Talk:Glossary of philosophy

Glossary of philosophy is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 20, 2008	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

Glossaries (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles

Philosophy High‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Atheism

The definition of atheist given here is tendentious. It takes side in the debate between atheists and theists by adopting the atheists preferred definition of the terms: atheism, agnosticism, and theism. This has been a relatively new way of defining the terms. Historically, atheist where those who disbelieved in God or gods. Socrates was accused of atheism simply for denying the existence of the Greek gods, not necessarily for lack belief in any god. This shows that "atheist" was understood as a term for a God-denier.

Why does the definition matter? How is it bias and favor one side in the debate over another? The atheist argues that the burden of proof in the debate is on the person making a claim or the assertion. The theist claims that God exists, so he bears the burden of proof. Traditionally, the atheist also makes a claim. He claims that God does not exist. If the burden of proof is on the person making a claim or an assertion, then both the theist and the atheist have a burden of proof to meet. However, if atheist is defined as a simple lack of belief, not a belief that God does not exist but simple the absence of the belief that God does exist, then the atheist does not bear a burden to prove any claim because he is not necessarily making the claim that God exists. The theist bears the burden of proof because he is making a claim--that God exists. So, the atheist has the tactical debate advantage by redefining and re-framing the debate in a way that they don't have to prove reason to think that God does not exist. The theist has to proof that God exists and the atheist can sit back and critique the theists argument. It is always easier to provide evidence for a position than it is to offer criticism of someone else's position. So, what atheists have, more or less since Antony Flew, called "atheism" has been traditionally called "agnosticism." The shift in terms is an intentional effort to re-frame the debate in a way that give the tactical advantage to atheists, who don't need to prove anything but just sit back and take pot shots at the theists arguments. I propose we either define the terms as they have been traditionally define, i.e. theist believe God exists, agnostic's lack belief in God either way (they don't know either way), and atheist disbelieve in the existence of God. I did not change the article yet on purpose, so we can work together on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.107.112 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Transwiki

This article has been copied to Wiktionary and converted to a dictionary-linkified version. See Wiktionary:Transwiki:Glossary of philosophical isms.

The purpose of glossaries on Wikipedia

Note that while the glossary entries on Wiktionary are linked to Wiktionary definition articles, the glossary entries in Wikipedia glossaries are linked to Wikipedia articles, which afford greater coverage of each topic. That is one of the main purposes of glossaries on Wikipedia: they are a specialized form of list. Lists are used as both identification and navigation aids, while annotations on such lists assist readers in selecting articles which they would like to investigate further. So this article, a glossary, serves multiple purposes:

it is a list of philosophical isms, which constitute a large proportion of the schools, doctrines, and theories of philosophy. Studying this list will help students of philosophy become more familiar with the subject of philosophy as a whole as well as its terminology.
as a table of contents, this specialized list serves to identify Wikipedia's coverage of philosophical isms, gathering them into one place, to provide a selection from which to choose from, as well as to make it easier to find a particular ism a reader is looking for even when he or she can't quite remember the precise term. Glossaries like this one help combat memory difficulties such as the commonly experienced tip of the tongue phenomenon.
this article used to be a plain list, with just the terms themselves, which served as links to the articles. When using the list I found that it was very time consuming to follow each link to see if the topic was the one I was looking for. Therefore, I copied and refined definitions from each article to this list, to help speed up this process. Reading down the list is much much faster than following each link, which can entail a several second delay (even longer for modems), which is often longer than what it takes to read a definition. Having brief summaries all in one place saves the reader a lot of time, whether he wants to study the whole list or is looking for a specific ism (for which he remembers the definition but not the term).

For these reasons, this article should be retained as a Wikipedia glossary. Please help expand this useful article. Thank you. The Transhumanist 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is the most useful ones among all "suffix" articles. `'mikka 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.23.165.236 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)can someone add "supervene" please? Thanks, Mike. (I'm assuming this is a list of words used in philosophy, not a list of topics).[reply]

It's now about 2/3rds complete!

About 2/3rds of the entries have definitions. Please help fill in the remaining 1/3rd. If 5 people filled in one definition per day, this page would be done in just 22 days! If one person (me) has to do it all alone, it'll take over one hundred days. Please help. --The Transhumanist 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This standard message is worded in such a way that it implies that there are proceedings or something underway for the removal of the page. But on closer analysis there aren't any such proceeding. The template is very misleading. The Transhumanist 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tags from article

I removed the citation and expert tags. They're just clutter. And considering that this page was constructed (and is maintained) by cutting and pasting the definitions from the articles of the same name, when the citation/expert issues are applied to the base articles they should in turn be applied here. The Transhumanist 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

This article should absolutely be at AfD. It's a "glossary," and "glossary" means "dictionary," and "dictionary" means Wiktionary, where the terminology is already represented. I.e. this is duplicated material, and that's a no-no for Wikipedia. I'm surprised (or I was) that the article exists, much less that it's being fought for. If one is passionate about it, why not edit at Wiktionary, where people will actually go to look for the material, instead of here, where the only attention will be negative? Makes no sense. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. It's a list and lists are all over Wikipedia. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did it.

I think, I could be wrong, but I think it's finished... :D I added some entries for you, that makes...twelve, I think... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No certianly not finished yet, plenty of stuff to add. I'll work on it.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLC Nom

I've put this list up for Featured list status, it's a great list and good luck everyone. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.}☆ 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left some comments regarding the nomination on the FLC page (I don't think that this article is ready). --Shark face 217 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be in two columns?

I find that the two columns detract from reading the article. Anyone else feel the same? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does reading a book with double-columned pages detract you from reading the book? I've never encountered anyone with such a problem and would be interested in what way it detracts you, or how it detracts you, etc. Just curious. The Transhumanist 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I disagree, I think having two columns makes it easier to read.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I think "Glossary of philosophical terms" would be a better title, because there are plenty of...er...philosophical terms that don't end in -ism. Those are worthy of inclusion here. What do you guys think?--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. Anyway "isms" sounds naff.--Philogo 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinism

I doubt that Darwinism is a philosophical "ism" or term at all, be it perjorative or not. It's a scientific theory if anything surely, not a philosophical one. Not all words ending in "ism" are philosophical terms or theories and not all philosophical terms or theories end in "ism".--Philogo 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

????? list of topics relating to philosophy that end in -ism ?????

I do not think that the following, any more than Darwinism, are philosophical terms or subjects and hence a fortiori not " topics relating to philosophy that end in -ism " (unless we stretch the word "relating" so that the list could include almost anything: A lot of them would be better placed in aricles relating to theology, economics, lit crit etc. If we do not prune we might as well rename the article "list of words that end in -ism, handy for scrabble players perhaps?

Capitalism Careerism Communism Anthropomorphism Collectivism Consumerism Creationism Cubism Defeatism Egalitarianism Environmentalism Equalitarianism Ethnocentrism Expressionism Externism Extropianism Fascism Fideism Freudianism Gnosticism Humanism Islamism Jainism Jansenism Jonesism Judaism Legalism

--Philogo 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody object to the removal of the above paragraphs for the reasons given above?--Philogo 21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree about at least a few of those. I am surprised to see Humanism on there. You don't think humanism is a philosophical theory (ism)? In other cases the word pertains to the philosophy of a different field (i.e. Cubism, Expressionism in art; Communism, Capitalism in economics, etc). Perhaps there should be a different list for that sort of thing List of philosophical theories by field? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are saying. A theory of X may or may not be a philosophical theory. A word ending is -ism is not necessarily a theory. A theory may or may not raise philosphical issues or may or may not assume the validity of a philosophical theory. I am dubious about the the -isms shown above. --Philogo (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move this to "philosophical theories" or "non-empirical theories"

I propose to move this glossary to Glossary of philosophical theories consistent with the list and category of the same name. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Most of them are not theories, and calling them that is erroneous and misleading, and would be doing the readers a disservice by miseducating them. This collection of terms is a mix of belief systems, philosophies, and philosophical traditions, movements, schools, theories, views, positions, arguments, and ideas. Also, they are specifically "ism" terms. Non-isms aren't included. The Transhumanist 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually they are all theories, every single one. A theory is a group of sentences, each one of which is considered true, and which explains...etcetera. This is a more appropriate and more general name than "-ism" and it includes movements schools, views traditions etcetera. Furthermore it is consistent with other uses in WP. You should reconsider before renominating it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is whether we should get rid of the glossary of philosophical isms - keep in mind that glossaries on Wikipedia are a type of list, and lists exist to identify sets of things. This page identifies and presents the set of isms in the field of philosophy. Adding non-ism terms to this list would have the same effect as adding various types of cats, mice, elephants, etc. to the list of dog breeds - that would make it a list of mammals, which would be repurposing the list, which is what you are trying to do here. But there is no consensus to do that. Note that Wikipedia has both a list of dog breeds and a list of mammals.

The second most important issue is that this page is primarily a list - The List of philosophical isms. That is, it started out as the List of philosophical isms (which redirects here), but it was very difficult to use because you had to click on each term to see what it meant, and then return to the list to click on another term if that wasn't the one you were looking for, etc. So the definitions were added as annotations to make the list easier to use, which had the side-effect of turning it into a glossary. So it was renamed. But it still functions and serves as the original list - it's Wikipedia's only list article (and only article) on philosophical isms, a notable subject in its own right and therefore worthy of its own article, and list. The Transhumanist 23:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that we should preserve the status quo or revert to the prior status quo, i.e. with the two articles. If an editor believes they should be merged then he/she should make a reasoned case for it and get the support of several other editors. In my view a glossary of philosophical terms would be more useful than a list of "philosophical ism"s, primarily beacause there is no such set as of "isms", philosophical or otherwise. There is a set of words ending with ism but what these words refer to need not have any thing in common other than having a name (in English) ending in ism. Simlarly there is a set or words beginning with the letter A, but what they refer to, when they refer to anything, have nothing in common. --Philogo (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This glossary wasn't the product of any illicit merge, there is NO move to get rid of this nice glossary. However, there is a problem with "ism" as it is primarily a suffix (is it even a word?) and that is no way to designate a set of anything for Wikipedia. If my view is seen as "repurposing" then we should certainly consider repurposing it. The category "isms" had been deleted for this very reason. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people outside Wikipedia (in the real world) designate something (even if by its suffix) to the point of notability, then in Wikipedia it goes. I've covered the issue of notability in the next discussion below. The Transhumanist 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued from AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophical theories

I really wish you would reconsider "isms". I think one of the points that is lost is that I used to believe as you do that isms was a good title for classifying things, and I have now come around to realize that it is not. I have described theories as having an advantage because it is an intellectual construct rather than a social one. I have already made great progress in tightening up the "theories" category tree. What we need to do now is bring all the movements, isms, belief systems, etcetera into the fold. This is not to say that "philosophical movements" for instance needs to be deleted, no; "schools of thought" perhaps. What I am thinking is that we organize primarily around theories and move things out from there to other categories like movements, etcetera. Whether or not something is considered a movement is likely to be a topic of debate, whereas I think it is far less controversial to merely say we have a theory. (At least I thought so, until you claimed that it was "erroneous" and may be "misleading" to call these theories, I hope you do not still think so, with this formal definition available. You will have to give a counter example.) Everyone in the glossary is, in fact, a theory and "theory" is an actual term used in logic to classify a type of thing whereas "ism" is not. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are on a totally different track. I don't think that isms is a good overall classification scheme - it doesn't need to be - that's not the point of the list/glossary. What I do think is that "philosophical isms" is a notable topic and that it deserves coverage as such.

Philosophical isms get a lot of attention out there as a class of things, and this list (that happens to serve as a glossary as well) is a good reference aid for readers interested in them. "Philosophical isms" is a valid topic, regardless of the existence of overlapping or similar sets or classes. If you wish to create a list (or list/glossary) of greater or different scope, that is fine, but getting rid of a notable topic is not. The dog breeds/mammals metaphor seems to have been lost on you. Just because we introduce a list on mammals does not mean we should get rid of the list of dog breeds.

The Transhumanist 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to challenge you on the claim that "philosophical ism" is notable, the "book of isms" notwithstanding. I think we will find zero scholarly use of that term. Furthermore, my Dictionary of theories (Bothamley 1993) includes principles, hypotheses, rules, paradoxes, laws, as well as 'isms, 'ologies and 'sis's. There really is no good basis to exclude that type of thing from this list (other than the suffix, which we agree is not a good organizing principle.) I think we should redirect "glossary of isms" to this article with a different title. This resolves any concern that people have finding this stuff. "Theory" is actually a precise word that is used as a term to describe these things in formal logic, etcetera. The dog breed analogy isn't really apt, as "mammal" is actually a meaningful term different than "dog" rather than merely a suffix. Theories aren't different from the 'isms, 'sis's, 'ologies, etcetera. We just need to be smart about what non-ism-ending terms we include. There is no intellectual basis for excluding "ontology", "teleology", "pascal's wager", "innate ideas", "infinite divisibility" and many others from this glossary. Items like these are wrongly excluded, which unfortunately portrays them as if they were not theories. I think that is misleading and incorrect. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that "isms" was not a good overall classification scheme - referring to the overall class that you are trying to classify ("philosophies"). But I fully support "isms" and its subclasses (e.g., philosophical isms) in the classification of isms. You are trying to classify a different set of things, of which "philosophical isms" is also a subclass (in addition to being a subclass of "isms").

But, you have no justification for declassifying "philosophical isms", which is a notable topic and therefore eligible for coverage in Wikipedia. It's like you are trying to say the class doesn't exist. But it certainly does...

The topic gets much common and scholarly attention, and is therefore notable. Here are some examples of scholarly use:

Just to name a few. I could list hundreds more examples.

By the way, the Book of isms itself is notable, and further cements the class.

Besides covering a notable topic, this page is a useful part of Wikipedia's navigation system. If a person is trying to look up a philosophy-related ism topic, which he or she can't quite remember the name of (except for the "ism" part), this glossary is the perfect reference aid. The definitions are included on this list primarily to assist the reader in link selection. The descriptions help them choose which ism they want to study in further detail.

Sometimes I get isms confused. This glossary helps me keep them straight. I can only assume it helps others in the same way.

The Transhumanist 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard, concerning your approach...

I think the problem you are having is with redundancy or topic lists that overlap. For some reason you don't think the glossary entries on this page can appear in more than one place. That is incorrect. The definitions in this glossary already appear in more than one place - they were copied from the lead paragraphs of the articles of the same name.

The existence of this page doesn't preclude you from constructing a list or glossary of some other (larger) notable class, even if all these terms belong to it (unless the new page is simply a content fork - I suggest you build it as a draft in your user space first until enough new terms are added to prevent a fork AfD ). Please leave the scope of this page alone.

The Transhumanist 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I realize that some duplicate material is just fine. In fact, that is how WikiProject Integration recommends articles evolve. It looks just like this glossary as compared to individual pages, so in that regard the glossary is a prime example of this principle. However I think it would be pretty ridiculous to have a list of philosophies, a glossary of isms, a list of belief systems, and now you are recommending that I merely start another one, etcetera. It's way too much, that's why I merged those two. For me, the obvious way to deal with this proliferation is to identify the most general one and incorporate into that one -- theories. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't way too much if each is notable (and discernable from the rest). But I'm glad I've run into you, because there's this related problem that has been bothering me for years, and it looks like it is right up your alley. I'll post it to your talk page soon. The Transhumanist 04:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good. I invite your correspondence. In the meantime, not much is happening with this thing unless we get some other input. I can't really cry about a stellar glossary. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or we transcend. The problem is the reluctance to have two pages that initially look a lot alike. Because one will naturally go to AfD. That appears to be an impasse, not between us, but of the system. So, a sacrifice must be made. This list must make way for progress. Maybe later, after it has grown large enough, a subset of it may be compiled back into a glossary of philosophical isms. Until then, I guess users will have to sift through this glossary to find them, which will only be a chore once a lot of non-isms have been added.

Now the question is, by how much should we expand the scope? This is the largest collection of described philosophical terms on Wikipedia, and therefore it is logical to use it as the starting point for a general glossary of philosophy. For exactly the same reasons as you posed for expanding its scope to "theories". How can we argue that we keep it to just theories, when a glossary of philosophical terms would include those also? We run into the same duplication problem. The solution is to open it up to all philosophical terms, and then once it has grown large enough, build subsets from it.

The Transhumanist 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename/split

I object to the page rename and splits.

1. It is structured as a glossary, not an index. Index of philosophy articles (A-C) is an index.

2. It's been split into thirteen subpages. That makes it harder to watchlist, harder to coordinate, and harder to search through. Splitting it into two or three pages would be sensible, initially.

-- Quiddity (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split into 13 articles? Dear god- make it stop!!!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell happened to the glossary?Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename was my bad and has been entirely reverted. Had nothing to do with any splitting. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the move.

I'm going to revert the split, to this revision. And fix the {{TopicTOC-Philosophy}} accordingly.

Splitting it into 2 or 3 pages would be a good idea. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the name back to "Glossary of philosophical isms"

A few years ago, the name of this glossary was changed to "Glossary of philosophy" in the hopes that changing the scope of the title would result in the content being expanded to include all general terms in the field of philosophy. But this has not happened. The scope of the glossary has remained the same, as it still only includes ism terms. It's such a beautiful set of isms, that nobody seems to want to mar it with non-ism terms.

I think it would be fitting to return the page to its former name, which is what it still is: the "Glossary of philosophical isms".

Then a new "Glossary of philosophy" can be started, with general philosophical terms.

If there are no objections over the next few days, I'll make the name change.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" It's such a beautiful set of isms" - ha-ha. Misses ismism, though. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steism?

What is Steism? There is no link and the description is so short that it is a worthless entry. It either needs to be linked to some page, given a better description, or deleted.--Bejjinks (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Probably just a joke. —Mrwojo (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deterioration

I came to this page by tracing one confusing term (which I turned into the disambig page now ("Emotionalism"), and after checking two more random pages from the very top here I see that the article slowly lost its verifiability, to put it politely. Since wikipedia is not paper, I am going to trim the text severely, leaving only basic definitions. The rest may be found in the immediately wikilinked articles. Otherwise the items are slowly turning into unreferenced WP:FORKs of the corresponding wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glossary of philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of... philosophy?

Very little of this article is cited, almost all of the entries have to do more with religion or politics then philosophy, a good chunk of them that are about philosophy go into odd details or don't even define their entry. Recommend removing all of the different types of atheism and creationism and all of the religions and political ideologies and rewriting all the actuall philosophical terms from scratch, with citation of sources. - car chasm (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^Superscript 2A03:D000:8483:F074:8CC5:C9FF:FEB1:DC75 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quizlet port?

This would be a fantastic tool for young philosophy students as a set of alphabetised or era-ordered flash cards. 2607:FEA8:D5C0:14E0:34D6:1201:325A:B932 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics?

Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy concerned primarily with things such as objective beauty and art.

It is not in this list, it should be below aestheticism (different thing, different page). DavidMalcolm1212112221 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]