Talk:Philosophy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Definition of Philosophy

Philosophy, as an academic, analytic western tradition is commonly termed an 'essentially contested concept' by Philosophers. It might be prudent to include this phrase in the intro somewhere. - jdv.

Meaningless rubbish removed

I am going to revert to an earlier version by Banno on 12 December. Reasons given in detail below. Dbuckner 20:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) My responses inserted, set off by double indent. Rick Norwood 23:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Philosophy article

This is still a load of old rubbish, if I may say.

Name calling is not critique.

It begins

Philosophy is a broad field of knowledge in which the definition of knowledge itself is one of the subjects investigated.

That is true, but imagine the reader who has no background in the subject. Any definition of philosophy has to include the following ideas: rational enquiry, systematic, dialectical, and the traditional four subject areas (logic, metaphysics, theory of knowledge and ethics).

If it is true, why revert it. The subjects you mention are all covered. The version you reverted to does not cover them as well.

Next

It spans the nature of the universe, the mind, and the body; the relationships between all three, and between people.

This is awful in a way that I can't put my finger on.

If you can't put your finger on it, maybe you need to think about it some more.

Philosophy is a field of inquiry – the pursuit of wisdom; the predecessor and complement of science, pondering those questions which are beyond the scope of science.

Ah, the old trick of recognising failure in the original definition, and trying another. And where is the idea of "rational enquiry"? Pursuing "wisdom" is the object of many an endeavour. What does "the predecessor and complement of science" mean? This part seems to have no main verb. As for "pondering those questions which are beyond the scope of science." it is beginning to sound like Mystic Meg (English astrologer).

The first definition covers subject matter, the second goals. You and I agree that rational enquiry leads to the best philosophy. But this is an encyclopedia article, not a place to state our personal views. And scientists are the first to understand that there are many questions that are beyond the scope of science. So your redicule is misplaced.

The essence of philosophy is the study and development of fundamental ideas and methods that are not adequately addressed in specialized empirical disciplines, such as physics or history.

That old trick again. Someone realised the earlier definitions are not right. Solve it by bringing in the phrase "the essence". And repeat one of the earlier definitions.

As such, philosophy provides the foundations upon which all belief structures and fields of knowledge are built. It is responsible for the definitions of, and the approaches used to develop the theories of, such diverse fields as religion, language, science, law, psychology, mathematics, and politics.

This isn't a trick, it's the truth. If you study the history of learning, you see the separation of knowledge into specialties. Aristotle tried to write about everything. Nobody but Isaac Asimov would dare try that today. This paragraph does not repeat the original definiton, but rather explains the change in the meaning of the word from earlier times to the way it is used today. In short, there is a great deal going on here that your hasty reading missed.

More old tricks: "as such", i.e. "essentially". Everything that follows is also highly questionable.

Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many culture throughout history.

Nearer the truth. But "profound thinkers" gets us close to Deep Thought again, i.e. to apparent self-parody. Also the List of philosophers referenced here contains mostly people who aren't philosophers (astrologers, mystics, alchemists, churchmen, deities, Mystic Meg &c).

The "list of philosophers" is another article. If you don't like it, go there to edit it. You yourself note that this is "nearer the truth". If you think you can strike closer to the mark, try.

Philosophers seek to understand the principles that underlie all knowledge and being.

Wow!

For this purpose, they develop methods of thinking, including logic, introspection, and meditation.

Introspection? Meditation? Bollocks again.

You and I agree that logic trumps introspection and meditation. Once again, this is an encyclopedia article, not our personal forum. To leave out all of Eastern philosophy is only to tell half the story, the Eurocentric half.

Applying these methods, they investigate the most fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).

An element of truth here, but written in such a way as to suggest it's all in fact bollocks.

You keep recognizing the truth underlying what has been written here -- and then in the next breath calling it "bollocks" (you've been reading too much Alan Moore) because you started out to tear the article to shreds and are not willing to acknowledge the good parts.

I see this article has had about 100 rewrites in the last month, as part of some collaboration. Are there any actual philosophers working on this collaboration? How long does take to write so much bollocks?

I'll show you my credentials if you'll show me yours.

The version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=27174046 of 2 November is actually slightly better and has none of the meditation bollocks.

So, your main reason for the revert is not that you claim the old article is better, but that you want Eastern philosophy out. Unacceptable.

The main culprit seems to be user Go for it! who is responsible for the spendid non-sentence "the predecessor of science, and now its complement" plus loads of other bollocks. It occurs here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&diff=31251447&oldid=31243606

My overall recommendation for this collaboration is (a) to delete the whole article, as that would be a considerable improvement, and perhaps ban certain users for life. I.e. person mentioned above, plus anyone who committed the crime of editing it after that point and not deleting the bollocks. This ought to include the user who edited "every culture" into "many culture" without spotting that the quantifier "many", in English, takes the plural form. Did none of the people working on this "collaboration" go through any form of elementary education?

Your whole attitude ignores the Wiki injunction not to engage in insults and to assume good faith. (The mistake when I changed "every" to "many" was entirely my own error.)

I am calling for others to express their opinion of your revert below. Rick Norwood 23:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: The above complaint is very hard to follow, because it is interspersed with unsigned replies. Having said that, the new intro is more semantically accurate than the previous version. The branches aren't explicitly identified as such, but they are included and then later are clarified in their own section. I think the new intro is fine. I for one think we did a really good job. Go for it! 04:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

GFI, please start to use the convention of indenting rather than your own bolding in your posts on the talk page. It makes for easier reading. Which version is "the new", and which the "previous"? Your post is very unclear. Banno 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Put edits in a separate page

If you want to rewrite the introduction, do it on a separate draft page, as we are doing for the logic article. Dbuckner 21:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new version (edit here)

• DBuckner, you have not commented on the new "etymology and usage" section. Is that satisfactory enough to be included? Infinity0 ^talk 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Infinity0, you seem willing to accept Debunker's revert and start all over again. I am not. We did good work; Debunker's criticism is shallow and his revert highhanded. Let us know what you think below. Rick Norwood 23:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed phrases in deleted italics.

---

Philosophy is a broad field of knowledge in which the definition of knowledge itself is one of the subjects investigated. It spans the nature of the universe, the mind, and the body; the relationships between all three, and between people. Philosophy is a field of inquiry – the pursuit of wisdom; the predecessor and complement of science, pondering those questions which are beyond the scope of science.

(apparently this section requires more concise and consistent definition.)

• I don't see what's wrong with "predecessor and complement of science." Infinity0 ^talk 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The essence of philosophy is the study and development of fundamental ideas and methods that are not adequately addressed in specialized empirical disciplines, such as physics or history. As such, philosophy provides the foundations upon which all belief structures and fields of knowledge are built. It is responsible for the definitions of, and the approaches used to develop the theories of, such diverse fields as religion, language, science, law, psychology, mathematics, and politics. It also examines and develops its own structure and procedures, and when it does so is called metaphilosophy: the philosophy of philosophy.

• DBuckner, why is THAT sentence bad?

Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many culture throughout history. Philosophers seek to understand the principles that underlie all knowledge and being. For this purpose, they develop methods of thinking, including logic, introspection, and meditation. Applying these methods, they investigate the most fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).

• "Philosopher seek to understand..." - Probably too general and unrepresentative of all philosophers. Infinity0 ^talk 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• The list of questions needs compacting. Infinity0 ^talk 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology and usage

The word "philosophy" is derived from ancient Greek (Φιλοσοφία, philosophia) and literally translates to "love of wisdom". It represents a vocation of questioning, learning, and teaching. Philosophers are curious about existence, the world, humanity, values, understanding, and the nature of things.

The word once included all forms of knowledge, and all methods for attaining it. Early scientists, regardless of their field of study, called themselves "natural philosophers". But through the rise of universities and the separation of learning disciplines, philosophy has taken on more specialized meanings. Not all philosophers agree on what the word 'philosophy' means, variously contending between the following views of philosphy, for example:

• A method of rational inquiry, with the approaches used varying considerably. For instance, the Socratic method relies primarily upon asking questions while analytic philosophy applies logic and language in other ways.
• A particular subject matter. The scope of philosophical inquiry is diverse, and includes metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and logic.
• A process. Goals of this process include: to perfect the human soul, to "Know thyself", to seek the Tao, or, as Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed, to provide an antidote to certain confusions of language.
• An academic discipline, studied at universities and colleges worldwide.
• Insight gained through meditation. This is, for example, the belief of the Zen Buddhist philosophers.
• Truth found in mystical experience. This is, for example, the belief of the Sufi philosophers, such as Rumi.

The term can also refer to a worldview, to a perspective on an issue, or to the positions of a particular philosopher or school of philosophy. Popularly, it may also refer to a person's perspective on life (as in "philosophy of life") or the basic principles behind, or method of achieving, something (as in "my philosophy about driving on highways").

The phrase "a philosophical attitude" refers to a thoughtful approach to life. Reacting to a tragedy philosophically might mean abstaining from passionate reactions in favour of intellectual detachment. This usage arose from the example of Socrates, who calmly discussed the nature of the soul with his followers before drinking a deadly potion of hemlock, as ordered by an Athenian jury. The Stoics followed Socrates in seeking freedom from their passions, hence the modern use of the term stoic to refer to calm fortitude.

massive revert

I, for one, am not ready to accept Debunker's massive revert. A large number of people have worked on this article in good faith, and the version Debunker reverted to needed that work. I'll respond to his criticism above, but I would like the opinion of others as to whether the version he reverted to is better than the version he reverted from. Please comment below.

For or against the Debunker reversion:

Against -- for reasons stated above. Rick Norwood 23:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Against -- but some of his criticism make sense, we should work on that. Infinity0 ^talk 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Against -- I've reverted the revert. Go for it! 04:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a sure way to start a revert war. Banno 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careful who you acuse of starting this. I reverted an unwarranted revert. He drew first blood. And then you supported his revert. Hiding behind rhetoric isn't going to help. We need to continue the flow of editing where it left off. If Dbuckner doesn't like the draft, then he is welcome to copyedit. But simply reverting all the work we've done on the article over the past few days isn't going to wash. Besides, isn't this thing going into peer review soon? If the intro is crap, I'm sure the peers will tell us. Let peer review have a look-see. Go for it! 12:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I did not accuse you of starting anything. Read what I said. Banno

"First blood?" Wikipedia is not a battleground. I agree with DBuckner's criticism, just not with his implementations of those criticism (ie the revert). Infinity0 ^talk 12:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wiki is not a democracy.

This poll is a pointless exercise. We must work to accommodate the differences of opinion set forth by Dbuckner, even if he presents them in a rather rude fashion. At the least, get his name right!

Wiki policy supports the robust editing that is occurring here, and my own experience leads me to think the end result will be a considerably improved article. This will be facilitated if we stick to some basic Wiki guidelines:

• Wikipedia is not a democracy
• Polls are evil
• Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Banno 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a tyranny either.

You havn't met Jimbo yet, have you? ;-) Banno 05:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the above policies, Dbuckner should have discussed his grievances here rather than taken an axe to the piece. Go for it! 12:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

On the positive side

I apologise for the rudeness. I was just trying to make a point.

I appreciate a number of people worked on this in good faith, but they seem to have little philosophical training, and they do not write well (see my comments above). If you want my credentials, by the way, look in back copies of Analysis. I left teaching a long time ago but I retain an interest.

The problem we have here is the 'Mystic Meg' problem. Unlike brain surgery or mathematical logic, many people think they can practice philosophy with little or no training.

But Philosophy is not astrology, or mysticism, or the Tarot, or the occult, or even the Tao. The word 'Philosophy' refers to a specific discipline, taught in universities across the world, with a specific history (from the Greeks, via the medieval philosophers &c) and a specific subject-matter (logic, metaphyics, epistemology and ethics).

On making positive contributions, well I have written nearly all the articles on philosophical logic, including Unity of the proposition, Existence, Ontological commitment, Concept and object, Term logic and many others. Most have survived with very little alteration. I have always avoided the Philosophy page

As a positive way forward: persuade more professional philosophers to join. As I pointed out on the project page, Irving Anellis is on the project list. He is a distinguished historian of logic, and has made some excellent contributions to the Bertrand Russell page.

I tried to persuade Melitis to join this, who is a professional philosopher. He did not want to get involved because he felt WP was not a good medium, and in particular because of the 'Mystic Meg' problem.

At the very least, as I pointed out earlier, put a draft of the new introduction on a special page that we can discuss. About 90% of the edits were down to corrections of clumsy mistakes that could have been cleared by the writer doing all the corrections at home. Write something. Put it away. Read it again the next morning. Do some elementary parsing.

Another useful technique is to go through dictionaries and encylopedias and pick out the definitions, and list them out. Then you get a clear idea of what is the same about all those definitions, and what is different. Sometimes you get an insight. One definition I found recently was that philosophy is what can be discovered by the light of unaided reason (as opposed to experimental or "scientific" methods, or supernatural revelation). 81.131.102.181 10:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User Mel Etitus maintained a vigilance over this article until a couple of months ago. He made valuable contributions and edits, and while he was set in his ways and quite resistent to discussion it was basically that version which was the product of discussions between some professional philosphers and has been found unsatisfactory to the current reviewers. I am a big believer in knowing when to leave well enough alone. I'm not sure what the "Mystic Meg" problem is, but I think it is probably the same thing that keeps me away from this article.Amerindianarts 11:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I wholehartedly agree with your edit. I too am a professional philosopher and will see what I can contribute to this rather obtuse and awkward introductory page. --Valve 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What philosophy is.

First, Dbuckner, I apologize for misspelling your name.

Second, I hope I am not making an unwarrented assumption that the anonymous post is yours that says,

"But Philosophy is not astrology, or mysticism, or the Tarot, or the occult, or even the Tao. The word 'Philosophy' refers to a specific discipline, taught in universities across the world, with a specific history (from the Greeks, via the medieval philosophers &c) and a specific subject-matter (logic, metaphyics, epistemology and ethics)."

Whoever wrote that paragraph, this is an attitude that might have been acceptable fifty years ago, but is not acceptable today. Essentially, this is a claim that all "real" philosophy comes from the Greeks, and that all non-Western philosophers, including Lao Tze, are not "real" philosophers. That view is not going to make it in Wikipedia. Let's move on.

You lump the Tao and mysticism in with astrology and superstition. The Tao Te Ching is not the I Ching. The former is profound philosophy, the latter superstition.

It is true that I am, by profession, a mathematician and logician, not a professional philosopher. I have, however, read widely and published a little in the latter area. But the main point is not a matter of professional credentials but of common sense. The study of philosophy today includes not just the Greeks and other Europeans, but also Buddha, Kung Fu Tze, Lao Tze, and other Eastern philosophers. Rick Norwood 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. Dbuckner's position is a fairly Anglocentric and outmoded way of thinking which rests more upon tradition and less upon content analysis and theory. Lucidish 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Rational

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with what is said but defending the right to unsay it.

Sheepzilla has put into the introduction the assertion that philosophy is, fundamentally, "rational". I agree. But I also recognize that there are major philosophers who strongly disagree. We can sell the importance of rational thinking in philosophy all we want in the proper section, but we cannot put it in the introduction. To do so is to assume that we have won a battle that is still being fought. Rick Norwood 14:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you give examples of irrational philosophy? Infinity0 ^talk 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking the "rational" POV out, is this OK:

Philosophy is the methodical inquiry into any area of knowledge, in which all areas can be considered, even the nature of knowledge or inquiry itself. Philosophy has traditionally used a rational method of inquiry; thus its study has been closely linked, until modern times, with that of alchemy and, upon its emergence, scientific investigation. It is used to study and develop fundamental ideas and methods which are not adequately addressed in specialized empirical disciplines, such as physics or history. In addition, a philosophical inquiry will tend to be of academic nature, rather than out of immediate or commercial necessity.

Dog's Dinner

(Norwood) This is a claim that all "real" philosophy comes from the Greeks, and that all non-Western philosophers, including Lao Tze, are not "real" philosophers.

Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying there is a well-defined tradition that comes to us from the Greeks, via the medieval philosophers (many of whom were not 'Western'). It changed a lot on the way. To include other disciplines just confuses the issue. Put these other subjects on different pages.

The study of philosophy today includes not just the Greeks and other Europeans, but also Buddha, Kung Fu Tze, Lao Tze, and other Eastern philosophers.

No it doesn't. If I look at any current journal of philosophy, say AJP, JoP, CJP &c, I don't see the study or discussion of 'Eastern philosophy' there.

User Mel Etitus maintained a vigilance over this article until a couple of months ago. He made valuable contributions and edits, and while he was set in his ways and quite resistent to discussion it was basically that version which was the product of discussions between some professional philosphers and has been found unsatisfactory to the current reviewers. (Amerindianarts).

I looked at 'his' version and it was of much better quality. My main objection to the version I deleted (and which has now appeared again) is that it is a crime against literacy.

Anyway, I won't revert anything else. I will simply not get involved. Dbuckner 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mel's words of wisdom

On my talk page --

It's true that I've added a few articles, and edited others, but I tend to steer clear of philosophy in Wikipedia (not always successfully). That's partly because it's one of those subjects upon which everyone seems to think that she's an expert (after all, it's just opinions, isn't it?), with dogmatism rising in proportion to lack of understanding, but partly because it's my own subject area, and I find that I have less patience with the dogmatically mistaken. It isn't helped by the fact that philosophy is inherently ill-suited to encyclopædias (and quiz shows), because it's primarily a process, not a product. It's also not helped by the different uses of the word to mean everything from academic/professional philosophy to the cosmological beliefs of Amazonian tribes (nor by the division between Anglo-American and Continental philosophy). I can't quite keep away (and I'll be interested in Existence when I get a chance to look at it), but you'll be more likely to find me adding articles on jazz musicians and albums...

Indeed Dbuckner 17:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

State the problem

If you dig back into the dim dark past of the talk page of this article, you will find discussion of both the problem of the introduction and the problem now called "Mystic Meg" go back quite a ways. As with all such issues, the answer is to actually talk about the problems in the article itself. If it causes us so much angst, it will be of interest to the reader as well; and probably result in a more interesting read.

I have in the past presented arguments along the lines of Dbuckner, that the article should be confined to what is called "Western" philosophy. This is still my preferred option. But I now think, given the nature of the Wiki, this will incite claims of our being prejudiced against "Eastern" philosophical traditions, and result in our not achieving "feature article status".

Similarly, there are various articles claiming to be philosophical, but which are essentially pseudo-philosophy. that is, putting it diplomatically, they are not on topics that one might find treated in academic philosophy courses.

There seem to me to be two options:

1) Write the introduction to argue the case that this article is about academic philosophy as you might find it at a university course, from he Greeks down to the present day; mention and link to Eastern philosophical traditions and to mysticism and religion, but essentially bar them from any substantial presence in the article. We might just get away with this if the case is placed clearly and succinctly.

2) Allow mystic Meg and the East into the article. This would mean an introduction that was inclusive, and correspondingly vague. But it would be seen as "inclusive", giving us entry into the feature articles.

OR we could ignore the article all together. I've tried that but it keeps coming back. Banno 22:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that even limiting yourself to academic philosophy is not going to keep the spectre of Mystic Meg away. Consider, for example, the postmodernists coming out of Columbia and UC Berkeley, who reject the very existance of what is called rational thought. "By 'right' we mean the interest of the stronger party."

I would also point out that Kant, who most academic philosophers love, was a bit of a Mystic Meg in his day. See, for example, "The Critique of Impure Reason", which tears Kant to shreds. Part of Kant's populatity is due to the influence of the British Catholics, such as Belloch and Chesterton who saw, in Kant's conclusion that reason alone was not enough, a loophole for God to slip in past the rationalist watchdogs like H. G. Wells.

I do, however, think that it is possible to draw a line between philosophy and anthropology. Even a thinker of the caliber of Robert Oppenheimer found philosophy in the Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavadgita.

In short, I think we can admit that not all philsosophy stems from the Greeks without opening the door for every mystic with a crystal ball for rent. Rick Norwood 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, go on then, write it up! The present intro is very poor, indeed it is POV and factualy wrong. Something has to change. Banno 02:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That there is a distinction between philosophy and anthropology really goes without saying. But since philosophic anthropology is a major methodology in philosophy, the line you draw will be a gray area. Wherever you find language you are going to find bits of philosophy. Amerindianarts 03:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. The deletion wasn't intentional. Amerindianarts 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I say go with option (2) i.e. allow Mystic Meg and the East in an appropriately limited way. After all, philosophers do not have a copyright on the word 'Philosophy'. It does mean all those things, after all. On the other hand, most other pages would have a disambiguation section at the beginning.

My main concern is that the new introduction is horribly written. E.g. "Philosophy is a field of inquiry – the pursuit of wisdom; the predecessor and complement of science, pondering those questions which are beyond the scope of science." Yuk. That has got to change.

Dbuckner 09:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What about this: It's Sheepzilla's and my version, but I've removed the parts that imply philosophy is "rational", according to suggestions:

Philosophy is the methodical inquiry into any area of knowledge, in which all areas can be considered, even the nature of knowledge or inquiry itself. Philosophy has traditionally used a rational method of inquiry; thus its study has been closely linked, until modern times, with that of alchemy and, upon its emergence, scientific investigation. It is used to study and develop fundamental ideas and methods which are not adequately addressed in specialized empirical disciplines, such as physics or history. In addition, a philosophical inquiry will tend to be of academic nature, rather than out of immediate or commercial necessity.

Infinity0 ^talk 11:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NO it's complete rubbish, unless you mean it as some sort of joke (in which case it's a poor joke). You say that because philosophy has used a rational method of inquiry, its study has been closely linked with alchemy? It's quite clear from everything that you and the other one (Go for it) write that you have no competence in or knowledge of philosophy. This is sheer vandalism. Someone please revert to a decent version. 81.131.118.13 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (dbuckner)

How would you edit that passage to improve it then? Infinity0 ^talk 15:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would delete it completely. Alchemy and philosophy have nothing to do with each other.

So, delete the word "alchemy" from that passage? If you're going to continue being such a stubborn prick we'll get nowhere. Please don't dismiss the whole passage because of just one word. And I was hoping for a suggestion of an alternative, not a plain dismissal. You haven't complained about anything else apart from the "alchemy" part, so why delete those? Infinity0 ^talk 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Infinity0,

1. If philosophy is methodical, are nihilism and post modernism not philosophical positions?
2. if it is methodical, shouldn't we state the method?
3. If it is enquiry into any area of knowledge, do philosophers study weevils?
4. If it considers all areas, how is it demarcated from cooking?
5. If it is rational, how doe sit link with mysticism?
6. Who, besides Newton, was both a philosopher and an alchemist?
7. What of those areas of philosophy that consider themselves opposed to scientific investigation?

And so on. The problem is with the very type of introduction you are trying to write - it will not work, because it attempts to define philosophy, and any definition will be inadequate or POV. Rather we need to discuss the problems of defining philosophy. But this is too big a task for the introduction, and needs its own section within the article, the now misnamed meaning and use section is for this very purpose. Banno

The introductory paragraph should be very brief, alluding to the section on the problem of defining philosophy. Banno 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write most of that version of the intro; Sheepzilla did. But I think it's good in describing rational, methodical philosophy. I can't write a whole introduction, but I know what has potential for improvement. In answer to your questions:

1. Nihilism explains itself, doesn't it?
2. Yes, that would be good, thought I'm not an expert on this subject.
3. Abstract areas of knowledge, not objects. Ie. "philosophy of life" and not "philosophy of rocks"
4. Why can't you have a "philosophy of cooking"?
5. I took philosophy to mean the study process; I didn't think about the other definitions of that word, unfortunately. But I think that this article should be about this study process - any other "defintions" has just been invented by common usage, and detracts from the real meaning of the term.
6. Now yes, I agree the alchemy part should be taken out.
7. The intro just says they are linked via the rational method they employ; which philosophies don't use a ration methodical approach?

In short, I think the intro should be a defintion of the academic subject "Philosophy" (ie. the whole article about this); with "other uses" in a separate section. Infinity0 ^talk 00:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You really need to think about the answers you gave above and ponder their implications. If you really think that there is a philosophical method that we could state unambiguously and without disagreement, then my suspicion is that you should not be working on this page. You appear to side with the first option I listed above, but do not present the requisite argument to support the case. From the discussion above that option appears to be in the minority. Banno 02:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is "one" method; there are various types... OK, then, spend the introduction going over the various definitions. BUT - if you are going to go over the various definitions, you shouldn't include those questions in the intro. Those question go together with the rational method. Infinity0 ^talk 11:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Two philosophers, three opinions. There are simply too many methods and definitions of philosophy to deal with in the encyclopedia, let alone in the introduction to one article. This is precisely what the intro should say. Banno 19:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Infinity's intro would be acceptable if the alchemy/science sentence were removed.

It is hardly controversial to say that philosophy is traditionally about providing reasons for arguments, which is what his attempt amounts to. That is the method: a reasoned dialogue.

Nihilism provides reasons. Gorgias, the penultimate nihilist, does not strike me as a philosopher who simply made airy-fairy assertions.

Mystic Meg types do not provide reasons. They provide just-so stories. As soon as they craft elaborate and at least somewhat cogent arguments, they are philosophical. George Berkeley comes to mind as one example of a Mystic Meg who is now arguably one of the most important philosophers of the modern era.

It is entirely correct to note that method is not enough in a definition. There are also the traditional subject matters. Epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic, aesthetics. So we note that. Big deal.

It is also necessary to take the etymology of the word seriously: love of wisdom. And to emphasize curiousity. In this sense, the study of weevils is philosophical activity. It is just probably not of interest to the philosophical community. These are different claims. So again, we note that: big deal. Lucidish 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert vandalised page

accusations of vandalism are not helpful. Banno 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted again. If you want to make changes to this page, please do so in a separate copy so that changes can be discussed. Dbuckner 12:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And I revert yet again. I want to get to a version that at least resembles the last decent one.

Dbuckner 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Mindless reverts will accomplish nothing except driving away anybody who might actually contribute something of substance. Rick Norwood 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What is so hard about copying the intro in the old version and pasting it over the new version? That way you won't remove the changes made to the rest of the article. I've reverted it fully, to give you a chance to practise this mysterious art of copying and pasting. Infinity0 ^talk 18:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it safe?

I am tempted to return to this important page, if the revert war is over. I'll propose something here. That way, if the revert war is going to continue, I won't be wasting my time. Here is how the intro reads at the moment (copied from a much earlier version -- but that's better than reverting the whole article):

The act of defining Philosophy is fraught with difficulty. This is partially because to do so is itself to engage in philosophy, and partially because the word is used to mean different things.

Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many cultures throughout history. They have developed methods of thinking, including logic, introspection, and meditation. They investigate fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).

This article looks at some of the various meanings of the term "Philosophy", and provides an overview of the branches of philosophy. It discusses the history of philosophical discourse from a range of cultures, and concludes with a selection of resources for further study.

1) To me, the word "fraught" suggests 19th century novels, where the heroine's romantic entanglements were always "fraught". How about "Philosophy is difficult to define. The question of how to define philosophy is itself a philosophical question."

I like "fraught". That wording avoids using " 'Philosophy' is difficult to define" - I don't like the idea of placing the key word in quotes in the first sentence. Banno

I don't think we need to say that the word is used to mean different things -- all words have that property, and the different uses of "philosophy" are covered below.

2) I think we need to give the reader some idea of what philosophy covers before turning to the philosophical literature. We can do this easily by just rearranging the sentences in paragraph two, thus: "Philosophers investigate... ." followed by the sentences now at the beginning.

I don't agree. I think that the reader will, having found their way here, have an idea of the subject matter, and improve on this by reading the article.Banno

3) The third paragraph should go -- it is in the style of writers paid by the word -- first tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you have told them. There is nothing in the paragraph that is not also in the Table of Contents directly below it.

(Note: all of these topics were discussed here before the recent reversion war, which has accomplished nothing but wasted time and effort.) Rick Norwood 15:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you are correct here. Firstly, if that was an revert war, it was pretty tame. Secondly, such exercises are important in achieving a consensus; sometimes a point need be made strongly in order to achieve agreement. Banno 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes thank you Banno, that was entirely the point. I have drafted a two page article which I am going to drip feed onto my page User:Dbuckner/philosophy, for comment. One of my points was that there was some pretty indiscriminate and thoughtless editing going on. I am working on a page at home, which I carefully spell and sense-check, then release onto a draft page for comment.

My other point is that there are at least two users who clearly do not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to be writing an article of this nature. For example anyone who confuses alchemy with philosophy, or with meditation or mysticism. Please don't accuse me of Eurocentrism or whatever. I just hate to see different subjects confused. For example, I have a special interest in counter-reformation philosophy, which is Iberian and also has an interesting Latin American connection. But is not the reason I call it 'philosophy'. I call it that because it has a proven connection with the whole tradition, and some quite interesting influences. I have also drawn attention, in the Logic discussion page, to the influence of Polish thought upon modern logic. Not out of some misplaced political correctness, but because the influence was genuine and important, and has been cruelly underrated. The point is to be truthful about history. Dbuckner 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The suggestions of this section are far too amorphous to be useful. If philosophy were as hard to define as it is made out to be, it would not be anything at all. I suggest:

Philosophy is a discipline dedicated to the study of wisdom. It has three general characteristics: a certain goal, a certain method, and certain subjects. Its goal is the satisfaction of curiosity by deliberation upon puzzling questions. Its method is reasoned introspection or discussion. And it has certain favored subjects (prompted by certain key questions): existence, knowledge, ethics, politics, logic, and art.

Lucidish 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop!

Banno you are doing a splendid job but we still have an article which is complete nonsense. E.g. 'profound thinkers', the use of 'introspection' and 'meditation'. How can anyone develop 'methods of thinking'. Think about it. (Perhaps you can develop methods of writing, or expressing yourself. But methods of thinking?)

And then the bullet points in the second section. One lists it as an academic discipline. Another as 'insight gained through meditation'. 'Truth found in mystical experience'. Come on. Dbuckner 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it complete nonsense; but that it is partially so. What is it you want me to stop? Banno 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The dot points originally were not - see how it looked in my first version [1]. The intent was to return to it and enlarge each paragraph with better examples and citations. Events intervened, but I might revert and enlarge at some stage. Banno 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm back after a while away. I haven't taken a new read through the article (it seems to be in hardcore flux these days), but I second Rick's position against the use of fraught. It is way too much of an emotionally loaded word -- take a look at Dictionary.com's definition: (2) Marked by or causing distress; emotional: “an account of a fraught mother-daughter relationship” (Francesca Simon). Surely we can use something more technical than this? More comments to come... --Michael ^(talk) 06:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I came back too soon. If this is a mild revert war, I would hate to see a serious one. Why should I, or anyone else, spend time and thought and effort on this page if it is only going to be reverted back to the version that is "fraught".

Of course one can train oneself, or be trained by others, in methods of thinking. A major part of my professional training, as a mathematician, was to train my mind to think logically. I've never had an interest in training myself to meditate, but I could probably do so if I wanted to.

Debuckner keeps coming back to the idea that only those of European descent are "real" philosophers. That is not going to survive in this article. You can revert as often as you want, like the poor soul who spends what must be hours changing all the BCE dates to BC (or the person who goes around changing them back again). When you get tired, I will return. Rick Norwood 15:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

the idea that only those of European descent are "real" philosophers...is not going to survive in this article.

I can vouch for that. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said that those of European descent are "real" philosophers. Really. My point is about the meaning of the word 'Philosophy' Dbuckner 18:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems that to you, philosophy = western philosophy. That is a POV. — goethean ॐ 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I state clearly at the beginning of the new article that there are various meaning of the word 'philosophy'. That is not a POV. And the meaning which I discuss - the tradition the article is about, is an accurate formulation which you can verify in any encyclopedia or textbook. Really. Dbuckner 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, your idea that there is a single tradition in philosophy cannot be verified in any encyclopedia or textbook written after 1960. Look up Confucius in any reference book, and it will say "Chinese philosopher". You are ruining this article with your insistance that there is only one philosophical tradition. There are many. Rick Norwood 15:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can cover Dbuckner's perspective – that philosophy consists of a single, mostly Western tradition – in the article as a particular POV. — goethean ॐ 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Dbuckner's point of view is too minor to warrent a mention in this general article. Rick Norwood 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My reference books refer to Confucius as a 'thinker'. And if you look at his thought, which has a practical character, motivated by the concern with an ideal way of life for people, it is not philosophy as I would understand it.

But we have already agreed that the word 'philosophy' has a number of different meanings. My proposed re-write begins 'The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; the personal outlook or viewpoint sometimes called "my philosophy of life"; the truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone.'

Now, I'm happy to move all the 'Western' bits to a 'Western philosophy' article. But you have to be careful about the 'dog's breakfast problem', i.e. an article which will mostly be about 'Western' philosophy, with a few passing references to other traditions of thought. A good article needs to be integrated.

And you have to begin with an introductory definition that gets to exactly what all these things have in common. What do Chinese, Indian, 'Western' philosophy have in common that you want to call them all 'philosophy'?

Another principle is that one article should not deal with different meanings of a word that has different meanings. Disambiguate first, then deal with one of the meanings.

81.131.48.237 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (dbuckner)

Much that you say is reasonable. But there is really no ambiguity in the use of philosophy to describe both Plato and Kung Fu Tze. Both considered an ideal society, and struggled with the question of what life is best. They came up with different answers, but they were asking the same question. As noted in the article, other disciplines split off from philosophy as they specialized, until today philosophy struggles with the overarching questions, that span many disciplines. The main question I want to ask, though, is this. Are you finished reverting, so that it will be possible to do some serious work? Rick Norwood 23:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for fun, I looked up Confucius in the three referance books nearest to hand. The Oxford American Disctionary says, "Chinese philosopher", The World Almanac just says "founder of Confucianism" but lists him under "Philosophers and religious figures", the Encyclopedia Britannica says, "teacher, philosopher, and political theorist". Now, you list your reference books that mention Confucius but call him a "thinker" rather than a "philosopher". Rick Norwood 23:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have completely rewritten the article here: User:Dbuckner/philosophy

Socrates and Augustine are "academic philosophy"? And Adi Shankara and Nagarjuna are not? No. This article is about more than Western philosophy. — goethean ॐ 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to deal with a single tradition, i.e. a causal chain where one influential writer or thinker influences another influential writer or thinker. Augustine is a part of the intellectual tradition I have written about. Adi Shankara is not. Or prove some influence! On second thoughts, perhaps there is a place at the end of the tradition for those thinkers, some of them from the distant past, who are now influencing the current tradition. After all, Eastern thought influenced Schopenhauer. Work needs to be done. Dbuckner 20:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To me, your page seems appropriate to the article on Western philosophy, not philosophy. — goethean ॐ 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"I am trying to deal with a single tradition, i.e. a causal chain where one influential writer or thinker influences another influential writer or thinker." You seem to have mistaken philosophy for history, then. Lucidish 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed problematic, slackish lead

Some of this may belong somewhere, but I think it best to remove it to here for reworking.

The act of defining Philosophy is fraught with difficulty. This is partially because to do so is itself to engage in philosophy, and partially because the word is used to mean different things.

Philosophy has a rich literary heritage, including the writings and teachings of profound thinkers from many cultures throughout history. They investigate fundamental questions, such as "What is the nature of the universe?" (metaphysics), "What do we know, and how do we know it?" (epistemology), "What is the difference between good and evil?" (ethics), "What is beauty?" (aesthetics), and "What is the meaning of life?" (teleology).

This article looks at some of the various meanings of the term "Philosophy", and provides an overview of the branches of philosophy. It discusses the history of philosophical discourse from a range of cultures, and concludes with a selection of resources for further study.

-Ste|vertigo 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dbuckner I: Dog's banquet

your page seems appropriate to the article on Western philosophy, not philosophy

Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, there are

• Western philosophy
• History of Western philosophy
• History of philosophy

which are splendid. Note the great list of philosophers on History of Western philosophy which has such gems as 'Democritus – famous atomist', 'Duns Scotus – heavily criticised Aquinas', 'David Hume – believed that humans are a bundle of sensations', 'Jean-Jacques Rousseau – pronounced that civilisation was not a good thing', 'John Locke – he never married', 'Tycho Brahe – Astronomer with vast body of astronomical observations passed on the Johannes Kepler' [sic], 'Rene Descartes – looked at humans contradicted themselves and wondered whether there was something that we could know for certain' &c &c. I have saved this for posterity.

The History of philosophy article is clearly meant to be more 'inclusive', unfortunately it was never finished so all the sections on Chinese, Indian philosophy are blank. So it is just another history of Western philosophy (Thales – 'All is water'). Both concentrate on the Socratic part and pass over medieval philosophy completely. Huge amounts of reduplication. But what is to be done? Does anyone care? The piecemeal editing going on here is not productive.

The talk pages of these articles are quite informative. Evidently the 'Western Philosophy' article started off life as this article. Then it was moved. The problem is that you cannot mix the two traditions easily. If you are following a tradition, there is no room for the Eastern stuff. If you are taking the main themes, none of them includes the Eastern stuff either. So you end up with the usual dog's breakfast. A lot on Thales and Plato, jump to Bertrand Russell, then some Lao Zi and so on. Dbuckner 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You make some good points. For myself, piecemeal editing is the best I have to offer. I do not have a formal education in philosophy and thus can only comment on popular, easy topics -- but I am a fairly skilled grammatician and can make contributions to structure and flow once all the content disputes have settled down. Do you have a suggestion for all these articles? --Michael ^(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you! My original disagreement with this article was the dog's breakfast problem - which you find all over WP. People rewrite a single sentence well, without thinking about whether the order of the sentences is correct, whether the paragraphs are in order, whether points are being repeated, whether it all fits together. Banno has rightly complained about all these things. But now people are turning me into some kind of Fascist, which is awful. I just want to see things tidied up, and the right tradition handled in the right place. I think the best plan is to move to Western philosophy. But then the whole collection and category of philosophy articles such as Existence, Philosophical Logic and so one, will have to be part of a Western philosophy category. And then we will have to start a Western Philosophical Logic, despite the fact there is no other, and so on. And what about Metaphysics. Do we start Western metaphysics? 81.131.96.125 22:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC) dbuckner

As far as I have been able to discover, all work on logic stems from Aristotle. I have not found any independent writer on that subject. On the other hand, the question of "existence" clearly cannot be addressed without starting from a list of the major theories of existance, which would include the idea that all existance occurs in the mind of some god, the idea that existance is subjective and has no objective reality, as well as the idea that I hold (which I would guess that you share) which is that existance is objective. Rick Norwood 23:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Words of Wisdom

From these very talk pages (July 2004) posted by RK.

...here is an inherent flaw in Simonides' way of categorizing philosophical traditions. He is confusing ways of approaching philosophical problems (such as "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy",) with bodies of an ethnic group's literature. Let me explain: Analytic philosophy refers to a way that a philosopher would approach a philosophical problem. "Islamic philosophy", "Hindu Philosophy" or "Jewish philosophy", however, does not refer to a way that one would approach such a problem. Those latter terms simply refer to the body of philosophical literature that has been created over the centuries by those respective peoples. For instance, "Jewish philosophy" simply refers to the collective body of literature on philosophy written by Jews over their history; it does not refer to a specific way of approaching philosophical problems! In fact, much of medieval rationalist Jewish philosophy is a direct predecessor to analytic philosophy, while other parts of Jewish philosophy are what we now recognize as continental philosophy. The same is true for Hindu and Islamic philosophy. There is no one "Jewish method" of philosophy, no one "Hindu method" of philosophy, etc. The very idea is ludicrous. But since Simonides is hysterically reacting against what he perceives to be persecution from "the west" he is creating out of thin air "non Western" ways of thinking. Frankly, that's racist. Human beings from all cultures and nationalities have developed the same wide array of approaches to problem solving. When we have a section on philosophical problem solving, we need to discuss the many approaches, and leave race and ethnicity out of it. RK 13:34, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly right. Someone who knows what they are talking about.

Also, there is a very good paper here http://www.ashgate.com/subject_area/downloads/Sample_Chapters/comparative_approaches.pdf which covers some of the issues we are talking about. One answer to the question 'What is Chinese philosophy' is that 'Chinese philosophy is an invention of Western-trained Chinese scholars.' The word 'philosophy' has no equivalent in Chinese before translations of Western philosophical works in the nineteenth century.

And in any case, 'Eastern' universities now study 'Western' philosophy anyway. And consider the work Byeong-Uk Yi (who is Korean) which I cite in my article on Plural quantification. Here is something he wrote: http://research.nii.ac.jp/~kanazawa/semantics/2004/1029/index-j.html

It's senseless to call him a 'Korean' or an 'Eastern' philosopher. Modern philosophy is studied all over the world. It's irrelevant where the philosopher came from. You might as well call Augustine an African philosopher (though he was, in fact, African).

And a little bit insulting. Imagine it the other way round. Suppose our 'Western' philosophical tradition had got stuck in the 12th century, but had developed in 'the East', and we had only 'caught up' fifty years ago, yet were now doing sterling work in modern philosophy. Yet these Eastern philosophers patronisingly talk about Western 'scholastic' or 'Aristotelian' philosophy, as though that's all we were doing, or capable.

There is a similar problem with the Buddhist philosophy article, which gets us as far as 2nd century AD, and which contains many dubious claims about its connection with the 'Western' philosophical tradition. Dbuckner 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you finished reverting, so that it will be possible to do some serious work? Rick Norwood 23:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What 'serious work' were you planning to do? Dbuckner 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Shortly before you arrived on the scene, I and several others were working slowly and carefully through the article one section at a time. We put in many hours. You reverted everything we did. Repeatedly. This is an important article, and I would like to take a close look at where it stands today. But I do not have time to get involved in a revert war. So, are you willing to work with other people and compromise, or will you continue to revert? Rick Norwood 23:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You have certainly worked very hard. Sadly, the end result was shite. The editing was clumsy, and you have no understanding of the subject matter. You should also learn to spell. I am not the only person who has said this – just examine the talk page above.

Of course it's an important article. You are free to continue your work, as I am free to make corrections to it. Dbuckner 18:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, what has been alleged against you is that you don't have a full appreciation for the nature of philosophy. Your word on this is hardly representative of an academic consensus; quite the opposite, as fairly cogent arguments can (and have) been made against it.

In any case, your more sweeping comments will be taken with a grain of salt until they hit a firm bedrock of substantial criticism (of the quality which you have so far offered on minor points). Short of some major revelations on one side or the other, the hallmark of reaching that level of discussion will involve the abandonment of reversions and an embrace of minor revisions -- since any substantial criticisms worth attending have only warranted single-sentence modifications (i.e., the alchemy point), not the stuff worth tossing out wholesale.

Final comments: I agree that there is, in some sense, a "globalization" of philosophy. (In fact, one of the very first things I did at Wikipedia was, after importing a list of philosophers from Garth Kemerling's fantastic site, I created a 20th century "Global philosophers" index for those in the 20th+ century to indicate how the world was moving on.) Indeed, this is part of the entire point of including non-Western traditions within philosophical circles. However, part of recognizing the changing world is understanding how today is different from the situation of yesterday. In times past, the Orient and Occident were different civilizations (hell, if you go back farther, I have no doubt that you could argue that Eastern Europe and Western Europe had different civilizations). One of the ways today is different than yesterday is that we now have more dialogue between these two civilizations that had in some times past had only a tiny drip of interaction. Whether that makes a global civilization or not is a philosophical matter. But none of this is "racist". It is an observation upon culture. Indeed, I'm not quite sure where race appears anywhere in the discussion; perhaps you'd care to elaborate. Lucidish 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

More replies

You seem to have mistaken philosophy for history, then.Lucidish

I don’t follow your reasoning here. I was replying to the question why I included Augustine in the history section of my rewrite, but not Adi Shankara. Answer: Augustine was important in the history of modern philosophy, the globalised one, Adi Shankara was not. Is there anything wrong with including history in the history section of an article. Dbuckner 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment was in reply to the idea that somehow philosophy is composed only of those who are buzzwords in a tradition. That's like a historical popularity contest (which in the end all philosophers are bound to lose.)

There is something wrong with omitting history from the history section of the article. IE: ommitting Avi. Whether or not you think Adi was "important" enough or not is POV. (Luc)

any substantial criticisms worth attending have only warranted single-sentence modifications (i.e., the alchemy point), not the stuff worth tossing out wholesale.Lucidish

My reasoning was that anyone who wrote the sentence about alchemy should be kept well away from this article. There were two users in particular. My reason for reverting was to stop this vandalism, and it seems to have worked. Dbuckner 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that this grave threat to us has passed, are you saying that from now on you will take a preference toward revision instead of reversion? (Luc)

One of the ways today is different than yesterday is that we now have more dialogue between these two civilizations that had in some times past had only a tiny drip of interaction.Lucidish

Of course. Why not read the article which I linked to above. But you have to deal carefully with the problem that 'Chinese philosophy' is an invention of Western-trained Chinese scholars. Especially that Chinese philosophy is very old, and stopped at a certain stage in its development, and so has about as much relevance to modern philosophy as Thales ('All is water'). You have to be very careful. Think again about my point. If it had been the other way round, i.e. if 'Western philosophy' had stopped dead at some distant point in the past, and the subsequent developments had taken place in the East, and then we converged again, I would be pissed off if people kept referring to 'Western philosophy' as if it was just Aristotle or Thales or Augustine. There's an undercurrent of racism in all of this. Particularly when it comes from people who seem to be entirely 'Western'. The real history of all this starts with English translations of Chinese, Indian &c works, which were printed in mass in the 1960's onwards, and which gave 'Western' people some interesting ideas. It's another phase of 'Western' thought, if you like. There's a quotation from a book on the Grateful Dead I was just reading which would go nicely here, but I've lost the book. Dbuckner 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote down that list of philosophers, including those pithy little statements about them. And they are lousy, yes: the first draft of any work often looks like crap. (Though it greives me that this has not moved past the first draft for some of these philosophers.) So it goes. Upon review, I can't find a trace of the description of Thales in the article you mentioned.

History isn't necessarily about those who everyone loves to quote. It is also about those who contributed for a time, and then were remembered only by scholars of the obscure. To see my point, just imagine the state of philosophy in 400 years time, and ask yourself about the contributions of Donald Davidson.

(Re: the possibility of Chinese "philosophy".) If it were the other way around, my position would be the same. Perhaps I'm such a Klan member at heart that I just don't see your point.

Edit: reading the Cua article now. I find so far an array of commentary that supports the positions advocated by myself, Rick, etc vs. yourself in a 2:1 ratio, respectively. A bit confused as to how this paper is meant to support your argument when it indicates support for ours.

Edit2: Done the article. See pp5-6. Can quote passages, if you're really serious about persuing this. (Luc)

Indeed, I'm not quite sure where race appears anywhere in the discussion; perhaps you'd care to elaborate.Lucidish

See directly above. The original allusion came from user: RK – see above. He was saying that the idea of 'non Western' ways of thinking was racist. Also that "Islamic philosophy", "Hindu Philosophy" or "Jewish philosophy" does not refer to a way that one would approach a problem, as 'Analytic philosophy' does. 'Jewish philosophy' refers to to the collective body of literature on philosophy written by Jews over their history. It includes a lot of stuff in the 'Western' tradition, by the way.Dbuckner 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. Fair enough. But there are two axes on which this problem revolves. One is in the phrase "ways of thinking". There are distinct thoughts (or themes) that each tradition holds which may be idiosyncratic to them, which is obvious. (Ed.: this is stated explicitly in the Cua article, in a discussion of Fang: p23.) Perhaps it is more controversial to speak of distinct methods of thought in one tradition or the other, because of the diversity of individuals within each. Second, there is a woeful ambiguity when discussing Judaism because it is considered both a religion and an ethnicity. These are two things worth handling with care.

Edit: Also notice that, for the mostpart, even with RK's rant, it has been cultures that were discussed, not races. There's not a trace of "racism" in that. It is "culturist", I suppose.

So, different cultures ought to be mentioned, and their (often diverse) traditions of thoughts and ways of thinking ought to be noted, along with the appropriate philosophers. Notice: none of this is planning against historical segmentation of philosophers along the lines of culture. It is an argument against treating cultures as homogeneous unfairly.

(Luc)

PS I'm interested that you contributed the page on Direct reference theory. I have many links on my pages to Direct reference which doesn't exist. I wrote the family of pages around Philosophical logic - such as Empty name, Ontological commitment, not to forget Existence. We therefore need a redirect. I've forgotten how to create these. And, by the way, the claim that 'direct reference' originates with Mill needs to be taken cum grano salis. Dbuckner 09:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it.

I don't know anything about Mill's work on direct reference, to be honest. But from what I understand, Peter Abelard was a direct reference theorist before anyone. Lucidish 19:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

History of philosophy =

Do you have a suggestion for all these articles? --Michael ^(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well having discovered that History of philosophy is almost a duplicate of History of Western philosophy, a very good idea would be to delete one of them. Bizarrely, the 'History of philosophy' article begins 'Western Philosophy is generally said to begin ...', whereas the 'History of Western philosophy' begins 'Philosophy is generally said to begin ...'.  !!

The Western philosophy is mostly rubbish or babble, and is a good candidate for deletion also. Dbuckner 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Other bits and pieces

Lucidish, you had put some other comments in different sections. Here are my replies.

It is also necessary to take the etymology of the word seriously: love of wisdom. Lucidish

'I made a general update of the philosophy page … Someone had put details of the etymology of the term before the definition of the term. In my opinion, we should give definitions first, always (or almost always). Famously, the etymology of "philosophy" does not really shed terribly much light on what philosophy is'. Larry Sanger (circa Jan 2003).

Dbuckner's position is a fairly Anglocentric and outmoded way of thinking which rests more upon tradition and less upon content analysis and theory. Lucidish

You and others keep coming back to this idea that I am some sort of cultural imperialist. Quite the reverse. The idea of 'non Western' ways of thought, as though only Western people can deal with developments in logic since the 5th century BC(E), is supremely arrogant. The world has moved on since then. Read some modern philosophy, which is now written and studied all over the world. Perhaps this article should be called Modern philosophy.

And most professional philosophers get pissed off when people apply for courses imagining it is about yoga or meditation or some other 'Western' take on things 'Eastern'.

After many years I finally treated myself to a copy of 'Sergeant Peppers'. A sixties boy band from the North of England dressed up in silly clothes. Chuck Berry and sitars. A lot of what is going on here is just like that. Of course it's fun. But this is a place where you might want to be serious.

I have seen very little 'content analysis and theory' here. For example

the question of "existence" clearly cannot be addressed without starting from a list of the major theories of existance, which would include the idea that all existance occurs in the mind of some god, the idea that existance is subjective and has no objective reality, as well as the idea that I hold (which I would guess that you share) which is that existance is objective. Rick Norwood 23:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is drivel. The author of this might begin by learning how to spell 'existence'.

The other thing is I should mention is the condescension of slipping in 'Eastern philosophy' here and there without treating it in any serious detail. This article began life about philosophy in the 'Western' tradition, and it still shows. The subject divides into Metaphysics, Logic &c, and all the substantial work (such as it is) is 100% in the 'Western' tradition. This is interspersed with clumsy comments about Chinese or Indian or African philosophy in awkward places, without any context. This is insulting and thoughtless. Do it properly, if you must do it. And has anyone who has written here actually studied 'Eastern' philosophy in the languages they were written in? I study medieval philosophy in Latin, because that is the only way to understand it.

If you want to do it properly, put in a definition at the top that gives the essence of everything you want to cover. And cover all areas equally. Don't write six paragraphs on Bertrand Russell then half a sentence on how 'Eastern philosophers' also might have written about the theory of descriptions (except the person who wrote that sentence never got further than some duff introductory book in Ottakar's or Waterstones, and hasn't a clue how to continue).

Anyway, Felix dies Natalis Christi ad omnes. Dbuckner 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comment above on the paragraph I wrote is a perfect example of why I find your edits destructive rather than constructive (though I do appraciate the spelling correction). You call the paragraph "drivel". This is like your comment on the whole article: "Dog's breakfast". It does not in any way respond to the content of the paragraph or article. It is name calling, pure and simple. If something needs fixing, fix it! Don't delete it or revert to a version you agree is no better.

Nobody knows everything. When you came to this article, a number of different people were contributing to the sections where they had some expertise. You could, I'm sure, have contributed greatly. Instead, you chose reverting and name calling.

And a very merry Christmas to you, too. Rick Norwood 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the indentation style of replies. Just personal preference. I wish Wiki were more talk-friendly, more like a forum. But whatever.

I'm afraid I don't agree with Larry's pronouncement at the end of the quoted text, or his allegation of the claim being "famous". It is neither. Love of wisdom reflects both the history and spirit of what philosophy is about, so long as the 'curiosity' caveat is not dragged into oblivion. As such, the etymology deserves mention right up front.

The perspective you've offered regarding arrogance and culture is not something I agree with. I hope I've given historical reasons for that: social-geographical distance, cultural idiosyncracies. More specific allegations: "The idea of 'non Western' ways of thought, as though only Western people can deal with developments in logic since the 5th century BC(E), is supremely arrogant." Find the place where anyone (recently) says anything of the sort alleged after the comma, and I will give you a prize. Extra points for showing how the pre-comma claim and the post-comma claim have anything to do with one another.

Rick's quoted suggestions seem germane to me. Perhaps you'd like to state an argument for your judgment on his paragraph, for that would actually be of philosophical, logical, and Wikipedian interest. Even a prejudiced reader may look at his entry and see how it directly addresses theory, which answers your other (unsubstantiated) claim about theory not being addressed here.

"Do it properly, if you must do it." Wikipedians contribute to the extent that their knowledge-base allows. If that is little, then only a little is said. If someone knows more, then their edits are welcome. This is the nature of Wikipedia. The result is that you get vague outlines where the editor's knowledge is vague. This is not a deficiency, or "insulting", unless you are unaccustomed to social reality. Then you may be insulted at any manner of things that fire your neurons in just a certain way: ugly rocks, silly looking dogs, etc. But that is none of our concern.

In any case, if you have edits that you think would make the sections mentioned better, then the power is yours to change it. Otherwise, tough: the reader suffers less than good quality coverage, but receives more at their convienience than that they would get from other sources available to them.

Happy holidays. Lucidish 18:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten the introduction. I plan to do something with History of philosophy shortly. Dbuckner 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits.

• Philosophy does not *necessarily* depend on observation or scientific experiment.
• Ph. assigns a value to faith, intuition, and insight only insofar as it can be subject to reasoned analysis. Not "no place at all". Philosophical research consists in large part by intuitive introspection.
• Logic/philosophical logic disciplinary distinction is fairly arguable: a symptom of a bias toward the larger non-naturalistic (Wittgensteinian) outlook on metaphilosophy. For example, by contrast, philosophical naturalists (i.e. Quine, Harman) insist that science and mathematics is continuous with philosophy. I hold this latter view. Am not the only one. So nothing is "generally agreed" about any of this. They are just your claims, not agreements.

A bit too long by Wikipedia standards. Should be cut down a bit. Lucidish 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucidish: sorry if it seems like I've abandoned you, but I've gone off to work on various mathematical articles. I trust that when I return, all of the controversy will have resulted in a philosophy article that is insightful, comprehensive, and well documented. Rick Norwood 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits here are welcome, as always. Lucidish 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does this rewrite refer to a questionable division of branches within philosophy? The divisions are already correctly discerned in the section on the branches of philosophy.Amerindianarts 00:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A merry-go-round

As a bystander, just now seeing the interchanges above, I am reminded of my daughter's learning experiences at her Montessori school, where she spent from age 3 to age 12. This is how she learned how to play on a merry-go-round, in the presence of big and little kids.

Merry-go-round in a playground

The little ones naturally push it more slowly than the larger, older, more experienced ones. In order for a little one to get on the merry-go-round, they might simply grab a bar and drag their feet in the sand, while holding on. This slows down the rotation, which allows the little one to climb on. It was in fact dangerous for a 3-year old to hang on to a merry-go-round when a 12-year-old was pushing it. But the big ones simply wanted to spin it around faster.

As a mere consumer of this article, I am naturally interested in a pleasant reading experience. It is painful to see squabbles on what has historically been a majestic article. Might there be a way to return to something like that state? --Ancheta Wis 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Quantum mechanics

As a bystander in philosophy, greetings. I see that things are changing even here, in this usually orderly part of the encyclopedia. Anyway, here is a plug for some goings-on regarding "the nature of universe" on the talk page above in which a group of researchers has succeeded in creating a cat state (as in Schrödinger's cat). You know, matters of life and death, moral responsibility, all rolled up into one, and you won't know til you have opened up the box, whether you have killed the cat or not. Or both. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words.

I'm a kind of radical empiricist, so I'm an agnostic on all metaphysics, and I have to include most of theoretical physics in the category of "metaphysics" as much as the issue of God. But I have some superficial, aesthetic feelings about Qm. It seems like a reverse-Ptolymaic system, postulating the incredible to match implausible interpretations of actual data.

This is probably in some part a symptom of my ignorance on the subject, in some part my stubborn brain, and in some part unanswered questions. I really come to find the explanations of probability functions and wave functions I've been given to be unsatisfying in terms of explaining how they're matters of what really exists (ontology) and not just artifacts of measurement (epistemology). Lucidish 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for these comments.

1. On 'faith', my dictionary says 'firm belief, esp. without logical proof'. It is also traditional to contrast faith and reason. And think about this: you have faith that p, but you also have a nagging worry. So you set about proving p from first principles. Having succeeded, do you need faith anymore? The whole notion of faith, trust, confidence &c is required to fill the gap between complete assurance, and what we believe on trust. But let it pass, as the subject is controversial.

2. On 'philosophical logic', I relied on a number of different definitions from encyclopedias and dictionaries. Two say that it is concerned with the formalisation of ordinary language. One says that it is the subject that was called 'logic' before the advent of mathematical logic (which has to be true, if you study the history of the subject, as I have in detail – do you want more references on this?). I was a bit confused on your remarks here, because you bring in a separate point that 'philosophical naturalists (i.e. Quine, Harman) insist that science and mathematics is continuous with philosophy'. What has that to do with the Logic/philosophical logic distinction? It is agreed by everyone, and not POV, that 'logic' refers to mathematical logic now, but did not 100 years ago.

3. 'It is painful to see squabbles on what has historically been a majestic article.' Yes but philosophers squabble. That's what they do for a living. So any philosophy article is bound to be squabbled about. The more general in subject matter, the more the squabbling. In what sense was any earlier version 'majestic'?

There are thousands of versions of the article. Can we even speak of 'the' article. An edit made on 22 june 2004 reads 'I don't have time or desire to clean up the mess'. Also, the history stops in June 2004. It seems that it originally began life as 'Western philosophy'. This was originally written by Larry Sanger in Dec 2001. It has a few recognisable snippets like "my philosophy about driving on highways". The opening definition is also rather good. ("a study which is carried out not by experimentation or careful observation" !!!). But it also includes the awful section on Applied philosophy, which I would like to delete.

4. 'A bit too long'. Yes probably. We could cut out the bit about 'natural philosophy' at the end. But I wanted to bring in the bit about 'thinking about thinking'. A number of the definitions I looked at (including one by Quinton) bring up this subtle point.

5. On bringing in 'a questionable division of branches within philosophy', I'm puzzled by this remark, because the author of it seems to agree with the same division as made further on in the article. The only difference is that the later division includes aesthetics. Fair enough, include aesthetics. On whether the division is questionable anyway, possibly so. But many definitions include it, and the four divisions are the traditional ones. On whether the opening section is a fair place to put the divisions, well, many encyclopedias and dictionaries do. Philosophy is defined as much by its subject matter as its methods. If you look long enough at the history of philosophy, you see the same sorts of question recur again and again. Finally, on the fact that the division is made again later on in the article, my plan was to rewrite this section from scratch, considerable enlarging the bullet points into whole sections. You can see the plan here User:Dbuckner/philosophy: go to 'Division of philosophy'. But this is not complete.

Nothing puzzling about it. Aesthetics and Ethics are a branch of philosophy entitled "axiology", the study of the theory of values. The two former are subcategories of the later. Whether metaphysics is a separate branch of philosophy or indeed a "first philosophy" is a question disputed by philosophers. The category is usually referred to as "metaphysics or ontology".Amerindianarts 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Note also that if you go back far enough in the history of this article, the 'branches of philosophy' section originally formed part of the introduction.

Yes, and if you go back even further you will also see that the article has a beginning in time and prior to that was a blank page. The point is that (1) at a certain point in time this article was strong and that recent edits have been by non-philosophers and mathematicians and have not been an improvement, and (2) since the changes are being made anyway and the section "branches of philosophy" is good, why clutter the intro with the current misinformation in regard to the branches.?Amerindianarts 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your critical burden is the same as Dbuckner's: to demonstrate claim (1). Lucidish 19:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific??? Re: (1)? I think that the comment that it can't be demonstrated is applicable. (Amerindianarts)

You made an allegation about the quality of the article from "non-philosophers and mathematicians". I would like to know what you mean. In detail. I refuse to take seriously any allegations that are, in effect, just empty conceits. Criticism -- even against those not trained in the discipline -- must either have substance, or be ignored. To do otherwise is to demean the very practice of philosophy. Lucidish 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

First, you really shouldn't, under any circumstances, edit another's entry. Even if it is another's signature. Second, if you think that I care whether or not you take me seriously you are only flattering yourself. I don't need your validation. To the point-I read your response to Goethean, which went thus,

":::To me, your page seems appropriate to the article on Western philosophy, not philosophy. — goethean ॐ 20:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"I am trying to deal with a single tradition, i.e. a causal chain where one influential writer or thinker influences another influential writer or thinker." You seem to have mistaken philosophy for history, then. Lucidish 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC) "

I found this very unphilosopher-like and didn't pay much attention to your further comments. I'm not agreeing with Goethean, but your response "a causal chain where one influential writer or thinker influences another influential writer or thinker". Wow. Isn't this what we teach in the History of Philosophy classes?? I found the entry contradictory. I think you were confusing philosophy with history. Do you think this article is about doing philosophy? Or are we trying to describe what philosophy is? I felt your comment was like the pot calling the kettle black, and I disregarded any further comments you made. Sorry if I missed anything substantive. I have made further comments below.Amerindianarts 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

- I did not edit your post: rather, I appended your name to your post. Feel free to do the same to mine, should I forget to sign. Also feel free to indent and partition sections if the mood strikes you. These are not matters of slander, or content editing, but essential clarity. Conversations here very quickly devolve into blather unless we all know who's saying what.

The reason I did this is because, if you don't sign your name, I have no idea who is talking or to who they are talking to. For a second, with your post, I thought I was talking to Dbuckner. Incidentally, this is not exactly a fault of yours, but a fault of Wikipedia's awkward conversation structure. We have to make do with what we've got if we want to cooperate.

- (Edit: Some perfect examples of attribution juggling can be found in this conversation. IE: you have misunderstood who is making what points, with respect to me and Dbuckner, evidenced in the later sections on axiology and ontology. Second, I was NOT replying to Goethean with the post you quoted; I was replying to Dbuckner. Both instances are either because of bad interpretation on your part or bad indentation on mine; either way, we need order, because something in this communication is very obviously going very wrong.)

- Asking for an argument for any criticism made has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with a standard of reason. To speak of a conclusion without any argument in its favor is unphilosophical and unreasonable. And if you abandon reason, you abandon civil discourse, and invite edit wars. That's just what happens. I'd like for it not to.

- You may ignore or read whoever you like. Wiki-perogative, I guess.

- In any case, your comment in reply to my one-liner is certainly germane: my comment was not very argumentative. I am happy to elaborate. I am wary of claims that say that the study of philosophy must involve only the study of these family trees within influential traditions. I think it is unwise to assume that figures (and subjects) of academic philosophy sit only in such a kind of relation, let alone confine your scope of inquiry to them. Four reasons. (1) Modern studies tend toward the iconoclastic: rediscovering the wisdom of philosophers previously forgotten seems more and more important. (2) It worries me that many philosophers might have gone by the wayside because they didn't have the right connections to the right people and end up as philosophical buzzwords. (3) Many forgotten philosophers are forgotten on purpose for reasons related to politics and human frailty. (4) Perfectly good criteria exist to supplement a "tradition-based" definition of philosophy. Includes methods, aims, subjects. (5) A philosopher, conceivably, could be a hermit. Imagine Zarathustra coming down the mountain. If we ever find out about him, then we as academic philosophers still might want to talk about the issues he raises. Along the same lines, a philosopher might not be academic-philosophically trained, and still be an interesting subject for academic philosophers.

- I have no issue with the history of philosophy as a subject. Indeed, it is quite neat. But keep in mind the context of my comment: what was at issue were the essential features of a good introduction to philosophy, not similar features of the History of Philosophy. Lucidish 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Is your point then that aesthetics should have been included? By all means. I don't like the ugly word 'axiology', by the way. See the talk page where Sanger argued for abolishing it (on other grounds than ugliness, as it happens). As I mention below, of the very many introductory definitions I have looked at, exactly none mention 'axiology'.

But you confuse this with the more important question of whether the subject-matter of philosophy should be in the introduction or not. My argument would be to have a very brief indication at the beginning that philosophy is (roughly) divided this way. Otherwise the definition is too hopelessly vague (philosophy is a process, philosophy is the love of knowledge &c). Also, any article should be rewritten like journalism – put the stuff you want people to take away at the beginning, on the assumption that they will move on before finishing the article. Then have much more detail below, for those who have an appetite to continue. Thus, philosophy = logic, metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Later on, say in about four paragraphs per section what logic is, what metaphysics and so on. The current section on 'branches' has too much detail for an introduction, but much too little for a proper treatment of the subject.

On the 'second order' point. By now I've looked at many many more definitions of philosophy in all the reference books I can lay my hands on. A large proportion of them make this point. In fact, if all these books could vote, the result would be 1. philosophy is hard to define 2. But it is thinking about thinking 3. it is divided into 4 subject areas (as follows ...). Dbuckner

6. 'its results do not *necessarily* depend on observation or scientific experiment.' Why the added 'necessarily'? Can you give me an example of a philosophical result that does depend on observation or scientific experiment?

Dbuckner 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

1. There are a number of different views on the lexical semantics of "faith". One definition, the one I tend to use, sees faith as a notion akin to "unjustified belief". But even in the way that you presented it, faith sometimes has a place. For instance, the issue of whether or not qualia are intelligible and justifiable contributors to our knowledge. For this knowledge-problem, unless you want to sustain a skeptical way of thought, or face an infinite regress, or try to make some special appeals to coherance or context, then you have to take the premises on faith. The long and the short of it is that a conclusion that is made on the basis of faith and faith alone is unphilosophical. But premises may be (and have been) taken on faith by folks in the past, and so seem to be sometimes admissible in philosophical discussion: and those premises are not themselves logically justified, but they play an important role.

2. Then according to the position you've offered, informal logic must be a misnomer. In that case, someone better inform the journal of that name that their logic isn't really very logical. Also, tell Copi and Cohen, so they can take their textbook off the market.

I am always suspicious whenever anyone uses the phrases "everyone agrees..." or "nobody argues that...". The above citations (Informal Logic, Copi and Cohen) give the lie to your comments, it seems. Yet I'll settle for a weaker claim, that there's some consensus that supports the thing you claim. So, yes, references would be great; preferably online ones, if possible.

In any case, the history, as you agree, has something to say. The question is whether we listen or not. The developments would have to have strikingly different goals from pre-Fregeans to warrant a stark division of fields. (For what it's worth, I suggest that this division of labor is arbitrary so long as it formulates itself in terms of mutual exclusives: "we in our camp do so-and-so, and these other folks do such-and-such, and we're utterly unconnected".)

I would never say that this thing called "philosophical logic" is unconcerned with the issue of natural languages and logic. Indeed, it's one area of interest which has three broad traditions (natural language tradition of Wittgenstein-2 and Strawson, artificial language tradition of Wittgenstein-1 and Russell, and the compatibilist sort of tradition of Grice etc). Presumably if we take the word "philosophy" by its usual meaning, then also of interest are other issues, i.e. logical theories of reference. Bertrand Russell's theory of definite descriptions certainly seems philosophical and certainly logical; and it's also a theory of reference.

The position of "metaphilosophical naturalism" (an ugly, ugly term) is relevant to the issue in the sense that it would find the notion of "mathematical logic" a part of philosophy, anyway.

6. Yes: all of empiricism. The case of the Molyneux man, if you want a particular example.

Please address your replies to specific persons. I do not know whether or not I should be responding to all these. Lucidish 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I see this article is going to be a painful process. And as the whole Wikipedia thing is a revolving door, someone else will then come along and the whole process will begin again. If you look through the talk pages of this article, you see the same thing repeated endlessly. Still.

On 'philosophical logic', look the term up in any good dictionary or encyclopedia, or book on philosophy. My Collins English dictionary says 'the branch of philosophy that studies the relationship between formal logic and ordinary language', esp. the extent to which the former can be held accurately to represent the latter. Strawson wrote a book called 'Philosophical Logic' in 1967 which is still in print (Strawson is an English philosopher and logician). Jonathan Lowe (in Oxford companion, and also in a paper which is available on the net, describes it as 'the philosophical elucidation of those notions that are indispensable for the proper characterisation of rational thought and its contents. The notions in question are ones like those of reference, predication, identity, truth, negation, quantification, existence, necessity, definition and entailment.'

Note the WP article on Logic also says 'Philosophical logic is essentially a continuation of the traditional discipline that was called "Logic" before it was supplanted by the invention of mathematical logic.'.

The same dictionary divides philosophy into ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and 'semantics' or 'the relationship between language and reality. Penguin encyclopedia divides it into the same four subjects, but instead of semantics has 'logic, especially the theory of meaning formal logic now being regarded more as part of mathematics ' (my emphasis).

I don't understand your argument about 'informal logic'. Yes, there is informal logic. How does that contradict my point that the fourfold division of philosophy into logic, metaphysics epistemology and ethics predates the invention of mathematical logic, thus 'logic' has to be qualified to avoid any confusion.

Is your point that 'logic' cannot mean 'mathematical logic' because otherwise the idea of 'informal logic' would be a contradiction. The simple answer is that when logicians use the word 'logic' without further qualification, it is mathematical logic they mean. That is such a widespread convention it doesn't need explaining. Thus if nowadays we say philosophy consists of 'logic, metaphysics, epistemology and ethics', we have to qualify this statement to say that 'logic' means here philosophical logic or semantics or whatever.

You say 'Presumably if we take the word "philosophy" by its usual meaning, then also of interest are other issues, i.e. logical theories of reference. Bertrand Russell's theory of definite descriptions certainly seems philosophical and certainly logical; and it's also a theory of reference.' Absolutely so, but how does this contradict anything I have said. Theories of reference and description are part of philosophy, and specifically they are part of philosophical logic. They are not specifically part of mathematical logic.

The Molyneux problem is a thought-experiment. I have already pointed out in the section on epistemology in the separate article I wrote, that there is a connection between Descartes' discovery of the retinal image, and the epistemology of the 17th and 18th centuries. Clearly the results of science can prompt philosophical ideas. But I wrote that the 'results' not the 'cause' of philosophical speculation do not depend on science. That was the error of psychologism.

You say 'Please address your replies to specific persons. I do not know whether or not I should be responding to all these.' – since this is a collaboration, they are addressed to anyone who is interested. They are not specifically 'your points' or 'my points', so far as they are relevant to the article. Dbuckner 15:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That very paragraph from Lowe supports my claim that a "philosophical logic" would be concerned with more than just the natural language/logic connection.

"Is your point that 'logic' cannot mean 'mathematical logic' because otherwise the idea of 'informal logic' would be a contradiction?" - yes. To be clear: as a naturalist, I believe that mathematical logic is a form of philosophical logic. Others may think otherwise. But an unwise division is sometimes popular. And sometimes, a popular division may be colloquial, not serious; and it may be confused with one to which there is a serious consensus. The point against there being a consensus on the subject has been made with the point about metaphilosophical naturalism (which might agree that formal/symbolic logic is mathematical, but disagree that it is any less within the domain of philosophy). In both cases, the point is moot, since this isn't the sort of division of labor that matters to an introductory article.

If logic is a stand-in for what's been called "symbolic logic" or "predicate calculus", then what's been called "informal logic" is not deserving of the name. I hope you'd agree that this conclusion is nonsense.

I'm not interested in the general division of subjects. The semantics-epistemology-metaphysics-ethics paradigm seems satisfactory. What I care about are the things I've outlined before: that the general aims/motives, methods, traditions, and subjects are taken care of, and that we don't take the approach you advocated before, of treating the meaning of philosophy as some grand riddle.

"Absolutely so, but how does this contradict anything I have said". My point here was against the claim that philosophical logic is "the formalisation of ordinary language." If any source says this, then they are, at best, only telling half the story.

Thought experiments can become real experiments. Molyneux is one example of that. If Molyneux were to turn out to fail, then the works of Berkeley and Locke would be damned.

I am asking you to reply to me when you're talking to me, because I find it confusing otherwise. Not talking about some abstract ownership of knowledge.

Also: can I assume that you've abandoned the positions you advocated in the More Replies section? Lucidish 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "philosophy" is a term difficult to define. All the more reason (and I hate to cite a cliché) why if you are given enough rope, the more likely it is you could hang yourself (Occam’s razor applies). The intro should be short and sweet, but if you wish to open doors needlessly, to exclude a term or phrase because it is "ugly" is not a neutral point of view, and I also have no idea who Sanger is and do not wish to stake credibility on one person’s opinion. However, “ethics and aesthetics” is an acceptable substitute for "axiology", based upon your personal preferences. I have come to accept the notion of personal preferences as the paradox inherent to the Wiki sociology. For example, I believe it was in the history of this article that someone changed "analyze" to "analyse". Did this correct anything? Spelling? Grammar? Lend to clarity or more concisive? No. Personal preference, or pure ego. But once you’ve completed your intro, as someone has commented before, someone else is going to rewrite it. It appears we are engaged in an exercise of futility.

Ontology also needs to be included as a branch. To identify ontology and metaphysics as interchangeable is a mistake. You need only ask "What is metaphysics?" Philosophers have tried to eliminate metaphysics and have each time failed miserably. They will continue to do so. The elimination of metaphysics is either the absence of the intellect, or having answered every possible question past, present, and future. The former is presently not an option (we are thinking on thinking). As long as someone asks how? Or why? etc., metaphysics exist. The criteria for the truth or falsity of these questions are what distinguishes first philosophy from ontology and the other branches. Truth may be the product of reason, verification, or faith, but whatever it is, this is a question wholly distinct and only indirectly relevant to my comments above. Sorry Lucidish, but your query above just didn’t make sense to me as relevant to my discussion with DBrucker.

As for the distinction between mathematical and philosophic logic, or informal and formal logic, how is the answer (which can only be purported) relevant to an article introducing philosophy? Generally speaking, informal logic incorporates the processes of immediate inference and the natural reasoning which occurs in these processes; while formal logic attempts to reduce these processes to rules (eliminate the metaphysical question?). Informal logic is not capable of adequately dealing with hypothetical and disjunctive propositions. You cannot use truth tables to validate the categorical arguments of informal logic and preserve the intermediate inferences of the human intellect, e.g. the distinction between contraposition in informal logic as a type and process of inference and transposition as a rule of formal logic.

I am off to the Zuni pueblo for a real life excursion into another culture’s Weltanschauung. Take these remarks with a grain of salt and good luck in the current endeavor. Amerindianarts 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of these comments cannot be addressed to me: I have nothing to say about axiology, ontology. As I said, Wikipedia discussions are confusing.

Anyway, I don't believe that all these edits are futile. By your example, "analyze" and "analyse", I think, are relative to dialects, so that's an exceptional case. And silly things tend to be fixed.

Your comments regarding the character of informal and formal logic seem accurate, but I don't know what the point is that you're making. According to present formulations, they can't analyse (sic?) one another. This isn't to say that both aren't interested in the goal of finding the rules of proper reasoning, truth, and validity. Lucidish 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)