Talk:List of metaphysicians

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics Mid‑importance

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Metaphysics

Positivists?

I am wondering why Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein,are on this list, seeing as (to my knowledge) all three of them rejected metaphysical propositions as meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.72.174 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article needs to be emptied until we can clearly define what a metaphysician is. It is not philosophy. It is a combination of nihilism and psychoanalysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.121.183 (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing positively with Positivists + Objectivism + call for establishing clearer criteria

I suggest adding an asterisk to those ‘metaphysicians’ who refuted the term ‘metaphysics’, with a suitable footnote about their paradoxical inclusion.

But, having argued to keep the Logical Positives on the list, some weeding-out of others might be in order. Only those who can be said to have contributed something new or shifted ideas within metaphysics should remain.

However, there are also some curious omissions.

For any takers here’s an incomplete assortment of other candidates, none of whom are currently listed; G. E. M. Anscombe, Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, Dorothy Emmet, Bas van Fraassen, Carl Ginet, Colin McGinn, Jaegwon Kim, James Ladyman, E. J. Lowe, A. N. Prior, Gilbert Ryle, Jonathan Schaffer, J. J. C. Smart. Earlier metaphysicians might also include; Bernard Bolzano, Tommaso Campanella, Nicholas of Cusa, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, John Locke, Joseph Maréchal, Isaac Newton, Prashastapada, Thomas Reid, Thales of Miletus.

Some are certainly more feasible than others as metaphysicians.

Another more compelling contender is Ayn Rand: her philosophy of Objectivism has an innovative metaphysical core, distinct and influential enough to merit inclusion. I propose to add her shortly — unless there are any convincing reasons against.

Anyway, here is the proper place to develop a more systematic criteria for inclusion/exclusion onto the list.

Proposals welcome.

Make page: List of atheometaphysicians/impersonalist metaphysicians/nonpersonocrats

Difference with atheism:

Atheism focuses on the inexistence of god.
Impersonal metaphysics focuses on the physical cosmomechanics (or physics; how the universe works); even without an impersonal divine field, because it is implicity personocratic (false attribution to values, purposes and parts of the definition of personhood). The physical universe isn't indirectly personocratic/person-biased or personhood-biased.

J.H. Sunderland (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Organization

- In history of philosophy, the Middle Ages is usually divided up by a four-member historical-geographical division: (1) Non-Western Medieval Philosophy (including Arab, Persian, Indian, Chinese, etc.); and (2) Western Medieval Philosophy from roughly Augustine to Carolingian Renaissance (Early Middle Ages); (3) Western Medieval Philosophy in the 12th Century; (4) Western Medieval Philosophy from 1300–Reformation. For illustration of this division look at the histories of John Marenbon or the various companions put out by Cambridge. I think this division would be best for the present page.

- Alphabetical ordering of names does not make much sense for a list page like this. It would be more informative to have names listed by date of death to show rough lines of influence. Polsky215 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]