority than reason", which is a bold rhetorical flourish - and makes me wince - but doesn't seem to add anything.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD, I altered this in version L to the one you preferred (using only argument to support its claims), though I am genuinely puzzled why, style aside, you don't think it adds anything. The point is to distinguish stuff like theology which uses reason, a lot, but does accept a 'higher authority'. There is a definite logical distinction being made, and I'm puzzled you think there isn't. Happy to accept your version. Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To make this argument again. Theology (for example) uses a lot of logic. It is probably one of the most logical subjects there is - except it does not question certain initial assumptions. It does accept an authority other than reason. (If it is higher than you object to, we can change this - is that the problem?). And I am still trying to understand why it makes you wince! Is it the personnification of reason as an 'authority' you dislike? But how else to express the idea? Aquinas says there are things beyond or above human comprehension that we must simply accept on faith. It is that idea that pure philosophy would not accept - how else to express it? Peter Damian (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

break

The latest version under consderation is:

L: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and by using reasoned argument to support its claims. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

and the only reservation raisied, so far as I can tell, is mine, i.e. that it implies that Philosophy makes claims (sounding more like the vernacular use of the word), which could saurely be fixed by varying the words to support its claims. (The raison de'etre for a sentence like ours beginning Philosophy is distinguished is because we need to distinguish philosphy from mumbo-jumbo and not from other science and other disciplines, beacause that is what our sources do. Does anybody have any other substantive reservations about it, L above?

--Philogo 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

~Substantial disagreement, It removes the branches I think the better working version is the one in bold above --Snowded (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The branches were removed becasue we (appeared) to agree that there was no point in mentioning them since they are listed in the body of the article. Why do you think we need them in the lede as well? What other points do you disagree with? Are you bother or content with "support its claims" ?

--Philogo 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds clumsy without the branches, and those three are the major ones. How about this (with the claims removed as they add nothing)

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". --Snowded (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Section titles

Early modern philosophy is a commonly used term in philosophical history, but I have never heard of "later modern philosophy" used as a description (admittedly, that's an odd pattern, to have early but not late). I suggest changing that title. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any standard way to refer to that period, (the problem being that there are so many movements), but I think 'post-kantian philosophy' serves as well as any other. JustinBlank (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does "postmodernism" fit in, or is it now "out"? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it fits in if at all. It would, if relevant, be a way of characterizing some philosophical ideas or tendencies. I don't think it's customary to use it to refer to a time period, or even a movement, really. JustinBlank (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Philosophy

I made some rather bold changes to this section, though hopefully the additions are anodyne. As for the deletions: since I don't think there's such a term as "later modern philosophy" it doesn't make much sense to say it came to an end. And the rest of the section about "occupying discourses" seemed to be a bit of word salad that just listed philosophers. JustinBlank (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Justin that makes sense to me. Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

discussion of the first paragraph, Chapter Three

I agree with the others, omitting the names of the areas is a bad idea. Try reading the first sentence aloud without the names of the areas, and I think you'll see what I mean -- it reads like a run-on sentence. The names give guidence to the reader, and also provide links for the reader interested in particular philosophical questions. And they are referenced.

Snowded's version quoted from above seems to have a lot of support. Does anyone strongly object to it?

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a good version due to the repetition of 'reason'. Peter Damian (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence does not mention logic, mind or language, and therefore suggests that questions in connection with them are not "main": I would want to see sources in support for their being subsidary. It restricts Ethics to normativity and implies philosophy does not critically examine the nature of value judgments and concepts. The second sentence (a) suggests philosophy is distinguished from all other disciplines (not just mumbo-jumbo) by critical approach etc. Other disciplines considers some such problems in an equally critical and reasoned way (eg physics considers what sort of things exist - wave, particles, quantums, space-time etc.). I would want to see some citations that support that philosophy is distinguished from e.g. science in the manner suggested. The phrase "accepting no higher authority than reason" is highly florid and unclear; usually a sign of lack of thought. If it means that philosophy takes no account of empirical observation then it is highly contentious as discussed on many occasions previously, and I would want to see citations in support. (GE Moore was not doing philosophy when he held out his hand? Ordinary language philosophers and later Wittenstein not doing philosophy when discussing how words are used?)

--Philogo 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your first point, I agree that logic and philosophy of language are sometimes on the standard list. Others felt they shouldn't be on there, and that only the three 'standard' ones (metaphysics, ethis, epistemology) should be represented. In the interests of closure I suggest leaving as is. On the distinction between philosophy and 'other ways of addressing the same questions' this has been discussed at length above, could you have a look at that discussion please. On "accepting no higher authority than reason" this has also been discussed at length and KD suggested a re-wording that I don't agree with but happy all the same to go along with. That would be version K. (The thinking behind "accepting no higher authority than reason" was actually quite careful and was explained above - this is to distinguish theology, which makes considerable use of reason, but which also accepts a higher authority, from philosophy, which does not. Peter Damian (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licet ea quae sunt altiora hominis cognitione, non sint ab homine per rationem inquirenda, sunt tamen, a Deo revelata, suscipienda per fidem - "Although things which are higher (altiora) than human cognition may not be investigated by reason, yet revealed by God, they are to be received by faith". Aquinas is one of the clearest philosophers in the history of philosophy, so why people are saying this is florid or unclear is beyond me. Perfectly clear. Peter Damian (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also here it suggests the phrase 'no higher authority than reason' originates with Descartes himself. Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to go to the mat on the "higher authority" phrase. My qualms are not so much about what it is intended to be mean; we have been over the pros and cons of "reason" quite enough; I am just distrubed at what baggage the word "authority" brings with it here. I can see that God, in theology, is the final "authority". Is reason an "authority"? Is that why we accept it? Is it our master? But maybe I have just read too much Adorno. If nobody else feels like me about it, go ahead.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree and would add that the whole second sentence appears to be an attempt to differentiate philosophy from theology without having the nerve to say so. --Philogo 21:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Philogo that "Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language and their relationships with each other and the world" is preferable to the traditional triad, as it more accurately reflects current practice, though I would suggest excising the "and their relationships with each other and the world" in the interests of brevity. The vague "understanding" should be struck and replaced with "logic". The appropriate words should be wikilinked to the articles on epistemology, phil of logic, phil of lang, etc. The second sentence could lose "using reasoned argument", which removes the redundancy. I'm not sure about how best to differentiate philosophy from the sciences, though the implicit suggestion that philosophers will follow reason even against common sense or empirical evidence does have the virtue of capturing the difference. 271828182 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Science and all that

Science (from the Latin 'scientia', meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works.

Science#History of science

Well into the eighteenth century, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method. Prior to the 18th century, however, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to the study of the human mind as moral philosophy. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something. In this differing sense of the two words, the philosopher John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding wrote that "natural philosophy [the study of nature] is not capable of being made a science".[3]

I'm not sure about how best to differentiate philosophy from the sciences; this is how it goes currently at the Science article. --NewbyG (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

discussion of the first paragraph, Chapter Three contd.

271828182's suggestion would give us:

M:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

--Philogo 09:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If and only if "other ways of addressing these questions" means "theology" then we could say the same more clearly and with fewer words with:

N:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

--Philogo 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That leaves open for discussion whether it is worthwhile and supported by our sources to (a) (as in sentence 2) seek to differentiate philosophy from theology but (b) not worthwhile differenriating philosophy from (i) other proper disciplines especially science. (ii) mumbo-jumbo (iii) the vernacular use of the word (meaning general outlook as in "his philosophy of life")

--Philogo 09:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy with most of this, as I said before (I won't die in a ditch for 'higher authority') but "using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason." is horribly clumsy due to repetition of 'reason'. Suggest combining this with KD's last sentence. Thus Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. Peter Damian (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per Phil's suggestion my original had brackets after 'other ways of addressing these questions' into which suitable candidates could be slotted, such as mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That would give us:

O: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

which still leaves open for discussion whether it is worthwhile and supported by our sources to (a) (as in sentence 2) seek to differentiate philosophy from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] but (b) not worthwhile differenriating philosophy from (i) other proper disciplines especially science. (ii) mumbo-jumbo (iii) the vernacular use of the word (meaning general outlook as in "his philosophy of life"). AND if so, whether it is right to say that philosophy "makes claims" (by implication as does theology). --Philogo 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just, like, change the introduction now and do something else? I think most people for some time have indicated agreement with some version or other that is close to this? You have heard of 'diminishing returns'? Perhaps we can have a vote for closure? Peter Damian (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think many sources (e.g. Quinton) agree on the distinction between the philosophical approach to 'big questions' and the saloon-bar 'my philosophy of life' approach, or crystals or sitting chanting 'om'. That is what most departments stress to students more than anything else (hoping to discourage crystals, astral projection and om-chanters). There is far less agreement on the distinction between philosophy and science, except that science tends not, on the whole, to address the 'big questions'. E.g. what is the meaning of life is fair game for philosophy, but I don't know any science, properly so-called, that deals with this one. Similarly the problem of future contingents, the question of what happens to our soul after death. But now I speculate. The sources agree on this, anyway. I have found a quote from Reid which I will put into the quotations bit. Peter Damian (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Support for closure?

Given that nearly everyone now agrees on some version of the introduction as given above, who supports closure on this? I.e. just put one of the introductions in, agree not to change it beyond the slight rewording that has been going on, and do something else, like attend to the horrendous state of other parts of the article? There is such a thing as 'diminishing returns'. Peter Damian (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes! It seems to me that the two things holding us up are Philogo's dislike of the use of the words "ontology" and so on. Let me just point out that several people have now said the sentence reads badly without them, and that the references use them. And Peter Damian's objection to "using reasoned argument and with no higher authority than reason", which could be replaced by the less repetitious "using reasoned argument". Oh, and the business of "to support its claims". I don't see how that adds anything, and it is a point of controversy, so let's scratch it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'll go with that. I like 'to support its claims' because it balances the sentence - perhaps you are not a sailor, Rick, but I can live with it. For anyone interested, I have added another quotation, from Thomas Reid, on the distinction between philosophy and science, here: talk:Philosophy/Quotations#Reid. Peter Damian (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, why don't you put up a version here, and we'll see if anyone salutes. We all have other things to do with our time. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with version "O" above, except that we need find some reasonable solution to the "theology, etc." clause. I have found yet another specimen for the supporting quotations file, from A.C. Grayling, which touches on ours in several ways. 271828182 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with P: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: its the second sentence that is troublesome. There is a proverb in writing that if you cannot get a cherished sentence to come out right, abandon it and write a new one. My suggestion would be to not mention theology etc. nor use the word "distinguished" at all. To concentrate on what philosophy is and not what it is not. My suggestion would along the line of: Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. This would give us:

Q: Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, understanding, moral judgments, mind and language. and their relationships with each other and the world Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument to support its claims. Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

without the scratch-outs this is:

Q: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy deals with these issues by the critical examination of all assumptions not by the promotion of new ones. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

I think the three of us should let the other editors who have particapted have a say before we rush to closure, even in the (unlikey) circumstance that we three are all now in agreeement.

--Philogo 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Either I or Philogo have a tin ear. Version Q seems to me to read very badly, and also to introduce new stuff we never considered before. I'm good at diagramming sentences, but I wouldn't attempt to diagram that monster on a bet. And where did "not by the promotion of new ones" come from. I don't remember ever seeing that before, and I have no idea what it means. Peter Damian, would you please offer a version that at least two or three of us can live with? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick: will you say if you support P or not? It refelcts the change you last requested.

--Philogo 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to render P readable by human beings, but the cross outs don't cut and paste, so I can't read P. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Chop suey

A1. Philosophy involves thinking about thinking; it is the systematic study of such general and fundamental questions as; what is the universe and its nature (cosmology), how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology) and what forms of reasoning are valid (logic). A2. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical and systematic approach (logic).

No doubt this will not do;

My apologies; this is very preliminary. --NewbyG (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Something along these lines would probably be fine, but let's not start over this late in the game. If all but one of us can agree on one of the options above -- several are fine in my opinion and I've asked Peter Damian to choose -- then let's all agree to go with that and take a break until at least August. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

returning to the last option considered

Option P

Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with (elimating the strike-outs):

P:

Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: it's just the second sentence that is troublesome.

I think the three of us (Rick, Peter, Philogo) should now let the other editors who have participated have a say before we rush to closure.

--Philogo 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rather than another 200K of discussion concerning one paragraph, why not just go with this one? LOL --NewbyG (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Option R

I haven't the stamina to get deeply involved in this again, but most articles on similar subjects in WP start "X is...'. Check mathematics, physics, anthropology, sociology, etc. I know it's contentious to say it's an academic subject, but "deals with" is a weaseling sort of definition that an actual philosopher would surely call you on. Why distinguish from theology something that hasn't even been defined yet?

• R: Philosophy is a method of intellectual investigation that considers such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things that exist, and the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the creation of detailed arguments in support of one's positions. The word "philosophy" is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge" or "love of wisdom".

I'm not entirely happy with that, as I'd prefer to say it's an academic subject that is mother to most other academic subjects, but there you go. JJL (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Option S

In answer to JJL's question above, the reason for the word 'distinguished' is that the genus of philosophy is general and fundamental problems, the differentia is its critical, systematic and reasoned approach. Most of the sources, if you read them carefully, are agreed on this. Combining the suggestions above with the excellent quote from Grayling which our e-numbered friend provided, yields

S: Philosophy is a method of intellectual investigation that considers such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things that exist, and the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as theology, mysticism, or mythology) by its critical and generally systematic approach, holding that human reason is competent on its own account to deal with such questions. The word "philosophy" is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge" or "love of wisdom".

Peter Damian (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Round in circles

To avoid going round in circles, I suggest for now we leave first sentence as it was i.e. as in P:

"Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language." and concentrate on the troublesome second sentence:

I find the personifications in S excessive in "holding that human reason is competent on its own account to deal with such questions". I cannot find the Graying quote you have in mind, Peter, but:

Grayling in talk:Philosophy/Quotations writes:

"Other human endeavours, not least art and literature, explores aspects of these same questions, but it is philosophy that mounts a direct assault on them, in the hope of clarifying them and, where possible, answering them."

and

"in effect philosophy consists in inquiry into anything not yet well enough understood to constitute a self-standing branch of knowledge. When the right questions and the right methods for answering them have been identified, the field of inquiry in questions becomes an independent pursuit."

--Philogo 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'excessive personification' is there in Grayling in talk:Philosophy/Quotations, where you were apparently looking. Perhaps you do have a tin ear. Is anyone else fed up with this? Peter Damian (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another version

Fed up is putting it mildly. And did Grayling really make the error in elementary grammar "endevours ... explores"? Sounds more like George Bush. I was ready to go with anything you suggested Peter Damian, but I think you've made too many concessions. The trouble with P and S is one of grammar. It is not clear if "nature, scope, and limits" modify only "knowledge" or modify "knowledge, moral judgments, mind, and language." This would be a stumbling block to anyone who reads carefully. They would have to go back and read the sentence several times, and would then probably say, "I say it's spinich, and I say the Hell with it."

I think we had some agreement (that is, all but one of us had some agreement) on Snowded's version above:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument, accepting no higher authority than reason. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

The sole sticking point at that time, was the "accepting no higher authority..." If we drop that, and add links, we get:

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions such as how one should live (ethics), what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics), and what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology). Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical approach using reasoned argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Nice, short, and to the point. The modifier "such as" allows for other areas such as logic, esthetics, and politics.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Or back to the previous

I'm afraid I find that version a bit too terse, but happy to go along with it for sake of closure. Note I have changed the introduction in the main article already to the slightly longer one. Change it to your one by all means but no other versions please. Peter Damian (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've struck that out. The current version now in the article does reflect the suggestions of the non-lunatic fringe whose views I respect, such as 27218, KD tries and JJL, so we should respect those, Rick. Peter Damian (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

". . . reason accepts no authority above itself and is necessarily subversive." Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1987), p. 258. Peter Damian (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Grayling before me (I am moving and the books are being boxed), but the grammar error is most likely mine, in the hasty transcription. I am adding another, considerably more concise definition to the list, from Teichman & Evans. It is notably agnostic on the question we are wrestling with in the second sentence. 271828182 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the lunatic fringe, but I'm happy to let the current version stand, misplaced modifiers and all. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the misplaced modifiers. They originally modified OK but then people added unmodified bits on the end. I'll sleep on it. It has been a very sunny and beautiful day here and we cycled up the river and back. Peter Damian (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I 'modified' the opening to address the 'modifier' problem. I didn't actually say that you were a lunatic, Rick. Peter Damian (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

PS someone has changed the last sentence to 'the word philosophy is of African origin'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you had a pleasant day.

I tried to keep my hands off it, I really did, but the semicolon is a punctuation mark that comes with rules of its own, and it cannot replace a comma, unless both parts are complete sentences. And while I was there, I inserted a paragraph break. Tomorrow, I leave on my vacation. Have fun until I return. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Option P again

Looking back the last version we agreed on was version O, but Ricki wanted to make an amendement (strike out 'to support its claims' which resulted in version P: here it is again just as it appears at the top of this section):-

Scratching 'to support its claims' as Rick suggests and Peter would tolerate leaves us with (elimating the strike-outs):

P:

Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from theology [mysticism, mythology, saloon-bar chat, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of [reasoned?] argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

which leaves unresolved the "theology, etc." clause. Recently I have just been "minuting" the edits suggested by other editors. It appear that there is general contentment with the first and last sentences: it's just the second sentence that is troublesome.

I think the three of us (Rick, Peter, Philogo) should now let the other editors who have participated have a say before we rush to closure.

end quote

We had apparently then agreed on the first and last sentence but not the second. The amendements immediately leading up to version P were from Peter and Ricki. The rest of this page sems to consist of further amendments from Peter and Rik, but I had suggested then and suggest again that it would be fair now to let other editors have their say. We all agreed that we would proceed by consensus and that includes editors other than Peter and Rick. Any problem with that?

--Philogo 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that Peter does have a problem with that because he has changed the lede (22/6/08 10:38 without waiting for the consensus and he himself had suggested we should.

--Philogo 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping the layout clear

There seems to be some confusion between what constitutes consensus and what is bold. That is not being helped by this discussion at present, please. --NewbyG (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On semicolon use

(undent) On semicolon use, this must be a English vs US thing see here - perfectly acceptable in my country to do this. But because Wikipedia is an American thing, and because Americans rule the world so far, that is fine. On version P, I am fine with that, so long as we don't have the 'saloon bar' thing, which was a sort of joke. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Returning from an internetless weekend in Italy I can live with "P" if you remove theology which is contentious. Many approaches to philosophy over the years have appealed to authority (or the absence of authority). --Snowded (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Recap - 10:38 22 June 2008 [1] --NewbyG (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see we now have agreement to: Philosophy deals with such general and fundamental problems as the sorts of things which exist, and the nature, scope and limits of knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from [mysticism, mythology, idle speculation &c.] by its critical and generally systematic approach, and the use of reasoned argument. The word "philosophy" is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom" links need to be there as well. I see someone edited the main page - too many to trace back so I restored it to something similar to the above as an interim measure. However is this now agreed? --Snowded (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not with the stuff in square brackets as above. The version there right in the article now is fine except it needs the 'reasoned argument' bit at the end. Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I added that in --Snowded (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of the semi-colon Peter Damian cites above is correct in US as well as UK English. What isn't correct is mixing commas and semi-colons. Thus: "We say complex clause A; complex clause B; and complex clause C." is correct, but "We say clause A, clause B; and clause C." is not. I have no objection to changing the first comma to a semicolon. That would solve the problem as well as, maybe better than, changing the semicolon to a comma. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's been there a long time, but I've never been comfortable with the "question" or "problem" about "the sorts of things that exist". I know we don't want to bludgeon the reader with "ontology" in the first sentence, but I think the current wording has a spurious simplicity - in other words, unless you've studied philosophy, you won't have a clue what it means. No brilliant solution, but what about "the nature of existence" - as we're repeating "nature" in the following clauses anyway?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Hmm EXCEPT metaphysics is in fact both about existence ("being is said in many ways"), but more about the sorts of things that exist (reaching for his copy of the Metaphysics). I take the point, but ... Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Retrieved a copy). Book Z, which is where all the hot stuff goes on, starts off 'The study of being is primarily the study of substance', then chapter 2 starts 'What things are substances'. "We say that not only plants and animals and their parts are substances, but also natural bodies such as fire and water and earth and everything of that sort". Are the limits of body substance? Numbers? Geometrical objects? And so on. Also the Categories, which is one of the most important books in the medieval tradition, is primarily about what sorts of thing there are. OK my work tends to be on all stuff between 500 BC and 1500, but that is 2,000 years and a big chunk of philosophy. Just a thought. Peter Damian (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I emphasize - you're not wrong at all. I agree. But although you and I know about all that, I just wonder if an encyclopaedia user looking up philosophy will know that "what sorts of things exist" means all that?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree this is a bit tricky. "What sorts of things ultimately exist"? "What sort of things really really exist"? Difficult. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep the layout clear; avoid repitition

May I please request that we keep the layout clear on this talk page? We currently have proposals A-Z for the lead section, and each is presented multiple times. Repitition. Result: another 80K for archiving, and discussion is hindered, not helped. --

Avoid repetition. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to be helpful. Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. --

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and the infobox at the top of this talk page. --NewbyG (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

recapp

8 June 23:28 Edit to the article concerning the lead section (71,284 bytes; reinstated pov tag). [2]

23 June 19:59 Edit to the article concerning the lead section (69,666 bytes); rm superflous the) [3]

(diffs) --NewbyG (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of the mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical and generally systematic approach and the use of reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

I am content with the lede as it now is, (as above) although I would ditch the "the" before mind. (mind as opposed to matter not the mind as opposed to matter).

--Philogo 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd still prefer a definition that begins "Philosophy is..." as most similar articles at WP do. That seems appropriate for an encyclopedia. JJL (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your wish has come true. Peter Damian (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest (undiscussed edits reverted)

--Philogo 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Philosophy is the study of such general and fundamental blah blah...". Also "what sorts of things exist" is clumsy, but does at least look like a "question".KD Tries Again (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I previously suggested "...is a method of intellectual investigation..." (option R, above). I prefer "...is the academic discipline..." but this has always been contentious. But I say again, sample similar articles...most start with "X is..." or something similar. A definition should define, esp. in a general-audience encyclopedia such as this. JJL (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Option T

271828182's recent edit considerably improve the intro, can we have these please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, it directly addresses JJL's wish for 'Philosophy is' rather than 'Philosophy does...'. And it emphasises 'reliance' rather than mere 'use' of reasoned argument, which almost solves the problem that has dogged this discussion. Peter Damian (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Option T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

I went with "inquiry and reflection" in response to JJL's request, avoiding the scholastic "study of" or any committment to academia, which is false given non-academics such as Kierkegaard or many ancient philosophers. The diction was directly taken from Grayling. I also excised several unnecessary words (such as "limits" of knowledge—that is already covered by the word "scope"; and the additional "of" before language is bad parallel construction, especially when the preceding clause on knowledge and ethics omits a duplicate "of"). "Reliance" in place of "use" is a mild but needed acknowledgement of the centrality of reason to philosophy as it exists. The only misgiving I have about T is the appearance of limiting the questions to only those listed, but that could be fixed by ending the sentence with "and other topics." (Though I confess that would be ugly.) 271828182 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I like "questions about", I like "Philosophy is...". Small quibble - "inquiry...on" - wrong preposition. I still prefer "study of" but could live with just "reflection on" - although I can't imagine what the objection to "study" could be.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD, Thanks for the catch on "on". I fixed it above. I am okay with "study", but it comes close to implying that philosophy is an academic discipline only, or that it is a body of doctrines or results. I don't think the word "study" necessarily implies any of that, but just to be on the safe side, I avoided it. 271828182 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I'd prefer "critical and" to "critical," but that's minor. (Still, no one has ever captured it better than "Philosophy is the study of its own history" if you ask me.) I'm still sold that it's principally an academic subject--surely this is so as a practical matter--but don't intend to press this, which has always been contested. JJL (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes option T it is. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say (after reading the opposition to "T") that there is very little difference between "T" and the existing lede, except the addition of 'inquiry and reflection' and the various stylistic tightenings. I can understand some having qualms about the statement of genus, but can we agree on getting rid of the superfluous "of", "limits", and "and"? 271828182 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Option T opposed

I oppose option T: the lede is better beginning as it does:

Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.

It is also as agreed by consensus over the last several days.

I propose that we agree not to edit the lede without first posting the proposed amendment here for due discussion.

--Philogo 20:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to say "Philosophy is ..." and I find "T" clumsy in its opening, although I don't disagree with the intent. --Snowded (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think the intent is?

--Philogo 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

to elaborate on the process of philosophy --Snowded (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer T. The drafting problem with this alternative is the way it begins "Philosophy considers such...questions as..." and then goes on to list things which aren't questions. "The sorts of things which exist" is not a question. The big improvement in T is that it gets the word "about" in there; then you can intelligibly have philosophy studying (or considering or reflecting on) questions about. This is a big improvement; let's not lose it. Beginning "Philosophy is..." is just consistent with general Wiki practice.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

T is very far from a big improvement.

The current wording reached complete consensus after many days work, and we should have realy good reason to change it.

I agree with Snowed there is not need to follow Philosphy with "is" Any sentence begining with Philosophy is will be FAR more contentious than one begigining "Philosophy considers"

The words "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about" is extremely clumsy "questions: questions"; whether philsophy is "inquiry and reflection" rather than say "critical anaylsis" is contentious; it is contentious to say the that the matters mentioned are the most general and fundamental..

That said, it is true that in the current version that we all supported, what follows "such ..questions as" is not a list of questions, but a list of things about which questions are raisied. To correct this, if worthwhile, while maintaining the consensus would mean making the least change possible and one which did not change the meaning. I am not sure it is worthwile but a minimal change that would correct this point would be:

U (first sentence only):

Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.

Most important is, that no changes are made to the lede until an agreement has been reached by the editors who have put so much hard work in to getting the lede to where it is now.

Bear in mind that the whole question of what philosophy is and what is a philosophical problem etc. are metaphilosophical questions which are dealt with in the article metaphilosophy. Those who are particulary interested in these matters would better spend their time improving that article. --Philogo 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that consideration of "the editors who have put so much hard work in" isn't a criterion. Anything posted here may be brutally edited. Indeed, that's what's now happened to the previous lede which was itself a work of much discussion here. I fear you're developing a WP:OWN problem. I prefer Option T. Avoiding things merely because they're contentious leads to the worst forms of "written by committee"; contentious matters should be worked out if at all possible. JJL (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, also I am not clear why there is this supposed consensus against T. I support it, 272 does, JJL does. KD? Peter Damian (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Philogo, I understand you object to the "philosophy is inquiry and reflection" bit. (Maybe you could share your qualms with Grayling too.) But I have yet to hear any defense from you of the superfluous "of", "and", or the "use of reason" vs. "reliance on reason" edits. Could you address those edits, since you reverted them specifically, despite my avoiding the "philosophy considers" opening (which I consider extremely clumsy myself). 271828182 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Options U1 or U2 proposed (for first sentence)

I propose

U1:-

Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.

or more simply

U2:-

Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.

--Philogo 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Option T, please. Rick Norwood is the only one we haven't deferred to but he said he was going on holiday. Any vehement objections to T (on the understanding that JJL, KD, myself and 2728444 support it)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Damian (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowed and I have voiced objections to option T giving reasons. Any reasons against options U1 or U2. --Philogo 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "Philosophy considers..." is weak language that fails to define the subject of this encyclopedia entry. I also prefer "questions" to "problems" here. Option T does suffer from some wordiness but overall is a good option and I continue to support it. I might reword it as follows: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection concerning general and fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, morality, mind, and language. It is distinguished from religious approaches to these questions by its critical and systematic approach and by its reliance on reasoned argument. However, Option T is fine. Per below (edit conflict), it's consistent with Wikipedia style for such articles. JJL (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this still option T? "Option T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language." As far as I can see the only difference between T and U1 is the choice between "Philosophy considers..." and "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about..." I think the second (T) is consistent with Wiki style. But I can't imagine why anyone should really care much. I certainly don't care about the difference between U1 and U2.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I checked only the articles on mathematics, physics, psychology and sociology, and they all start "X is..." (although sociology bizarrely inserts a parenthetical remark between the X and the is. This is pretty much routine for Wiki articles of this kind. KD Tries Again (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The reason to avoid the "is" is because the result of using it is likely to be contentious: what philosophy is is more debatable than what mathematics, physics, psychology and sociology are. I do not see the reasons to assert that philosophy is "inquiry and reflection" rather than, say, "critical analysis" or "academic study" the former sounds more like a bible reading me than a work of philosophy. Avoid he "is" and you avoid that isssue.

--Philogo 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is navel-gazing. There was a lot of debate at Mathematics about what math. is, for example, and I very much disagree that it's easier to define math. than phil. (Indeed, consider the overlap.) Every discipline's practitioners are apt to find their field especially complex. This is no reason to give up, and simply avoiding contentious issues is hardly the way to go. JJL (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, JJL. Much as we might indulge ourselves here, there really is no doubt what you are going to study if you sign up for a philosophy course at any university or college. I mean, there isn't any real world puzzlement about this. The introductory statement needs to be broad, but just because there are infinite ways of phrasing it, it doesn't follow that it can't be phrased.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Options T and U3

Who's giving up? There is a whole field devoted to the topic: metaphilosophy.

If we concentrate on the matters that give rise to philosophical problems/objects of philsophical inquiry we are on ground both firmer and more fertile. We have missed out inference and truth in that list. We might better say:-

U3:-

Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.

--Philogo 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I like the current version, if we can get a less clumsy version of the first sentence of T I am am open --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Face to face (first sentence only):-

Current version:-

Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.

T: Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature and scope of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and language.

U3: Philosophy considers general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.

--Philogo 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Option U4

I support Philogo's recent move to conciseness. But maybe we can get the best of both worlds with

U4: Philosophy is inquiry about general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, truth, inference, mind and language.

I am also still strongly interested in modifying the second sentence to include "reliance on reasoned argument" or something similar. 271828182 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the latter point, of course. I can live with U4, although I much prefer "reflection" to "inquiry". Inquiring about problems sounds a bit odd. Oh, I am not sure we need "inference" sneaking in there either - better just say "logic".KD Tries Again (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Might I suggest "study of" in lieu of "reflection" or "inquiry". The reason for truth, inference, [[logic|truth, inference]], was to follow the pattern of list "object" wiki-link to branch.

If you click on each link in turn you can see the ways the other articles begin with X is ...

Does anybody think we are being unfair to philosophy of history, Political philosophy, Aesthetics, philosophy of logic by not mentioning THEIR "objects", or enough is enough.

--Philogo 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Option U5

Would we all be happy enough with:

U5: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, logic, truth, validity, mind and language.

--Philogo 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i think it is a mistake to start a longer list - we already have this in the first section and we agreed the main areas some time ago. I am happy with the "study of" option above --Snowded (talk) 23

28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur about U5. I am fine with the "study of" (in the spirit of compromise) but don't think the list needs to cover more than (layman's terms for) epistemology and metaphyiscs, ethics, and logic, as I would place the other areas as subsets of these. I know others break it down differently and that's OK, but too long a list isn't helpful and obfuscates more than clarifies. JJL (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Option V

V: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language.

If this is the first sentence, it doesn't say much, does it, it is just a list. --NewbyG (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Boring, but livable, all things considered. JJL (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to live with this, even though it seems like Philogo has been dictating terms to everyone else throughout the last several proposals. Perhaps we could insert "topics such as" between "concerning" and "existence" to signal this set is not closed? I also notice that we have, by chance or selectionist pressures, ended up fairly close to the opening of this textbook. 271828182 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its poor and I cannot live with it. The current version is a lot better (and closer the the options above which have achieved a fair degree of consensus. It gives language and logic too great a status, if they are there then all the other branches should be listed. My own view is that we are close to agreement on the current version, with the possible variation of the opening to handle option T if we can find a more elegant opening (I don't see the value of "is"). I don't object to 271828182 changes to the second sentence by the way. I have attempted an option W below to accommodate option T but made it more active. (when we get to Z we will all know that we are dancing on the head of a pin with a finite number of angels).--Snowded (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of closure (which is all I am interested in) can we agree to 271828182 changes to the second sentence, then leave it? I won't die in a ditch for 'is', though I prefer it. Peter Damian (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with that, but suggested W as an accommodation for those who liked T. FULLY agree on closure --Snowded (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Option W

Philosophy inquires and reflects on the most general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

(present version plus modification of opening of Option T --Snowded (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of logic or philosophy of science? "inquires and reflects" rather than "is the study of"? "fundamental questions" followed by what do not appear to be questions?

There are many type of Philosophy, and they are listed. However the main three areas are those in T/W. Study implies that it is only an academic discipine --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

--Philogo 11:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Option T much preferred. The phrasing and balance of W leaves much to be desired. Given the changes now being proposed are stylistic, and given 272 is easily the best stylist with us, by far, can we go for T, please. Peter Damian (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter - option T is identical to the above other than my minor change to the start so I really don't see how you can say the phrasing and balance leaves much to be desired. --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Prefer Option T. Philosophy doesn't "inquire" or "reflect" about anything--it just sits there. JJL (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in favor of W, for much the same reason as JJL: like "philosophy considers", it is anthropomorphizing. 271828182 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some strange new meaning of "anthropomorphising"? Look I'm not wild about W, I prefer the current one but was trying to come up with a compromise. Option T is just clumsy, someone is going to edit it if we put it in. I was trying to use the same words in a different way. Can you come up with something? --Snowded (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone edited the last lede which was also the result of lengthy discussion. That's Wikipedia. You can't hope to have a bullet-proof lede that no one will want to edit. You can only hope for rough consensus, which can change. JJL (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I knew that, but you can make it less likely --Snowded (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If Snowed prefers the current version it is curious he proposes to replace it with option W. Philosophy does not inquire and reflect: philosophers do that. Philosophy is the study of avoids that problem. If study sounds too academic (do only academics study?; philopsohy IS pretty academic, isn't it? What is philosophy when it is not academic?) "is the examination of" would do as well. The omission of problems associated with logic and science as objects of study is very regretable. Surely logic has alays been a concern of philosophy, and science too particularly in the last 100 years? As before, "fundamental questions" is followed by what do not appear to be questions. --Philogo 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

U5 reconsidered

There seemed few objections to U5 accept that it "started a longer list"

U5: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, logic, truth, validity, mind and language.

I think science and logic should be in the list since logic has always been a concern of philosophy, and science too particularly in the last 100 years. For similar reason I would defend [[philosophy of mind|mind]] and [[philosophy of language|language]].

Surely if we omit philosophical problems associated with science, logic, mind and language we are ignoring a major part of 20th century philosophy? These omissions, together with "Philosophy inquires and reflects", really make the subject sound like meditation.

--Philogo 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't mention everything in the first paragraph. Phil. of sci. (and math.!) is important, but this is the slippery slope. OTOH, as suggested previously, mentioning too little invites immediate future edits of the lede. I still try to place everything under one of three major categories: epistemology/metaphysics, logic, or ethics. Granted, it's not always an easy fit. But I think science (and mind) fit nicely in the first (pair) of those. I'd prefer fewer categories here and an expansion later. But, none of the lists are too long for me yet. JJL (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and it means we can avoid issues over logic as the only means of reason. The three major categories are enough. --Snowded (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So is U5 OK or not?

--Philogo 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not by me - would prefer T with some modifications to start (I note by the way that Peter has been blocked indefinitely for reasons not connected with the page so we should at least try and respect his opinions in resolving this) --Snowded (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Snowed: it would assist if you would (a) say what you disagree with in U5 (b) show us your proposed T with some modifications o we can compare it with the current version and with U5. --Philogo 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have said why I disagree with U5 above, by agreeing with another author that it has two many categories and is otherwise too short. The only difference between the current version (which I like) and T is the first sentence "Philosophy is inquiry and reflection about the most general and fundamental questions" which I think is clumsy. I don't think you can say "is inquiry". Reflecting on it (and looking at some other pages) I think we might after all be best to accept "study". That would mean Option X below (with the addition of the etymology sentence, ad the insertion of "limits" on knowledge from the present version which I think is important. --Snowded (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Option X

Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom". --Snowded (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter if you are reading this signify assent on your talk page! --Snowded (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison:

Current version:

Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

U5:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, science, moral judgments, logic, truth, validity, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

--Philogo 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see all three versions are the same accept for the first sentence. Option X has the awkward "questions: questions about" and the repetition of "nature". The current version has "considers such" while we have agree we would prefer "is the study of" as in X and U5. U5 is shorter than X, but the addition words in X do not say much: compare

U5: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning ...

X: Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions: questions about the sorts of things that..

U5 includes too long a list of types. There was general agreement on T and I don't find questions: questions clumsy but would not object to Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it may be a matter of taste but I find "questions: questions" clumsy, and there seesm to be a lot of padding in X. It would hlep if you said which of the too long as lsit in U5 you objected to in particualr, but I deduce it must be one or all of science, logic, truth, validity. If we consider that problems assocaited with scinece aresubsumed under problems with kbowledge, and that problems asscoaed with truth and validity come under logic, then we can trim the list as you suggest to give us:

U6: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

Granted that it is now even shorter, we could make it longer by padding it out with words that do not say much but I do not see the point in that.

Let's see what other editors have to say about the current, X and U6 versions now, shall we, Snowed?

--Philogo 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I note most of the other editors were for T with only you and I against, and I think X which is closer to T is a reasonable compromise. I have suggested we could get rid of questions:questions above. I disagree with logic being one of the main branches, it is one form of argument in philosophy over the ages but it is not the only one. So I am afraid my preference would be X (or X+1) below. If not that I would accept T rather than U

X+1

Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".

--Snowded (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Choice of three

Well as I said, Snowed, let's see what the others say; we two have put a lot of work in. It's just the first sentence, being either:

Current:

Philosophy considers such general and fundamental questions as the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.

U6:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, logic, mind and language.

X+1:

Philosophy is the study of the most general and fundamental questions about the sorts of things that exist, the nature, scope, and limits of knowledge and moral judgments, and the nature of mind and of language.

--Philogo 12:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Either of U6 and X+1 is OK by me. JJL (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will settle for U6 as the least bad option on the table. 271828182 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Current revision as of 23:30, 30 June 2008 UTC, t, u6, x+1, chop suey. (tick one) --NewbyG (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

U6. --Philogo 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

origins of philosophy

The origion of philosophy is the Inod-Iranians, so this must be addressed first, before you even talk of the Greeks. Dvakili (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You will need to establish this with citations before you edit the main page --Snowded (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The philosophy page must start with the Indo-Iranians. Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got it to hand (Blackburn) to check. However I assume you are arguing that ZOROASTRIANISM should be seen as the origin? If we do that then we could go back to any religious movement. I am not opposed per se, but I think it needs to be discussed here first so I have reversed it. You had in any event inserted it between text and a reference

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 June 2008

Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the chronology of philosophy according to Oxford university. This fact has nothin gto do with religion. So do not change my comments, because I will do the same to you. I am stating a fact. Dvakili (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you are a new editor. You need to be aware that when an issue is not agreed it is discussed here first to attempt to reach an agreement. A quick search reveals a large number of references that state that philosophy originated in Greek. You have quoted one (that needs to be checked) to the effect that Z was the first philosopher (which is not the same thing per se). Please discuss here and do not revert again until a consensus is reached. See the 3RR rule.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 June 2008

Once again western philosophy started with the Greeks, that is not the same thing as philosophy as a subject. You do not more than the department of philosophy at Oxford university. The philosophy page must start with the Indo-Iranians. Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the chronology of philosophy according to Oxford university. So do not change my comments, because I will do the same to you. I am stating a fact. Dvakili (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a lot to learn about WIkipedia. Why start a new section here for example? You have one citation, there are others. You may be right, but you have to discuss it here first. Do not issue threats, assume good faith and do no indulge in edit wars. You have now been banned for a period and repetition of the behaviour will result in further lengthier bans.

In addition even if you are correct it about the origins then the reference does not belong in etymology. The origin of the word "Philosophy" is Greek. You would be better considering some words around Z elsewhere in the article. Please also note that the opening sentence is under active discussion above, and you cannot unilaterally change it under those circumstances. --Snowded (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

the KISS principle

Option Y

What's wrong with a tight introduction saying something along the lines of:

Philosophy is a disciplined study comprising ethics, logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology, by investigating the nature, causes, principles of reality, knowledge, thought (thinking), and values, based on reasoning rather than empirical methods.

The word philosophy is of ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]

Catagraph (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would read through the earlier discussions, in particular (i) the debates on which types of philosophy should be in the introduction (most are agreed that there are three major branches, (ii) the fact that empirical methods have been used in Philosophy and are increasingly in play in aspects of Philosophy of mind and ethics. there is other material but I would look at the current options (T/U/W) the sequencing will tell you have long this discussion has been going on. KISS can be a good principle in come contexts (sales for example where it was first used), but the text also has to pass a NPOV test which the text above fails. --Snowded (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This version is quite reasonable; and it does not contravene any wp:policies. Presently here, though, discussion does not favour adding aesthetics and logic to the list of elements in the first sentence of the lead section; it is the first sentence of the lead section which has been under discussion for some 400KB so far since May. --

While we have been giving such massive attention to one sentence however, it is possible that some editor(s) may have been giving consideration to writing a longer and more useful lead section; perhaps four good paragraphs are required, rather than keeping to just one short one. Writing something worthwhile though, and then having it debated and found acceptable on the discussion page, are two separate hurdles. --NewbyG (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should a longer lead, but the first sentence seems to be the problem after seeing it discussed here ad infinitum. I should have clarified by saying that I meant the introductory sentence be "KISS"- then work from there on a longer lead. I see not much has progressed though - judging by the long list below concentrating on this one sentence alone. Catagraph (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Option Z

The philosophy section needs to start with the origin of the subject and the history of the subject. The etymology has nothing to do with the origin of the subject. Dvakili (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the convention is to describe the subject and its etymology and then have another section on its history.--Snowded (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dvakili gives no reason for his assertion. --Philogo 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A reff. was included with the edit, and mentioned on this page. :Ref;Oxford dictionary of philosophy, page409. Zarathushtra was the first philosopher according to the ... . Dvakili (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

However, neither of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, nor Zarathustra figure in the current approach to the lead section, which does not go into the history of philosophy, although that would be one way to introduce the subject. --NewbyG (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree --Philogo 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Version?

U6 is fine by me too. I much prefer "existence" to "sorts of things that exist". The current version doesn't appear to be U6 - can we change it?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have no objection to that, and my only objection (which a fundamental one of fact) is the inclusion of logic as a primary field. --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like those of us involved in this discussion have settled for U6, with no objections except Snowded's above. I have thus boldly followed consensus, and implemented U6. If Snowded wants to object to logic, let's talk some more. 271828182 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care either way about logic at this point.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm glad that's settled. Without wishing to open up the discussion again, I argued that problems associated with logic were an important part of philosophy in at least the last 100 years and desrved palce in sentence 1. I really wanted not logic in the list of "objects" about which there are philosphical problems, but the "objects" that arise from logic, e.g. inference, truth, validity, but I was persuaded to make do with logic. The first sentence is just a wee bit odd, since logic, a branch, appears among a list of "objects" with which the other branches treat. I would have preferred saytruth, or validity rather than logic, but let is pass.

Many thanks to all those who took past in the discussion which I hope has provided a well thought out lede resulting from the resolution of thesis and counter-thesis.

--Philogo 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I have boldly removed logic as there was no consensus for that and most of the earlier versions had a consensus which excluded it. Issues of truth and validity are covered by epistemology. Look Philogo we have been a lot closer to agreement before with you as the single dissenter so please respect a position. --Snowded (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just when we thought we were out ... anyway, I disagree with Snowded and would amplify Philogo's point: problems arising from logic have played a central role in philosophy from at least Aristotle. I'm not going to press the point, but if we could hear from others, I suspect Snowded would be decidedly in the minority. Can we involve folks other than us usual suspects, too? 271828182 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You can make the same argument for philosophy of science which if anything has been around for longer than logic in the modern meaning of the word. The role of argument, rhetoric etc has always been there (and we covered that in the following sentences by agreement). Neither is there a dispute as to Logic as a branch of philosophy but it is not one of the main ones. I am just running with the earlier consensus here. I agree with you on a wider participation, it has been narrow so far --Snowded (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowed: I must say I am a little surprised, disppointed even, at your "boldness", especially since you have (quite rightly) been critcal of new editors for making edits in the lede without discussion here.

You will note above where 271828182 said

Sounds like those of us involved in this discussion have settled for U6, with no objections except Snowded's above. I have thus boldly followed consensus, and implemented U6. If Snowded wants to object to logic, let's talk some more.

Why did you make the edit rather than accept 271828182's polite invitation? If you have good reason for an edit, why not state them here first, so we can discuss and resolve, as you tell others they should.

Come, let us reason together, in the spirit of philosophy, and stay far away from "edit wars".

--Philogo 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, I was somewhat suprised, dissapointed even that instead of discussingthe one issue remaining the main page was changed without notice. I debated reversing it back to the original position, but decided it would be better just to make one change (and there there has been another improvement there today). When you were the sole objector several us had the common decency not to make a change so please stop preaching.

We had a long discussion about this one earlier (logic) and all agreed on the main areas, with the sentence on reason allowing for the logic issue. You arbitarily reinserted it in U. I think what we have is representative of the multiple discussions and is also accurate. --Snowded (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowed: I have made no changes to the article for a long time - look at the history. You and I put U6 and X for other editors to consider. Having done so, 271828182edited the lede by posting U6 and saying here, politely, "If Snowded wants to object to logic, let's talk some more." Instead of accepting his invitation you edited the lede. Why? I have not preached: I have asked you to practice what you preach. Please calm down and put forward your reasons for requesting a change so we may all consider together.

--Philogo 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right to say that 271828182 edited the article not you, my mistake and apologies for that. I had objected to logic on this page and it would have been polite to discuss it here first rather than simply implement the change. This is especiall the case as, at the time the change was made there was one for logic, one against and on indifferent. That does not justify a direct edit I am afraid. Given that a direct edit had been made I had two choices (i) reverse the edit and revert to the talk page or (ii) remove logic. I chose the latter as being the least disruptive. As it happens I have been perfectly calm throughout. Finding your comments preachy does not justify a further preachy suggestion that I calm down. You might also care to note that I had argued my case below before you inserted this comment. --Snowded (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Your aplogies are due to 271828182 not me. You did not argue your case BEFORE you made your edit in response to 271828182's invitation "If Snowed wants to object to logic, let's talk some more." You did notice that it was 271828182 who made the edit; you seemed to have missed his invitation, and perhaps the reasons he gave for the edit. Arguing for your actions after having taken them suggest haste rather than calm.

--Philogo 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I owe you an apology for saying that you had directly edited the article before agreement has been reached. 271828182 at a point time when there was one for, one against and one neutral chose to directly edit the main article rather than further discuss the matter here. Now he has a right to do that. He then invited me to discuss a change he had made to the article (without agreement) on the talk page. I did that, but I also removed the offending word from the article itself. I did that as there was general agreement on everything else. It might have been better if I had simply reversed the change with a comment "agreement not reached yet" and that may be the best way forward yet as we now have other editors directly editing rather than discussing things here. --Snowded (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Views expressed on "Choice of three" were:

Either of U6 and X+1 is OK by me. JJL (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will settle for U6 as the least bad option on the table. 271828182 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Current revision as of 23:30, 30 June 2008 UTC, t, u6, x+1, chop suey. (tick one) --NewbyG (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

U6. --Philogo 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

U6 is fine by me too. I much prefer "existence" to "sorts of things that exist". The current version doesn't appear to be U6 - can we change it?KD Tries Again (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have no objection to that, and my only objection (which a fundamental one of fact) is the inclusion of logic as a primary field. --Snowded (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tally:

U6 or X+1: JJL
Current: NewbyG
U6: 271828182, Philogo, KD Tries Again
U6 bar Logic: Snowded

And 271828182 concluded:-

Sounds like those of us involved in this discussion have settled for U6, with no objections except Snowded's above. I have thus boldly followed consensus, and implemented U6. If Snowded wants to object to logic, let's talk some more. 271828182 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Snowed, I cannot see where you get your "one for, one against and one neutral" from. It looks to me like 271828182 counted correctly, or have I missed something?

--Philogo 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Well several points, firstly you cannot close on a vote that quickly without laying out options and narrowing choices. Secondy, even on your count above you have three for U6 and two for other versions with one neutral. In wikipedia conventions that is not a consensus. My earlier preference was for the current version but I was prepared to compromise for U6 with the removal of logic. KD Tries Again agreement was timed before I raised that question. So at the time the edit was made my count is correct. Sorry Philogo, but that is simply not the way concensus is achieved in Wikipedia. There are a whole bunch of conventions about declaring the options, creating a discussion section etc. and there is no way any arbitration process would accept that you has a concensus at that point.

In any event I don't object per se to 271828182 making the edit, my objection (and it is a strong one) was to you implying that I was engaged in edit war when I was fully within my rights given the state of the discussion to revert the whole edit. as it was I made one change as an effort at a compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2008

This was an informal poll, there is no point rehashing it. Here is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Polls are generally not used in article editing. A poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one. The outcome may be decided during discussion. --NewbyG (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, my only objection is to Philogo deliverying homilies about edit wars and accusing me of ignoring a concensus where non existed. The discussion looks to have moved on and no bad thing. --Snowded (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Logic

Logic is an important one to me. Most phil. depts. will offer a lower-level course in logic and advanced ones in areas like logic, modal logic, hist. of logic, etc. It's been an important area: Reasoning about reason. It's crucial to the phil. of math. (and language). To me it has a long and full history within the subject. Aristotle...Frege...Pierce...etc. JJL (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to agree that logic is an important aspect of the field, but not that it is a defining one. Reason is and we agreed that (hence the earlier agreed language). However there is a body of work that challenges the idea of symbolic logic for example (incuding a lot of modern work in the naturalising tradition where modern neuroscience chanllenges many of the assumptions of logic. If I had a free choice based on how I feel about Philosophy I would put aesthetics up there. The question for the introductionary paragraph is what can be said without controversy. The earlier (much earlier) discussion determined the main three: metaphysics, ethics, epiistimilogy, which was then exapanded by one. The queston of logic etc. was handled by the second sentence which asserted the primacy of reason. --Snowded (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Accepting U6 and then "boldly" redacting it is not helpful, in my opinion. I understadn your point regarding aestehtics, but feel that logic is more primary. The primacy of reason as a method of phil. is different from the study of logic as a subject in phil. I would still assert that more logic courses are offered in phil. depts. than aesthetics courses. That's a coarse measure, but indicative of its centrality. Here's just one example [4]; Syracuse University cites the "four core areas of philosophy" as The History of Philosophy, Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic. I basically agree, though I would leave out the hist. of phil. when describing "core areas" (though not when describing important areas of undergrad. study). I think that subverting the consensus immediately was a poor use of WP:BOLD. JJL (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't accept UG and redact, I stated I was happy other than the inclusion of logic. When UG was boldly inserted I made one change (and thought about reversing the whole thing until agreement had been reached. My point on aesthetics was that it would be wrong for me to inisist on it being in the definition section of the field, just as it is wrong to inisist on logic. All subject areas need to be in the next section (and are) but in this first sentence we need the ones which are uncontroversailly part of what philosophy is - and that does not include logic (or aesthetics). --Snowded (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosphy, look:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.

It sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. (The branches that study them are wiki-links). The incusion of a branch of study such as logic, aesthetics in such a list would be a category mistake. What could be logically added would be the things (concepts) that give rise to problems which philosophy seek to resolve, e.g truth, validity, other value judgments, beauty, justice each wiki-linked to relevant branch of philosophy.

--Philogo 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version (quoted above) with the general description and the hot lins as they do not include logic (or aesthetics etc. etc.) --Snowded (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Other views? --Philogo 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Concepts

I changed "problems" to concepts, because philosophy is not only the study of fundamental problems, but also attempts to explain concepts, ideas, beliefs, meaning, etc. - AND solve problems when they arrise. I agree that logic is very important, and should be in the introduction. No offense, but User:Snowed cannot be the only one to make the decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong. The Wikipedia is a collaborative project, from what I understand, and there are no directors, or lead editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catagraph (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain the offensive remark "User:Snowed cannot be the only one to make the decisions" when I have taken a full part in the extensive discussions above, and your first and only entry to this is to directly edit the article? I fully agree that logic is important, so is philosophy of science, aesthetics etc. They are all covered in the next section. The question under discussion is which aspects of philosophy should be included in the opening sentence. Earlier discussions (extensive, try reading them) reached an agreement that a reference to the use of reason was a more neural term. It is not a valid argument for you to say that you think logic is important does not establish that it is always in play (which is what is needed) when its role is chalenged both in the history and present. --Snowded (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Catagraph I have reversed yourJJL reversed you recent edit, changing problems to concepts. I suggest you open a discussion here. Todate no one has contested problems; concepts is an interesting suggestion but could be problematic as it might imply that philosophy is the study of other people's ideas (aesthetics is not about what is beauty, but about what people say when they say something is beautiful). It may be that we need to say more than problems, but removing problems itself seems to fly in the face of what the enterprise of philosophy is about --Snowded (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannto see the sense of replacing problems with concepts in sentence one giving:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental concepts concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

What follows "concerning" is a list of concepts; it makes sense to say philosophy studies general and fundamental problems arising from these concepts, but surely not "general and fundamental concepts" arising from these concepts?

--Philogo 00:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject.

Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Do not continue to repeat the same arguments.

Make a new heading for a new topic.

Take your time considering a good rationale, based on how the project operates. Note that polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Keep discussions focussed. Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement.

Make sure to sign your posts (~~~~). NewbyG (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Logic is a central area

I quoted above from Syracuse University's web site [5]: the "four core areas of philosophy" that students must study are The History of Philosophy, Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic. Now from Harvard University [6]: basic required courses are an introductory course and one each from 1. Logic, 2. Contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, 3. Ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and 4. History of ancient, medieval, or modern pre-20th-century philosophy. Stanford University [7]: basic required courses are an introductory course and one each from Logic, Philosophy of science, Moral and political philosophy, Metaphysics and epistemology, and History of philosophy. Major research universities seem to agree that all undergrad. phil. majors must take a logic course (and, incidentally, that metaphysics and epistemology can be lumped together at this level). While what undergrads. must take is hardly the be-all and end-all of phil., it certainly indicates to me that logic is a major area in the minds of academic philosophers. I also consider "The Development of Logic" by Kneale and Kneale [8] to support this position; from pg. 1 it puts "not simply valid argument but the reflection on principles of validity" in the context of Plato and Aristotle. (Of course they also discuss it in the context of math.) I contend that logic is a central area of phil. and merits conclusion alongside ethics and metaphysics/epistemology as the three major areas of phil.JJL (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute that logic is a major area of contemporary philosophy and is taught ( and a compulsory unit) in many (but not all) universities. However the key point is this. Logic is AN approach to the question of reason, it is not the only one and its application (especially symbolic logic) is disputed. To include it is rather like arguing for for a branch or approach of ethics, rather than ethics itself. I would not oppose elevating something like reason to the first sentence. --Snowded (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I say that no branches or "areas" - not matter how important - makes sense in the list following "concerning" because, as I pointed out above, the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosphy, look:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.

It sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. (The branches that study them are wiki-links). The inclusion of a branch of study such as logic, aesthetics in such a list would be a category mistake. What could be logically added would be the things (concepts) that give rise to problems which philosophy seek to resolve, e.g truth, validity, other value judgments, beauty, justice each wiki-linked to relevant branch of philosophy.

JJL : what concepts are there that Logic uses or studies, that give rise to philosophical problems, which problems in turn are the proper subject matter of philosophy of logic and/or philosophical logic? --Philogo 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed my contention--that using reason and studying logic are different. I imagine one could study Kurt Godel's work experimentally, for example (though following Pierce I'd accept that as a form of inference--reasoning--worthy of study); hence, the study of logic is logically independent of the use of logic. I prefer the word "logic" to "reasoning" (below) but wouldn't make a stand on it. To answer your question, I might identify topics listed at mathematical logic, Philosophy of logic, and at Philosophical logic, as well as much of Philosophy of language (indeed, see the first paragraph there). I hope this is a sufficient answer; I could cut-and-paste things out from there. JJL (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Philosophical problems or branches

Out of interest, and to start my first "list of" here is a list of concepts are themselves, or give rise to philosophical problems which are, studied by various branches of philosophy. Add to list any missed if you like.--Philogo 12:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysics: existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

epistemology: truth, belief, and justification.

philosophy of mind: minds, or mental processes, bodily states or processes, emotion, will, belief,

philosophy of language: language, meaning, language use, extension, intension, synonymy, Language acquisition, language creation, speech acts, mind interpreter, translation, truth and Reference.

Logic:

mathematical logic:

Philosophy of logic: declaration, proposition, statement, truth, analytic, synthetic, contingency, validity, entailment, inference, necessity, proof, reference, designation, predication, relation, denotation, conotation, synonimity, meaning, logical consequence, quantification, scope of logic , second-order logic, empirical knowledge, modal logic

Philosophical logic:

Ethics: moral judgement, justice, fairness, rights, duty, culpability, right, wrong , the good life.

Proposal U*

Given Philogo's clarification, I suggest emending the opening sentence to:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

(Call it "U*")

I have inserted "reasoning" as a general concept that gives rise to problems that are studied by logic. I hope the word choice placates both Snowded and Philogo. Also, I changed "moral judgments" to "value judgments", which includes aesthetics. (However, I did not wikilink aesthetics since it would seem arbitrary and possibly confusing to link ethics to one word, and aesthetics to another.) 271828182 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that, but suggest that we get rid of the pipelinks, that removes all issues and makes it clear that this section is a description of the fields addressed by philosophy not a summary of its branches. That would mean that reasoning was not defined by logic, and value judgements (like that a lot) was not just ethics. That would make it 'Philosophy' is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge,value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. --Snowded (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it too. I rather liked the wiki-links when we started out but there is not always a one-to-one corresposence between the concepts that give rise to philosphical problems and the branches that study propblems that arise therefrom. So I agree, dump the wiki-links giving us, (call it U**):-

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philogo (talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 July 2008

Back from my vacation. I see you all have been having fun while I was gone. The trouble with replacing "logic" with "reason" as a branch of philosophy is that it flies in the face of the references, most of which mention "logic" as a major branch of philosophy and "reason" as a major method of philosophy. One could argue that just as "physics" has moved from philosophy to science, "logic" has moved from philosophy to mathematics. But I don't think this view is supported by the literature. To quote JJL from the section above, "Ethics and Moral Theory, Metaphysics and The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology), and Logic...1. Logic, 2. Contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, 3. Ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics...Logic, Philosophy of science, Moral and political philosophy, Metaphysics and epistemology." (I've omitted the history of philosophy courses as courses about philosophy rather than courses in philosophy.) All three lists mention logic. None mentions the more vague "reason". Also, all mention either "ethics" or "moral philosophy", none use the vague term "value judgments". I suggest we stick to the standard terminology. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Welcome back. It does not matter wahat the branches are regarding sentence one, because, as said above, the first sentence does not seek to set out the branches or main areas of philosophy: it sets out to indicate the sort of things (i.e. concepts) that give rise to the general and fundamental problems which philosophy addresses, currently existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Look:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.

--Philogo 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Snowded's list, just above my comment. The list currently in the article is fine by me. I would prefer "such as" rather than "concerning", because the list is clearly not exhaustive. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pipelinks

It wasn't my list but no matter. I can now see two versions from Philogo and I am happy with either of them if there are no pipelinks. So that gives us:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

OR

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language

--Snowded (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding the internal links is rather counter to the idea of Wikipedia, isn't it? I understand the concern, but I also note that mathematics, physics, and to a lesser extent chemistry managed to overcome the problem, and at math. it was indeed contentious what those areas of math. interest should be. JJL (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first with "value judgments" rather than "moral judgments", and tilt to drop the wikie links. We can later in body say how each branch deals with associated problems/questions, and in those places indicate the sort of questions that arise with these troublesome concepts.

I agree with Riki on "such as" - it was "such as" some way back but go transmogrified to "concerning" for some reason lost in the mists of time. I think it's a fair old "such as" list and would give the reader a good idea what philosophy is concerned with in the very first sentence. Have we left out "truth" on purpose?

--Philogo 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pipelinks are only necessary in Wikipedia if there is a direct correspondence. Given that the first sentence addresses the overall field they are if anything an Easter egg. The very next section covers the branches. In respect of the two above I like value Judgements as it is a broader term. Adding truth to the list would I think be a useful addition, possibly after "knowledge"? --Snowded (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

as in, with "concerning concepts such as" also:-

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

--Philogo 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

With the addition of a comma between truth and value I agree. --Snowded (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Value judgements

None of the sources I know of uses "value judgments". To me, a "value judgment" is something like, "I don't believe in capital punishment," or "I don't believe in abortion." The way the phrase is used has little to do with philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a list of subjects in philosophy, but a summary of the issues considered. Value judgements has the utility of deal with art as well as ethics. --Snowded (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

- :"value judgment" is the usual term in philosophy to contrast with factual judgements. Values are not necesarily moral values, could be aesthetic. The fact-va;ue distinction is pretty fundamental; have a look at the article of that title in Cam. Dic Phil, or better still read David Hume who threw down the gauntlet of the is-ought gap. - --Philogo 23:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Any other views (comma added)? --Philogo 23:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not so much a matter of 'value judgments' as of 'making value judgments'. To put it another way, ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the making of value judgments, wheras the capacity to make judgments made on valid principles of reasoning, irrespective of the subject matter, is a method used by philosophers. Logic is a branch of philosophy concerned with the principles of valid argument, or something like that. So philosophers employ logical, and systematic and critical methods when investigating any of the fields, or branches of philosophy. This is what we are trying to untangle in the first two sentences of the article, is it not? --NewbyG (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But the first sentence is not about branches of philosphy it is about the subjects. I think we could improve the wording to achieve that but we shold not include the braches per se. Logic is as you say "a" branch of philosophy concerned with issues of reason, but it does not define it. So you statement that philosophers employ logical methods is not necessarily true (which is not to say that they are illogical) but for example argument by metaphor is appropriate in some cases. That is the reason for the current sentence about reason and the removal of branches from the first --Snowded (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Zarathushtra again

As far as I can see the majority of the recent addition is already in the text below. There is merit in adding in the reference to the exsiting text but I don't understand this need to assert "first philosopher" status. I suggest you take the Oxford Dictionary and insert an actual QUOTE from that as a reference. --Snowded (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. This is in the dictionary assertions, and not MINE! read the language again. It states the fist philosopher in the chronology, this is straight from the book. And the rest of the statement is on page 405 I will provide the page reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The history section needs to change. we need to start with the origin of the subject and not with the history of the word philosopher or philosophy. That is what the Greeks called the subject, but the subject pre dates the Greeks. This is missleading and is not addressing the history of the subject. Dvakili (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK that is your opinion. I disagree with the way you have changed the article. Please suggest some changes here on the talk page and gain concensus with other editors. Do not edit war or you will find yourself banned again. --Snowded (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One ref. from a dictionary is not an especially compelling case. JJL (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and at the moment I can't check it as I am overseas. Dvakili it would be useful if you would provide the quote here, then we can help you look at ways in which it can be used. --Snowded (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find no reference to Zarathushtra in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Have any arguments been put forward in supprt of "we need to start with the origin of the subject and not with the history of the word philosopher or philosophy." or is it just an assertion?

--Philogo 22:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find A reference to Zarathustra in my copy of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, referring to Nietzsche and Zoroastrianism, and a reference to Zoroaster, referring to Zoroastrianism which is emphasized as a religion (not a phil. doctrine). I find no evidence that Zarathustra was a philosopher or Zoroastrianism a philosophy in here. JJL (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is my opinion? I am using references and facts from the department of philosophy at Oxford. Do you disagree with oxford university. Besides Cambridge claims the same. All schools of philosophy claim the same. This is as far as the Persian philosophy is concerned. As for the history section is concerned, the history of philosophy does not start with the Greeks. So why is that section starting with Pythagoras? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dvakili please sign your comments and learnt to use the conventions of wikipedia. Also aggressive assertion of an opinion without citations will just result in other editors ignoring you. Please take up my suggestion and give us the actual quote from Blackburn's dictionary. Philogo - he is a new editor who managed to get banned over this once. We should cut him some slack and try ad help him. --Snowded (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer the questions that I have raised?

Can you answer the question that I have raised. (Dvakili (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).

1. Is it a wikipedia rule that we must only use Blackburn's dictionary? 2. The Oxford and Cambride dictiionary is more superior. (Dvakili (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

You are not asking a question you are making a statement. You are not responding to requests for information. You are not learning how to edit (please look at the use of colons to indent). Look everyone wants to help a new editor, but you need to realise that this is a collective enterprise and you have to engage with other other people if you want them to agree with you. I thought you were referencing the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy by Blackburn. If you are referencing some other material then give us the qquote and the source and we can try and help. --Snowded (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

- - : Snowded I am happy with giving Dvakili some slack, but as you say he must provide some citations. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy does not appear to mention him. Dvakili you have to back up your opinions with reason and citations, and just one citation is not sufficient, especially if you do not quote the actual text. I have the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edition, 1999) in front of me; on what page will I find the reference you refer to? Its OK to have strong views but your reasons and citations must be strong as well. --Philogo 22:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am referencing the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy by Simon Blackburn, Pages 405 and 409.(Dvakili (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

You said above "The Oxford and Cambride dictiionary is more superior." Is Zarathushtra to be found in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy - I have it to hand.

--Philogo 23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK so you are using Blackburn - your statement above implies that you are not. How about (as I requested) giving us the quote then we can help you look at wording? Please (for the third time of asking) learn to edit properly. --Snowded (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick web search on "the first philosopher" turns up answers like Thales, Anaximander, Lao Tzu, and Pythagoras, among others. Thales seems to be the winner by quantity of hits. It appears that a case can also be made for Zoroaster. I doubt that one could truly describe any individual as the first philosopher. But, at least the Greeks have a long and continuous philosophical tradition, and to the extent that "Philosophy is the study of its own history" that tradition matters. JJL (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipewdai's article, Zarathushtra, says: "Zoroaster (Latinized from Greek variants) or Zarathushtra (from Avestan Zaraθuštra), also referred to as Zartosht (Persian: زرتشت), was an ancient Iranian prophet and religious poet. The hymns attributed to him, the Gathas, are at the liturgical core of Zoroastrianism." Sounds more like a religious leader than a philosopher.

--Philogo 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) see also http://www.zoroaster.net/indexe.htm :

Is Zoroastrian Monotheism Philosophy or Religion in History? . It is easy to answer this question. Inkling about zoroastrian philosophy shows that Zarathustra, never assumed prophethood. He never claimed he had associated with the Lord of cosmos whose width galaxy extends more than 36 milliard (36 thousand million), light year, which lies beyond our imagination. Zarathustra, never ordered his followers to perform certain activities, but he recommended them to try to know the creator of the earth and heaven and adopt good manner, on the basis of their wisdom. Therefore, Zarathustra was neither a prophet, nor we can call his spiritual path a “religion,” rather he was a thoughtful benevolent who recognized his God on the basis of his wisdom and never said he had been missioned to bring any message from God to human beings.

and http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm:

Zarathustra (Greek Zoroaster): legendary religious teacher from Bactria, founder of Zoroastrianism...........Zarathustra's teachings are strongly dualistic. The believer has to make a choice between good and evil. Zoroastrianism was one of first world religions to make ethical demands on the believers

--Philogo 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Its difficult for large parts of history to distinguish religion from philosophy and science for that matter. I could make a case for the builders of Averbury and Stonehenge being philosophers based on mathematics etc. Overall I agree that we can't really take the formal discipline of philosophy before the Greeks, althought the history section should reference peple like Zoroaster, as the current version does.

[Philogo, while I remember to ask, why do you never use colons and always add white space between comments and signature? It makes it difficult to follow a thread}--Snowded (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Page 409 is the Chronology page, that is the heading of the page. "In this chronology broadly 'philosophical' events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column." Then the chart starts at; "1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India" then the second event is "Zoroaster." This is common knowledge in philosophy. Chronology means the origion and events in the order in which they occurred, as in HISTORY. So, the history section needs to start with this fact, chronology.

Page 405 "Zoroastrianism enterd the western tradition as an influence on Hudaism and hence on Middle platonism." This is common knowledge in philosophy by know in modern philosophy.

I am not aggressive or asserting opinion, but, the Greek bias here is very evident. When people do not like facts, they tend to attack the messenger and start personal attacks to discredit the person. Please do not do this, I am stateing western sources.(Dvakili (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

You are not really addressing the point. The current section on Persian Philosophy mentions these origins. The change you made replicated some factual material that was already there, and then had the "first philosopher" arguments which even your own quote does not support. --Snowded (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So, Dvakili, you would have to say the Vedics were the first philosophers, then, Zoroaster second? Do you differentiate between philosophy and religion, between philosophers and religious leaders?--Philogo 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote this from the Wikipedia article Zoroaster. The writing style seems familiar.

According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 409),the choronology of the subject and science of philosophy originated amongst the Indo-Iranians, by the name of Mazad-Yasna, meaning worship of wisdom. Oxford University dates this event to 3500 years ago. The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence western traditon through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote, "The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra." on page 409.

(Dvakili (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).

I wrote, "The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra." on page 409. (Dvakili (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)).

Do you differentiate between philosophy and religion, between philosophers and religious leaders?-- According to Oxford he was a philosopher, and if bunch of people want to worship his message then that does not mean he was not a philosopher.(Dvakili (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

From what I can see of the quote above it establishes a variety of early events that can be seen as influencing the development of philosophy, but does not support the statement that Zarathushtra was the first philosopher, or even for that matter the first prophet. The Persian history sections stands I think, but as is and not with the changes proposed. Otherwise I see no amendment which is justified by the Blackburn quote although we might want to consider a section on chronology as that would be useful (and could include some early stuff). As to the point on philosophy and religion then yes ther is a difference. It does not mean that there is not religious philosophy, but a religious leader or prophet is not per se a philosopher --Snowded (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) A PLEA Would editors please indent their comments and not add carriage returns before their signature. --Snowded (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it can say "the chronology of philosophers begins with Zarathushtra." on page 409 (Dvakili (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

You have not established that. The chronology is of events not philosophers, and there is at least one event before Zarathushtra. The fact that a broach range of prophets and reigious thinkers influenced the development of philosophy does not make those prophets and religious thinkers philosophers --Snowded (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If chronology is of events not philosophers, then why does Oxford use the name of Philosophers in chronology? (Dvakili (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).

You are missing the point. You can look at a range of events, many of them associated with historical or semi-mythic figures, and trace their influence on something like philosophy. It does not make those figures Philosophers. To other editors - I opened up the same issue on the talk page of Zoroaster by the way. I think we may have a POV here and best to get rid of it consistently. My toleration of new editors is wearing thin. --Snowded (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The history of philosophy does not start with the Greeks. So why is that section starting with Pythagoras? (Dvakili (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

I suggest you read more carefully. The section says that "The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy"" can be attributed to Pythagoras, it does not say that Pythagoas was the first philosopher. Again I appreciate you are new but you are not really making much effort to be a collaorative editor. Continued failure to format, assertive statements bordering on vandalism, not reading material you reference, or intepreting it in a way which cannot be supported by the sources (the misuse of Balckburn being one). You need to engage with the discussion if you are to get any attention, my patience for one is wearing thin. You might want to consider getting a mentor to help you learn how to edit. --Snowded (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I have made an amendment to the article that can be sustained by the reference. I have also proposed the same phrase on Zoroaster --Snowded (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

History means the history of the subject, The history of events and people involved.

This entire history section is fundamentally wrong. We need to use the same model and format that Oxford uses in it’s approach towards history of philosophy. It needs to begin with the Indo-Iranians. We should use the format as Oxford when it comes to the history section, because, Oxford knows how to define the history of philosophy and their interpretation is better than anyone else here discussing the issue.(Dvakili (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

(indent) No one is disuting the phrase from Oxford although it is only ONE authority. The point is that it does not belong here, or in any of the ways you are expressing it. Please read what other authors have said and have the decency to respond to it rather than asserting and reasserting your position without argument. --Snowded (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This History section need an expert, it does not meet the requirements of scholarship. The moderator better get involved. We need to start with the origin of the subject and not with the history of the word philosopher or philosophy. That is what the Greeks called the subject, but the subject pre dates the Greeks. This is misleading and is not addressing the history of the subject.(Dvakili (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

I have yet again had to format your entry for you. Please learn. You are making an argument above but you need to engage people in that argument. It is not valid to say that it does not meet the requirements of scholarship just because people do not immediately agree with you. I have given you some general advise on editing (especially given your amendment to the Zoroaster article here --Snowded (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  History of philosophy, or any other subject or science , means, events in  chronological   
  order.   Oxford dates back the history of the subject or science of philosophy, in 
  chronological order, to 1500BC.  Oxford dictionary has done a great job illustrating this 
  on page 409.  The title of the page is, Chronology, with columns, text for events and 
  numerical dates.  The language and dates are explicit, for easy understanding.  This means 
  the history of the subject, or science, of  philosophy pre dates the Greeks by approximately 
  900 years amongst the Indo-Europeans.  We need to arrange the section on history of 
  philosophy, to reflect the true and correct chronological order in which things occurred in
  philosophy, from 1500BC to present.   This way the arrangement of events in the history of 
  philosophy will be in the order in which they occurred.  Therefore, the history section of 
  wikipedia’s philosophy page, needs to be in chronological order, beginning at 1500BC.

(Dvakili (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Dvakili You just repeat the same assertions over and over again without any arguments in their favour. Repetition is not an argument and as you can see it is not the least bit persuasive. I suggest you follow Snowed's good advice if you want people to take you at all seriously, --Philogo 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer the argument and stop your assertion, find another word to use instead of assertion. You are not qualified to discuss this issue.(Dvakili (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)).

History is not always told chronologically. It also isn't clear to me that there is an unbroken chain leading from the events you attribute to 1500BCE--itself a highly debatable placement of Z.--and if it didn't affect the later history of phil. it's more trivia than anything else. A Wikipedia entry is not meant to be book-length. Unimportant material may be left out.

In any event, it's always been an issue here that the entry labeled Philosophy weights heavily toward Western Philosophy. That remains unresolved, though I personally think when most English-speakers use it in its technical sense they have the Western intellectual tradition in mind. I'm not opposed to having a mention of Z. in here but I don't see anything esp. wrong with "The history of philosophy is customarily divided into three periods" either. In an entry of this length, adding in Z. for completeness risks losing the reader in details unnecessary at this stage. Not everything that's true must be placed in here. JJL (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dvakili - Philogo is right to use the word "assertion" and your argument has been answered before. You are fully entitled to propose some changes to the history section and discuss them here on the talk page. You have no authority to tell any editor they are not qualified to discuss any issue. i strongly suggest (yet again) that you get some help or spend some time in the help pages learning how to edit and be less contentious. Argue your case, put up some suggested wording here and discuss it reasonably. --

The Sign of the Z

I'm starting a new section just because the old section was getting too long.

A few points that should be considered.

First, no doubt some caveman wondered what stars were, so we shouldn't talk about the "first philosopher" but rather the "first philosopher in recorded history".

A philosopher needs to do more than come up with a "big idea". If only a big idea is needed, then Akhenaten, who may have invented monotheism, could be the first. But a philosopher must, at least according to our definition, have developed this idea systematically, which suggests Laozi (Lao Tse) or Heraclitus as first. There were a lot of philosophers out and about in the 6th century BCE.

The dates of Zoroaster are not well established. Most sources say he lived somewhere between the 6th century BCE and the 12th century BCE.

Philosophy is not a horse race. Trying to claim a "winner" in the "first philosopher" contest is not appropriate.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

such as

Philogo agreed with me about "such as" but then reverted my attempt to have the list read "such as" in the intro on the grounds that this was still under discussion. Is there any further discussion? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think such as is agreed, but there is still dicussion around "value judgements" --Snowded (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

...and "logic". JJL (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

true, but I can't understand now we have removed the actual branches, what valid argument there is for including logic in that first sentence, if so it would be the only branch mentioned. --Snowded (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, reasoning isn't there either, so it isn't even hinted at. JJL (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Its all over the second sentence and reasoning was inserted in the last draft - see below. If we could reach agreement in this we could end this!

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. --Snowded (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I had thought we were discussing the current article, not the current Option Aleph-nought ("There's always room at the Infinity Hotel for another option.")! To my mind the use of reason(ing) in the second sentence is no substitute for it as a subject area in the first sentence. All things considered, what is above is acceptable to me. I agree that closure would be nice! This has been overall a polite and constructive dialogue on what is after all a contentious issue. I'm reminded of when I wrote a book on my area of expertise (not phil.) and asked my advisor, a very philosophically-minded senior prof. who has written in phil., for a defn. of our subfield. He refused on general principle to even attempt to define it and gave me a lengthy non-answer along those lines. More and more I suspect he was right! JJL (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your advisor and my original opinion was to give several however we are very close now. Given taht the above proposal includes reasoning will you support it? I may not reply by the way as will get on flight to Sydney shortly --Snowded (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that most of the changes that have been made in the lede were not arrived at consensus, but were snuck in when nobody was looking. I don't remember when the names of the various areas were removed, or why.

The trouble with "reason" as an area of philosophy is the same problem as "value judgments" as an area of philosophy. Neither is sourced. On the other hand "logic" and "ethics" are sourced.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would still prefer to see about 4 major areas wikilinked in the lede--the same 4 or so as are listed at university web sites as the core areas of phil. (some variation of logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics). Wikilinks to related areas is an important part of the design of the whole site, and other articles on similar topics seem to manage that. In the spirit of compromise, however, I'll accept what's above. Hopefully, attention can then be paid to the meat of the article. We have always been preoccupied with rearranging the deckchairs at Philosophy. JJL (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to step forward and say, "I removed epistemology etc. from the lede," and explain why? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A little while back I suggested the following for the first sentence incorporating (a) "concepts such as" (b) truth (c) removal of wiki-links, lets call it Y

Y: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

"such as" instead of "concerning" was Rikis's suggestion, "concerning concepts such as" my version; without the word concerpts (or similar) subsituting "such as" for "concerning" would change the meaning. (eg We were saying there are problems concening knowledege, not that klnowldeg itself is a problem "truth" was Snowed's and mine removal of wiki-links: Snowed's suggestion, I was persuaded: for aguments in favour of removal see above. Riki: This is a bit of a recap 'cos you've been on hols. No changes have been "snuck in". We all carefully considered and debated version a through t, then u1 through U6, then versions X and X*. The last version actually posted was U6 after a poll. We agreed to carry on the discusion concerning the inclusion/exclsusion of Logic. This was debated. It was agreed that incuding logic as such in the list , being a branch or subject, woul be a categoiry mistake; the rest of the list consists not of subject but things that give rise to problems that philosphy considers. Truth was a better fit, as would be say "validity" of "inference". We are aiming at a representatinve sample of things (basically concepts) which give rise to philosophical problems (or questions) that branches of philosophy (not necessarily on a one-to-one basis) study, indeed seek to resolve. I think we have considered carully the implications of every word in the first sentence, and have not posteed any versions until there seem a consensus, and then with the caveat that we could carry on the discussion.

Ladies and Gentlema, how say you now to:

Y: Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

--Philogo 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait--"category mistake" was asserted, but I wouldn't say that it was agreed. Of course, the language that occurs where you have "concerning concepts such as" figures into whether it's a bad fit or not. I still prefer some variation of the wordy "Philosophy is the study of questions concerning the sorts of things that exist and how we have knowledge of them; moral judgments; and, the principles of valid reasoning.", wikilinked to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic. I place mind, language, aesthetics, etc., under these headings. This is a phil.-by-components approach rather than a phil.-by-concerns approach and that's obviously a matter of contention. I'm quite prepared to compromise but that's a practical issue. JJL (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil by components is in the next section and by listing all components there is no issue or controversy. Phil by concerns can be less controversial and is more appropriate for an introductory paragraph for a general readership. JJL you have an opinion on the four major components, I don't share that. For example i could argue that logic comes under language as it makes certain assumptions about the nature of language (which incidentally do not match totally to neuro-science). I don't want to argue the point here I am just attempting to show that his is a controversial issue. I am happy with Y above --Snowded (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Still going, then? I can't believe it. But okay: language is not a "concept"; I don't think "existence" is a concept either; and I am not entirely sure that any of the topics in that list are really "concepts". I don't know, though. Easiest, of course, to lose the new "concept" language, which in any case doesn't help the poor reader who comes to this article to find out what philosophy is. 74.64.105.235 (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Agin

Well you might remember that when this started I suggested that we use 3/4 definitions from citable dictionaries of philosophy but that did not resonate with people and the attempt has been made to agree one ourselves. IN fact (and I am surprised at this) we are fairly close. However everytime we approach concensus a new (or an old as in the case of logic) is introduced or reintroduced. Y above is I think not bad, it uses language that the non-expert reader will understanding and I think we should just go for it. I suggest a quick poll and have set one up below

Option Y (again)

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

FOR

• --Snowded (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• ??
• --Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AGAINST

• Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

I could accept this if "value judgments" were replaced by any phrase that is sourced. Just for fun, I googled "value judgments". The first hit is from Wikipeida: "A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view." The rest of the first several hits all suggest that the phrase "value judgment" indicates a subjective judgment, not based on reason but on personal likes and dislikes. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm "for" this unwikilinked sentence, but in the name of compromise and progress I won't oppose it. JJL (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be grouchy about objections. The "concepts such as" language appeared quite suddenly on July 3. It is open to criticism and evaluation, and as I said above, it won't do: anyone have citations to support the claim that language is a "concept"? You can have concepts about language, but language itself isn't a concept. Similarly for most of the rest of the list. A value judgement is not, of itself, a concept. It won't wash, and it won't survive, so let's please lose it now and close on the earlier, simpler option. 74.64.105.235 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

And this earlier simpler version is? Forgive but there are so many and I am close to giving up and reverting to an "It must be citable not a consensus position". --Snowded (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rik wanted "problems such as existence, knowledge.." instead of "problems concerning existence, knowledge..". A straight subsitution is not possible without changing meaning (see notes above). Therefore I implemented Riks's suggestion as "concerning concepts such as concerning existence, knowledge..". Alternatives would be "problems concerning things such as existence, knowledge.." or just "problems concerning such as existence, knowledge..". With "problems concerning existence, knowledge.." we imply no view whether it is the concepts of existence, knowledge.. that causes problems or existence, knowledge.. themselves. "Things" would be as debatable as "concepts", but "problems concerning such as existence, knowledge..". sounds a little stilted.

There certainly exist the concepts of existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language. The clarification of such concepts and the necessary and sufficient conditions for exemplfying them is the concern of philosophy, at least from the time of Plato. I cannot fathom Rik's objection to value judgments as being the source of philosophical problems. When Thrasymacus says "Justest is the interest of the stronger party" is this not a value judgment that has problems concerning which a certain eminent philospher spent a considerable time discussing in a not completely unknown work? And if value judgements do not give rise to philosophical problems then what are all those discussions in Ethics about, what is Hume's is-ought gap, and why is the fact-value distinction such a basic issue in philosophy? --Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)--Philogo 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I want. I don't care one way or another about the "concerning", I just want "such as" so that nobody will think the list is complete. You spend too much time fighting straw men.

I know, I was not anwereing a point you made, but one made by 74.64.105.235, who may be anonymous but not a straw man. I suggested the implementation described above, for the reasons given above.--Philogo 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that when you said "Riki" or "Rik wanted..." you were talking about me. I didn't realize that 74.64.105.235 was "Rik".Rick Norwood (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my problem with "value judgments": it is not sourced. Find a respectable source that says "philosophy studies value judgments" and I withdraw my objection. From what you say above, I don't think "value judgments" means what you think it means, but that's neither here nor there. Give me a source. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rik: Did you look up the refs I gave earier when I said "- :"value judgment" is the usual term in philosophy to contrast with factual judgements. Values are not necesarily moral values, could be aesthetic. The fact-value distinction is pretty fundamental; have a look at the article of that title in Cam. Dic Phil, or better still read David Hume who threw down the gauntlet of the is-ought gap"? You might also look at RM HAre, The langauge of Morals, OUP 1952, p. 70; or GE Moore, Principia Ethica, CUB 1966, Chap 1, Para 1 The Subject-matter of Ethics: "In the vast majorty of case, where we make statements involving any of the terms virtue, vice, duty, right , ought, good, bad we are making ehtical judgmetns; and if we wish to discsuss their truth, we shall be discussing a point of Ethics". As Snowed explained, the term "value judgment" includes both moral/ethical judgments and aesthetic ones as well, when we use terms like beautiful, ugly, handsome, harminious, elegant and the like. Or there is Nowell-Smith, Ethics, Pengion, 1954: Chap 2 page 53. Or here, in Etics: "-Meta-ethics is concerned primarily with the meaning of ethical judgments and/or prescriptions and with the notion of which properties, if any, are responsible for the truth or validity thereof."

I asked for a quote that used "value judgment". You provided two quotes that use "ethical judgments". If, to your ear, these sound the same, why not replace your "value judgment" with the referenced "ethical judgment", at which point I will drop my objection.Rick Norwood (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are using the term "value judgments" in a different way from me; I would not be so bold as to suggest one use of the phrases was right and the other wrong. Could you compare and contrast the two usages you have in mind? Is "Justice is the interest of the stronger party" not a value judgements in your use of the term? And doesn't Plato then consider the problems that arise therefrom? Rik I notice you appear to object to "value judgments" appearing in the list of conceots which concerning which problems arise which pohilosophy considers on the grounds that a value juedgements is a "subjective judgment". Are you saying that if something is a "subjective judgment" it cannot give rise to philosophical problems? If so why do you say that? --Philogo 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Above, you said that your comment that began "Rik wanted..." was addressed to 74.64.105.235, but here "Rik I notice..." seems clearly addressed to me. It might avoid confusion if you used my correct name.

I said that the study of "subjective judgments" was not a major area of philosophy. Rick Norwood (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any more views/

The result of the poll on option Y so far:

For: Snowded (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008, (UTC)Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Against: Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC), (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Not opposing: JJL (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Any more views? --Philogo 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are drifting towards a single (first) sentence which will have next to zero content; under such circumstances, polling is exacerbating our problems, not helping. Polling here is having the effect of narrowing ideas, and removing options. There should be a moratorium on such polls. --NewbyG (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Polls never bind in WIkipedia, but they are a way of unblocking a discussion which is drifting and getting no where. Everytime we approach agreement another issue is raised and the fact we are on option Y is damning. We had got to the point we have a second section elaborating the branches of philosophy and we have an agreement that the first sentence should be short and summarise the field. I see no valid justification for calling this "narrowing ideas and removing options" if anything it is the opposite. In addition we have few editors engaged and this has gone on to long. I can live with the current version on the web site, or the option above as a replacement. However this discussion has got to end. If we cannot finalise agreement in the next few days then the option is to leave as is, or go back to cited sources rather than our own collective opinion. Disputes over that can then if necessary be taken to arbitration. At the moment this discussion is descending into farce. --Snowded (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The current options are:

As is:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language.

Option Y:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, value judgments, reasoning, mind and language.

They are not that very different; the change to Y represents the view of one or other of us: Truth and Reasoning IN, wiki-links OUT, "such as" in. I think the sentence, in either form, says a great deal with few words. Being not very different from each other really we HAVE reached a consensus. --Philogo 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very quick to tell us all what is IN and what is OUT. Let me ask a few questions of the others who are working on this article, and have been for a long, long time.

• Did anyone other than Philogo object to the use of "metaphysics" and so on?
• Did anyone other than Philogo object to the links?
• Did anyone other than Philogo support the use of "value judgments" as a major area of philosophy?

Rick Norwood (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rik my ins and outs merely compare the differences between current and Y. If you are interested, the history shows who supported which changes, but I cannot see why it is at important. "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 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues

The "as is" option is tolerable. Voting on the other option is pointless because, as I have said three times, that ain't a list of concepts. If you disagree, give me a cite. Just lose "concepts such as" and it makes sense.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"Concepts" and "value judgements" are not precise enough language, and loosing all the wiki-links is not a good idea, so this option X/Y doesn't work. --NewbyG (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you object to "concepts", substitute "issues" and we can keep the "such as", which I agree is desirable. On the other hand, it does read a lot better without any "______s such as" at all, though I accept the criticism that it misleadingly hints at a complete list. Rick, I am afraid your relative unfamiliarity with philosophy shop-talk is showing here. I have heard "value judgments" used as a general term for ethics & aesthetics fairly frequently; it is one way of avoiding the terminally ugly "axiology". And if we want to cite everything, let's go to the long list of definitions linked to at the top of this page. Sigh. So, to sum my position: I am not happy with Option Y. 271828182 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your word for it tht professional philosophers use the phrase value judgment in a way different from the lay reader, but it is this lay reader that the lede should inform. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

Your link value judgment says it all: note that it does NOT say this term is privy to professional philosophers. I am sure the term "value judgment" is in common use. I really cannot udnerstand what the problem you have with it is. I have given you tons of refernces showing how the concept of value judgements gives rises to philsophical problems: if you looked at even a few of them I could understand how you remain unconvinced. I would hazard even that you wold be hard pressed to find a single book in Ethics which did not talk about various value judgments. --Philogo 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose we now post Y, which reflects a number of changes that editors have sought. If editors then want to continue discussing whether it can be made still better by substituting other words for "concepts" and "value judgments" then they are of course free to to do so.--Philogo 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is NO consensus for posting Y. You are the only person who likes it, though one other was willing to go along with it, just to get this over with.

Philosophers should use words well. The fact that "the concept of value judgements gives rise to philosophical problems" has nothing to do with the fact that nobody (except you) claims that value judgments are one of the major branches of philosophy. All of the other items on the list of major branches are referenced. "Value judgments", as a major branch of philosophy, is an assertion that is yours alone. Rick Norwood (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The poll on Y, rcored above was:

For: Snowded (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008, (UTC)Philogo 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Against: Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC), (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Not opposing: JJL (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Recapping

• Revision as of 18:32, 29 November 2007

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with 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); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).<ref>{{cite book|author=Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich|title="Philosophy". ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy''|date=1996}}</ref><ref> Will Durant, ''Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers'', Pocket, 1991, ISBN 0671739166, ISBN-13 978-0671739164.</ref>

• revision of 21:39, 7 July 2008

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning existence, knowledge, moral judgments, mind and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

One of these models a citation; they are both wiki-linked, and they mention either "correct principles of reasoning" or "reliance on reasoned argument". --NewbyG (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

that is an incomplete summary, there were also quotes from Blackburn's Dictionary of Philosophy and the Columbia one, neither of which mention logic, so I sense selection here :-) Remember that my original suggestion was that we reference 2/3 of these dictionary definitions on the basis that (i) they could be cited and (ii) we were unlikely to reach an agreement here - something which has proved prophetic. That said it seems the only issue with Y is "value judgements. That was proposed by 271828182 supported by myself and Philogo (three) and has one objection. Surely we could go with Y. --Snowded (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph - July 7, 2008

My preferred option:

Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. Major branches of Philosophy include Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]

It is concise, -importantly- it is correct, it does not cut-out anything (by virtue of being correct), and it lists the major branches by their topical name. Linking to Epistemology and displaying Knowledge is a *red flag* directing our attention to the fact that somewhere along the way _clarity_ was tossed out as a goal. Objectivity requires the use of Epistemology (not Knowledge) as any given Wikipedia user will have a belief as to the meaning of knowledge depending on their explicit and/or implicit philosophy - Epistemology (the *study* of the nature of knowledge) is a science. As for using laymen terms, the user looking up Philosophy for the first time doesn't need to be shielded from the word - its linked, and even defined in the very next section. The article gets it right 2/3 times (the links, and the branches), lets achieve 3/3 (the displayed text of the links). Karbinski (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we are starting again. Your first sentence is deeply controversial. Philosophy as a "science"? Since when was the function to provide men (forgetting women I see) with a comprehensive view in life? Sounds more like religion to me. --Snowded (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the discussion on this page to anticipate some of the likely objections here. These include the presence of 'science' and the abscence of 'logic'. Asserting that your view is correct in the face of obvious didagreement is not an approach that is likely to win friends and influence people. JJL (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All these years spent, and my view of life is far from comprehensive. I want my money back.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Well, life is wasted on the living. JJL (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it 'the study' is ok, yet you claim 'the science' is controversial. If one's inquiry into the questions of Philosophy isn't based on reason and logic, then one is not engaged in "study". Anyhow, I can live with 'the study'. My not using politically correct language does not skew my meaning, I was referring to our species, not a particular gender. It is the job of Philosophical _study_ (lol) to provide _individual adult human beings_ (rofl) with a comprehensive view of life - how explicit any given person's philosophical beliefs is not relevant. The goal of any study is for comprehensive answers. If the goal is half-answers or wild guesses, then its babble and speculation - not study - one is engaged in.

On the side: to the extent that any dogma provides answers to Philosophical questions, it is philisophical. Neat don't you think. So if a religion, say Islam, offers up answers (on methaphysics, ...) then that religion is a Philosophy. If some wikipeida editor crys Mysticism isn't philosophy, they are not qualified to contribute to the opening paragraph of this article. Philosphy isn't a view of the nature of humans (rofl) and existence, its the *study* (lol) of these things. You bet there are false Philosophies out there, logic tells us they can't all be right (contradictions cannot exist). Karbinski (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The above statements represent a POV, this is a wikipedia article and needs to reflect the history of philosophy not the opinion of an editor or editors as to what it should be. taking an Objectivist stance does not a valid entry make. Oh and by the way, providing answers to the meaning of life was generally a task of Monty Python film crews. --Snowded (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the new first sentence is based on the History of Philosophy then the contributing editors should be able to verify with realiable sources. Short of that its vulnerable to being cut as OR and POV (of 4 editors it would seem). Labeling my stance as Objectivist is flattery. The meaning of life as a topic of study falls under the science of Philosophy - historically anyways. Karbinski (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Flattery was not intended. None of the various citations etc from various dictionaries of philosophy contained any reference to philosophy being a science, or the science of philosophy let alone the meaning of life (the answer to which is 42 of course). Seriously your perspective here seems unusual so I suggest you provide a citation. I have also reversed your recent edit on the main page. Few subject matter pages have citations for the summary sentences and it is normal for those to be agreed by consensus. --Snowded (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not bring up 'the meaning of life', my suggested lead was: "Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life." Karbinski (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead section is subject to the same standards as the rest of the article. Karbinski (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested lede gives a stangely poor and ill-written desciption of philosphy: is it based on something you have read or did you just make it up? What exactly do you mean by "science" and why do you say the philosophy is a science and as opposed to what? I have never heard this suggested before. Do you mean all philosophy or just some philosophy "studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence". What do you mean by "the nature of existence" and what do you mean by the "aspects" of it; can you give some eamples of fundamental and non-fundamental aspects? It is stange to give philosophy a motive ("in order to provide man with a comprehensive view of life"), becasue we normally ascribe motive to sentient beings not jubjects (historians have motioves not history). IS thisperhaps a metaphor and your really mean that philosphers (not philosphy) have this motive. If a subject could be said to have a motive, what makes you say that this is the motive of philosophy. Can you cite some texts you have in mind to illustrate this motive? It would be easy to name a number of texts normally considered works of philosophy which it would be challenging to demonstrate were studies of "the nature of existence" or asepects therof and even harder to show they are motivated by a "desire to provide man with a comprehensive view of life". Would you say such texts were not "really" works of philosophy? Do all subjects have a "motive"? How do you descibe what the motive of a subject is? Suppose I said that philosophy had some other motive; how would we decide which was the true motive? I am genuinly puzzled where you get this while idea from. Have you studied philosophy? Can you give some examples of texts have read? You assert this definition without any citations or arguments in support. Do you think it would be a good idea to provide one or the other?--Philogo 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You made a controversial suggestion about the opening which has no support from other editors. If you want to make the case then argue it and use citations. I did notice that you used "comprehensive", please note irony in my response.

If you check other pages (History, Theology etc) you will find that there is no citation in the lead sentence. Some do (Geography) but it is not a requirement. This question was discussed some time ago and my preference was for a cited source. However the discussion and clear consensus was for a summary statement. Agreement on this was reached. Please read the history. You can of course open the question here and see if other editors agree with you. However until you get that agreement please do not edit the article on this issue. --Snowded (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deferred to your consensus, as I clearly arrived late onto the scene. The excrutiating ordeal you have gone through to reach that consensus means its not undisputable ipso facto. I don't forsee a valid argument against sourcing the lead section, verification is par for the course here on Wikipedia. Karbinski (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I move the question

Does anyone object to the following. It is a very slight modification of what we have now. I suggest we go with it. We've been at this far too long, and we need to move on.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning concepts such as existence, knowledge, ethics, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. The word philosophy is of Ancient Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning "love of knowledge", "love of wisdom".[1][2][3]

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's important to me to see logic in some form in the first sentence, and I'd really like to see things wikilinked. I can (reluctantly) bend on the latter--an unfortunate signal of a lack of true consensus--but the former is essential, to my mind. JJL (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and your evaluation, ie. adding logic, and wikilinking the concepts.--Catagraph (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys the WIkipedia is not about your preference (or mine). I might even agree with you but that is not the point. There are multiple citations that establish that logic is a branch of philosophy (no dispute) and there are some that list it as a primary branch but also ones which do not. There are also established sources with do not use logic, but use non-logic forms of reason (such as coherence), or challenge the question of language per se (much philosophy of mind and neuroscience). The first line is a description of what defines the field and that does not include logic, not matter how important you and others think it is. If you include logic, then we have to include aesthetics, which means we have to include (and so on) until we replicate the second section. --Snowded (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that logic is a primary branch of phil., at least in the Western tradition. I don't see the connection you make with aesthetics, which can be subsumed under ethics or value judgments. As to sources that don't use logic, leaving aside whether or not I agree with that statement, it's quite different from studying logic. Reason is both subject and method--phil. does study itself in that regard. It's crucial to distinguish between logic as subject area and logic/reason as method of investigation. JJL (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find something that we can agree on. I, too, would like to see "logic" added to the list, but since we don't claim that the list is exhaustive, and since the addition of "logic" is controversial, I left it out. The same with the wikilinks. I like them, but they are high up in the body of the article, so in the interest of getting something done, let's leave them out for now.

Can we move from what we have now to the formulation I suggested above without having that formulation reverted? Nothing in Wikipedia is final. Does the formulation above move us in the right direction? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the second para of this section (you did not sign) then yes you have my agreeement --Snowded (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No and thrice no. "...concerning our concepts of..." might work, because I am prepared to accept that philosophy studies the concept of mind, the concept of language, and so on. But mere weariness with the discussion doesn't make language, or mind or ethics concepts. It's bad English, bad philosophy, and worse than that it's not true. If anyone wants to hold that position, convincing cites are needed.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I just don't see any advantage of the proposed language over the current language. It varies minor wordsmithing of the "concepts such as" part and de-links the major areas. It's better as is, though again the lack of an area that most major research universities consider a crucial area of study for would-be philosophers--logic--is unfortunate. It might be best to let this rest and devote some of this energy to the body of the article, which still flows poorly. JJL (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intent to remove the links, they just didn't cut and paste. My intent was exactly two changes. First, I want to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive, which I think everyone agrees. This means adding "such as", but when I did that somebody (Snowded?) reverted. Second, I think most of the lists above had something like "ethics" instead of "moral judgments".

I now realize that to attempt two changes at once was too many. Let's try them one at a time. Meanwhile, KD Tries Again, suggest a category name into which all of the items on the list fall. Subjects? Ideas? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "ideas" either. Subjects or topics?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again