Jump to content

Talk:Philosophy/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Untitled

This article was the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy collaboration of the month for December 2005.

If you are bored, consider updating the Philosophy portal:

The last few edits

...haven't improved the article at all. It may in fact be quite the opposite. It's sad and atrocious what kind of condition this article is in. I suggest that the article be locked and only perhaps WikiProject Philosophy contributors edit it. This article has gotten so unencyclopedic and even unphilosophcial that one wonders whether there's only the discussion of the word 'philosophy' left, not philosophy itself anymore. Otvaltak 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That won't be possible due to the nature of the Wiki system. However, I agree that things are dire.
BTW, if you're going to make new comments, please do so at the bottom of the page (it's conventional). { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian Philosophy

I am far from having an authoritative knowledge on eastern philosophy, but I must say that the entry for Persian philosophy bothers me a bit. The main contributor (84.177.125.142, August 15) states that because Zarathushra, per the Oxford reference’s definition, is chronologically the first philosopher then he too must be the “father of [the] humanit[ies] and ethics.” Pardon me but doesn’t being the father of something imply that one is not only the first in a series, but is also the principle influence in said series’ beginning; evidence for which is not provided. Nonetheless, the contributor has no problem implying that there is some causal relationship between Zarathushtra and Classical Greek philosophy. I would appreciate any input...Thanks

I absolutely agree, the statement isn't just POV, it's also incorrect. Zarathustra can hardly be considered “father of [the] humanit[ies] and ethics.”. --D. Webb 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

philosophy isn't a greek word but egyptian

The Greek themselves recognize this fact. The Word philosophy doesn't have an Etymology in Greek. It's a foreign word --84.130.67.211 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a Greek word and has an etymology in Greek. --D. Webb 23:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Try then to give the etymology of philosophy ? Platon itself said it in Kratylos (where he explains concepts), sophia/sophos isn't a greek-word. It is a foreign word. And the science today says the same there is no greek etymology of this word. What i'm saying is well known, look in your words-etymology-dictionary.

Sophia, sophos isn't a word of the greek-language.

Read Obenga. --84.130.39.12 08:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Firt of all, you shouldn't take the etymology Plato offers in the Cratylus seriously. It's folk etymology and I'm not even sure he bought it himself. In fact, you shouldn't take any ancient etymology seriously. It's more or less nonsense, all of it. But, secondly, you deny me the means to show the etymology of the Greek word "philosophia". It's made up from "philo-" (from "philos" meaning "dear", same root as the verb "philein" meaning "to love") and "sofia" meaning "widsom". Now the word "philosophia" was first coined and used by a Greek (Plato says it was Pythagoras and I seem to remember Aristotle saying that too). Whether the root Pythagoras used was Greek or not is irrelevant. Sophia - even if from a borrowed root or even itself a loanword - had become a Greek word like any other long before Pythagoras. And anyway, just think of all the words that aren't English words by your standard, e.g. "automobile", "microprocessor", "telephone" and "television", "horticulture", "suicide" and "lexicographer". I mean, these are obviously English words even though their roots are not ultimately English but Greek and Latin. It doesn't matter. --D. Webb 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I might add that the question of the etymology of "sophia" and of the etymology of "philosophia" are not one and the same question, although in some ways related. Giving the etymology of "philosophia", i.e. explaining its origins, is not the same as explaining the origins of its parts, i.e. the etymology of "sophia". I can tell you the origins of "philosophia", explain how it was coined, without knowing the ultimate origins of the very roots used to coin that word. --D. Webb 09:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we understand each other ! What i'm saying is that if they borrowed it from someone else, isn't it worth to be mentionned ? Then the greek themselves didn't have any problems to recognize that they learnt how to think from the egyptian priests. Sophia is what philosophia is all about, the love of it: wisdom. --84.130.39.12 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia should represent modern scholarship, not a single remark by Plato who lived a century after Pythagoras and was going on hearsay. Evidence for your claim would, at a minimum, require the Egyptian word from which "philosophy" was supposedly borrowed. Rick Norwood 15:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, philosophy, the activity itself as opposed to the word, is Greek. --D. Webb 19:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How could something be Greek, when the first greeks philosopher learnt all what they knew from egyptian ?
Search about the Egyptian system of mysteries
--84.130.23.185 06:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
They didn't. Read about the history of Greek philosophy. --D. Webb 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, a debate about afrocentricism.
If you're going to argue that, then modern Western languages must also have a significant proportion of their words reclassified as Latin. Anria 08:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition ?

The article presents some information about the term, "philosphy". It suggests there are topics associated with it. It suggests there might be a relationship (ill defined) between "philosophy" and "wisdom", All very erudite. But a good, clean definition of "philosophy" which a reader can read, know, and apply into life, isn't present in the article. If a reader reads the article, they can't be confident that they understand what the term, "philosphy" when they talk with their neighbor, their doctor and their political representative. Shouldn't we first present a good, useable definition of the term ? "Philosophy is something about wisdom" just isn't very useable. Terryeo 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But that is the nature of the beast. Banno 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As Banno says, a clear-cut definition of philosophy isn't that simple. Philosophers do not all apply a common method and their considerations are most certainly not all on the same subjects. It seems to me that saying that philosophy is something about wisdom is as specific as you can get without misleading people or leaving out large chunks of philosophical studies by implication. Anria 08:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think useful first section is "What is philosophy?" Invariably, it is a question all philosophers ask. The intro to the article could mention the difficulties of the definition as well as some areas of inquiry: past and present. What is philosophy could also include some different limits of philosophy within other cultural traditions. --Gyuen 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indian philosophy?

I think that the section on Indian philosophy should be removed. Even a cursory look at the other areas of study on this page will reveal that what is being done in the Gita or the Vedas is of a very different nature. This is not to degrade Indian religeous thought and an enterprise, just that what is done lacks certain criteria for it to be called philosophy. There are of course Indian philosophers (Rabandranath Tagore, for example) but what is refered to here is theology.

I support this view. Radhakrishnan's views below look more like religion/theology than philosophy to me, and to most others too I guess. If a subsection of Indian philosophy is to be kept, this problem should at least be mentioned in the article. (The fact that Indian philosophy often seems highly regarded amongst Western intellectuals these days doesn't make its content any less religious or any more "philosophical" in a more traditional sense). Narssarssuaq 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Replacement material

In the interests of finding ground for what really should be written: what follows is an exerpt of a discussion about the hallmarks of Indian philosophy. The first, by S. Radhakrishnan, is (it seems) the consensus view, or something close to it. The second is the dissenting view by Daya Krishna. The two views are evaluated by Arvind Sharma ("Competing Perspectives on Indian Philosophy", Philosophy East and West © 1999 University of Hawai'i Press), concluding that the former summary is more powerful than the latter: "it cannot be gainsaid that the counterperspective offers a strong challenge to the existing presumptions of studying Indian philosophy".

S. Radhakrishnan (the conventional view) 1. The chief mark of Indian philosophy in general is its concentration upon the spiritual. 2. Another characteristic view of Indian philosophy is the belief in the intimate relationship of philosophy and life. 3. Indian philosophy is characterised by the introspective attitude and the introspective approach to reality. 4. The introspective interest is highly conducive to idealism, of course, and consequently most Indian philosophy is idealistic in one form or another. 5. Indian philosophy makes unquestioned and extensive use of reason, but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate can be known. 6. Another characteristic of Indian philosophy, one which is closely related to the preceding one, is the so-called acceptance of authority. 7. There is the overall synthetic tradition which is essential to the spirit and method of Indian philosophy. 8. All philosophies in India -- Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, Carvaka - have a practical motivation, stemming from man's practical problems of life, his limitations and suffering, and culminating in every case except Carvaka in a consideration of his ultimate liberation. 9. [THere are] several schools and systems of Indian philosophy. 10. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, in all their branches, accept the underlying doctrines of karma and rebirth. 11. The way of life accepted by Hinduism... includes the fourfold division of society, the four stages of life and the four basic values which man seeks (namely, dharma, artha, kama, and moksa).

Daya Krishna (the dissenting view) 1. The characterization of Indian philosophy as 'spiritual' is erroneous. 2. The notion of 'Vedic' authority ... is a myth. 3. There is no such thing as final, frozen positions which the term 'school', in the context of Indian philosophy, usually connote. 4. [It is a] myth that Indian philosophy is intrinsically and inalienably concerned with spiritual liberation. 5. Indian philosophy is not moka-oriented, as usually claimed. 6. That there are four Vedas, and that they are the sruti or final authority for all orthodox Hinduism is axiomatically accepted by everybody who writes on the subject. Also, that they form a unity, a musical harmony like that of a string quartet, the so-called sakhas are nothing but recensions of the same text, and there are no problems in this best of all possible worlds. [THis is just not so.] 7. It would be no exaggeration to say that the tradition concerning what are regarded as the Upanisads is largely accepted uncritically and repeated as read or heard from the so-called 'authorities' who[m], in the context of the Indian tradition, one has learnt not to question. 8. The traditional and the modern scholars both seem to be either uninterested [in] or unaware of the problems [associated with the text of the Nyayasutras] 9. [The concept of Adhyasa in Sankara is based on] Samkhyan premises. 10. The search for the meaning of Vedanta leads nowhere. The most haloed term in Indian philosophical thought connotes nothing. It is an empty shell, mere verbiage, and absolute nothing. 11. The Indian doctrine of karma makes morality in the usual sense impossible. 12. The oft-repeated traditional theory of the purusarthas is of little help in understanding the diversity and complexity of human seeking.

In the right hands, a few musings on these themes should be more than enough to satisfy a brief description on this page. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup attempt: Removed paragraph

I removed the following from "Applied philosophy": "The idea of philosophy as general concepts or principles of knowledge breaks down in fields of endeavor which require a certain type or level of personal performance. For instance, no principles of knowledge can tell a person how to write dramatic works comparable in quality to Shakespeare's or symphonies comparable to Beethoven's or to hit baseballs like Babe Ruth or sing songs like Elvis Presley. Yet, there is a certain state of mind conducive to peak performance in such fields. Sports psychology does bring knowledge to bear upon such endeavors. William McGaughey's book, "Rhythm and Self-Consciousness", approaches rhythm as a philosophical concept, discussing both its conscious pursuit and its limitations". --I thought this sounded more like applied psychology than applied philosophy. And the part on "Rhythm and Self-Consciousness" doesn't really contain any information central to philosophy, in any case it needs to be longer in order to be comprehensible. Narssarssuaq 11:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am new and mistakenly added a link to a webpage of my own (Wikipedia policy infringement, self-promotion?): is this link of added value for this article: Philosophy - overview http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: Definition of philosophy

Right now, there are three paragraphs involved in defining what philosophy is and isn't. For clarity, they might be assembled into one, hopefully without leaving out too much substancial information. The three paragraphs are "Origin and meaning of term", "Confines of philosophy" and "Philosophers on philosophy". Or perhaps the present situation is all right; to have a brief definition at the top and then come back to a more thorough discussion at the end of the article? Narssarssuaq 08:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) -Perhaps "Confines of philosophy" and "Philosophers on philosophy" could be integrated into Definition of philosophy instead. Narssarssuaq 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The "definition of philosophy" page has always seemed rather useless to me. If truncation is needed, then it would be a better idea to work with a pa

ge on Metaphilosophy, and then both offload the unwanted sections here into it, and merge Definition of philosophy with it. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 23:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

One idea. Move first paraghrap to second, to top "Origin and meaning of term". What others thing about this idea?--Jack007 04:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The "origins and meaning" section used to be a part of the intro, but I think it was more or less agreed that that made the intro a bit too topheavy. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is better than earlier, but in intro is still f.ex "philosophy is itself debated", so, it is not well agreed intro. I think (and it is also common habit) to show "Origin and meaning of term". I am confident that, it is well accected. That intro into second paraghrap, or remove it. My vote.--Jack007 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the following from the "Confines of philosophy" paragraph. It is too long and without sufficiently important points for an article of this scope. It raises some questions, though, perhaps this could be moved to a different article and pointed to from Philosophy. If you think I'm wrong about removing this, feel free to discuss.

Much debate has also considered what kinds of persons are capable of thinking philosophically. Kant explicitly excluded women, saying that they were good at conveying philosophical skills such as moral reasoning and were in fact necessary for teaching children to behave ethically, but that (alas) women lacked the rationality necessary to engage in original philosophical reflection. Aristotle was also explicit about his belief in the rational inferiority of women to men. More generally, the work of women has not been representatively present in the philosophical canon , and women working in philosophy often used initials rather than names so as to mask their gender. For more on such criticisms of philosophy as exclusive of women, see Feminist History of Philosophy. Several years ago, the American Philosophical Association estimated that average salaries of female faculty are 70% of the average salaries of their male counterparts. This is a major improvement from 1963, the first year that women were granted diplomas from Harvard University whose philosophy programs has long been a leading light in American academic philosophy.
Children have also traditionally been excluded from the category of philosophers by virtue of being incompletely rational, and yet the Philosophy for Children movement holds that not only is it the case that children can engage in philosophical reflection in early primary school with increasing quality as they develop physically and cognitively, but that it is also the case that a healthy civil society requires people who have been taught how to reason from the earliest age.
Similarly, criminals are often excluded from the category of people for whom philosophy is useful or who are capable of philosophical reflection. Yet, some philosophers have found that taking philosophy into the prisons has reduced recidivism and improved the ability of prisoners to reason well about their decisions in the future.

Narssarssuaq 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The above seems to be about the sociology of philosophy, which is interesting (and full of embarressing facts about the prejudices of philosophers which certainly deserve mention somewhere, for posterity's sake), but if anything on that belongs here, it should be a short summary which links to a wider article. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 23:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GOOD JOB EVERYONE!

So yeah, I was in the midst of writing a message to you all relating how I thought the body of the article was out of the scope set out in the intro, when I actually began to read it. Although you title the meat of the article as a "history," I've gotta say, you all did a fabulous job discussing different periods/traditions with respect ot the ideas and questions that characterize them. I believe you have all succeeded in finding the middle ground between discussing philosophy as a field of study and different philosophical traditions, which was a source of serious tension in this article a few months ago. I've been MIA for awhile, so I just wanted to congratulate you all on a job well done, and a much improved article. Keep up the good work. - Shaggorama 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


New!

I fixed some of the wording in the introduction. The context is now more universal. Plus, I added a mural!! Hope everyone likes it. -Rich

Cleanup tag

I'm reapplyinkg the cleanup tag. Reason, many parts, for example "Philosophers ponder such fundamental mysteries as" which if not ironically intended is an embarassment. I like the picture, however. There is also the mistaken reference to Elizabeth of Bohemia. Guys, just read a book and work out what is wrong. Dbuckner 08:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is not really the best possible language. Changed it today. Hard to find the best, most perfect wording. But I do think but the use of the phrase "fundamental mysteries" is appropiate. As well as making the transition from philosophy to philosophers, as unlike many other fields of study, the individual thinker is part and parcel to the history of philosophy.--Gatfish 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that condemnation of banality in the "fundamental mysteries" bit is not exactly interesting or relevant to the summary conclusion that the article needs a "cleanup". Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 22:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some examples

See below. The "1066" tag is for passages whose style is parodied in the book "1066 and all that". Dbuckner 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • "Zarathushtra was the first who made a difference between good and evil and by this he developed dualism as such." (grammar, 1066)
  • "This alone makes him father of humanity and ethics" (grammar)"
  • The section on African philosophy says nothing about African philosophy, except that it is rarely considered outside Africa (self-fulfilling).
  • "Husserl's 1887 work, On the Concept of Number considers psychologism to be an important part of arithmetic." (inaccurate).
  • "With their Principia Mathematica in 1910-1913, mathematical logic attracted the interest of many philosophers."
  • "With this increased interest in mathematical logic came the rise in popularity for the view …" (grammar)
  • "At the same time that logic was coming to prominence in America and Britain," (inaccurate, 1066)
  • "In the mid-twentieth century, existentialism developed in Europe" (1066)
  • "The mid-twentieth century, for North America, Australia and Great Britain, was not as united behind a major philosophical idea as it had been in the past, but a general philosophical method can be abstracted from the philosophy that was going on at the time." (fat, 1066, POV, grammar)
  • "the methodology of philosophy is dynamic" (waffle)
  • "The definition of wisdom for many ancient Greeks would have dwelt .." (grammar)
  • "Ancient Greek philosophy is typically divided …" (typically?)
  • "The medieval period of philosophy came with the collapse of Roman civilization and the dawn of Christianity,.." (1066)
  • "The philosophers … were intercommunicative" (grammar)
  • "[Descartes'] work was greatly influenced by questioning from his correspondent Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia, who posed the mind-body problem to Descartes." (inaccurate)
  • "The Renaissance saw an outpouring of new ideas that questioned authority" (1066)
  • "Husserl placed great emphasis on consciousness" (1066)
  • "Many societies have considered philosophical questions and built philosophical traditions based upon each other's works. Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophical traditions have influenced Western philosophers. Russian, Jewish, Islamic and recently Latin American philosophical traditions have contributed to, or been influenced by, Western philosophy, yet each has retained a distinctive identity." (POV)
  • "The differences between traditions are often based on their favored historical philosophers" (grammar)
  • "Other major texts with philosophical implications" (waffle) Dbuckner 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Future Editing

Good work, Dbuckner... you're absolutely right. Feel free to go ahead and make some of these changes yourself, since you seem to have a good feel for efficient wording. We still need to edit more and split the article up into sub-groups. I think I'll add the other table to the top of the page. -Rich

1890 and all that

  • (1) and (2) have been corrected or replaced, along with more accurate dating and citation.
The section on Husserl is much improved, at least. Why does the section on Descartes say who he was influenced by? Why doesn't every reference to every philosopher say who he was influenced by? If it is because he is generally considered to have begun modern philosophy, then this needs to be more carefully researched and referenced. I think you will find he had many influences. Dbuckner 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No doubt that's true, but the section re: him (the modern Western philosophy section) only calls for one or two examples. Haven't got the time right now to find more of his correspondences, but anyway I don't want to overdo it.
Re: Husserl section, I've been thinking we should add a brief bit more on John Stuart Mill's aggregate theory of number, since that was one of the things left behind by the new orientation towards logic and mathematics. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I presently suspect that there's little I can do about African philosophy section, being both presently ignorant of it and not knowing where to turn to learn more. (The Wiki tells us nothing about African philosophy itself, but just discusses what it might or should be; and the reference texts in the King resource are criticized as being of similarly little insight.)
If we take the presence of written word to be the easiest and most reliable place to examine the philosophy of a people, then we meet a challenge. My linguistics text tells me that there was no such thing as a sub-Saharan African written language before the nineteenth century, among the Vai people (around Sierra Leone/Liberia). Curiously, my text doesn't mention the great library of Timbuktu, which I've come to understand is populated by books in Arabic. That would indicate that Arabic philosophy -- to the extent that the texts there are representative of the area -- would in some degree be continuous with at least parts of northern African philosophy. On the other hand, if we take oral traditions to be important, then we must abandon our armchairs and either do research on ethnophilosophy in anthropology, or become anthropologists ourselves.
  • Hopefully I haven't bungled the bit about philosophy of number, Husserl, Frege, etc. Did my best. At least there's a citation now. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Death of Socrates

Can someone increase the size of the miniturette potrait in the articles lead? It looks quite silly with my screen resolution. Rintrah 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Increase the size? I know people have high resolutions these days,

but compared to the rest of the images on Wikipedia it seems a little large already. It's at 700px (width) now; but, sometimes if the page isn't refreshed it converts back to the previous "philosopher in contemplation". -Rich

Ok, but in my screen resolution, it does not look the scene from a tragedy, but rather from some obscure Greek pygmie play, with the main pygmie plaintively declaiming in a high pitched voice and making a dramatic gesture. Surely this is not what Plato intended in his work on Socrates, nor David in his painting, despite his deranged pyschological attachment to the French Revolution. Rintrah 07:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's funny, Rintrah. Real funny... but, seriously, I keep editing the picture as a 700 pixel mural and it keeps reverting to a 75 px thumbnail. I'm not sure why. I don't know what the standards are but it looks so much better when it's large. I don't know who keeps changing it. -Rich
Perhpas a mural is too large. I object to it being minitiarette size, but when I adjusted my preferences, the size was more to my taste. The edit history might answer that mystery question you ask. Nevertheless, I am glad you appreciated my joke. :) Rintrah 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
David did not have a deranged psychological attachment to the French Revolution. He lived during the Terror and did a pretty good job of surviving.Lestrade 02:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I haven't read books on the French Revolution in a while, but as I remember it, David was part of the same extreme political faction as Robespierre, Saint-Just, and Marat, whom he made an iconic figure in his painting Death of Marat. He often denounced members of the rival party for not adhering to the revolution fervently enough. His painting the Tennis Court Oath had similar kinds of alterations as the pictures of Stalin's comrades (or former comrades). He also largely organised the Revolutionary Cult of the Supreme Being, with Robespierre essentially being its supreme prophet; and had a large part in Marat's funerary procession. Of course, to survive, he had express patriotic support for the revolution, but I think he supported it more than required by expendience. The wikipedia page on David seems to support my opinion.
However, I do not wish to deprecate his art, which is truly magnificent. I will not enter further into the debate here, for this is probably the wrong talk page. Rintrah 06:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I didn't realise the preferences could be adjusted. 240 is also very small on my screen, but I was being cautious. Rintrah 05:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


African Philosophy

Is it me, or is this section a bit skimpy? Do we have anyone who is an expert in this topic that can give a more adequate summary on African Philosophy? Until then, I think that section would qualify to be a stub. 24630 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tiny section. And I have no idea what to write there. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 14:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Roman Section

Just to let you know, the "Greco-Roman" section is actually just a "Greco-..." section. There is no mention of the Romans. Maybe some research here by people more knowlegeable than me. -Hairchrm 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. The question of definition is, of course, essentially a philosophical one, and is not for physicists alone to consider. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

University Professor Sources

Here are some online sources for papers and other information from Professor's at Rutgers University:

Note: These sites may change significantly every semester. --165.230.46.67 19:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some others:

--70.111.218.254 22:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag replaced

I replaced the cleanup tag that I originally put there in September 2006. The article is if anything worse than when I tagged it. There is a huge introductory section which repeats much of the stuff in the body of the article. Introductions aren't for long personal essays, they should be a short, pithy introduction to the subject.

Moreover it is a personal essay. There have to be citations for any substantial claim made. E.g. 'the ancient Greeks were perhaps the first to explicitly ask: Is the world (of which we are also a part) intelligible?'. That's a pretty hard one to verify. Where is it written that 'The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics.' ?

The style is also not encyclopedic. E.g.

  • Their view of reason rested in the creation of concepts using the deductive method operating on the data provided by the senses as its basic material, and then reasoning further from this conceptual base.
  • . A range of answers to philosophical questions were subsequently proposed that fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two poles of rational and non-rational.

Just two examples. Dbuckner 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Haven't really visited this page in a while, except the other day when I noticed the same thing. I agree, the intro is far too long. I had thought the pre-Wendl version was serviceable enough. Sure, beginning the article with a remark on human curiosity has its flair, and can pull the reader in; so that's to the good (much better than a lean-in with a definition; better save that to the second sentence or so). But much of the rest of the material ought to be chopped or transferred elsewhere.
I'll see what I can do about dumping those jargon-ridden sentences. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidently now Lucaas is using some "anti vandal bot" software which reverts truncation. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this waffle about "human curiosity" is very patronising to any reader and in fact a mistaken, or at lesat one-sided, view of philosophy. Most people I'd imaging are looking for something more definite, that might lead them on to more specific issues and pages, or to clarify what philosophy means or how it is carried out by today's professional philosophers and of course a summary of its history. --Lucas

  1. The remark about curiosity was a single line. The entire article is dedicated to philosophy in detail. So no comment is given any kind of exclusivity.
  2. Was Plato patronizing us when he wrote: "..for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder"? (Quoted in the article)
  3. Your reversion kept the remarks about curiosity. The only difference is that it buffered those remarks with superfluous text. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A single line yes, but it sticks out. And yes, I know I left "human curiosity" (as opposed to feline curiosity) and "behooving" (what an odd word) in the article and that the rest of the article is not about curiosity, but do you know what the original word you quote from plato was? It weren't curiosity.

The article also should not be so Greek, there is also very old Eastern philosophy and religious and Jewish philosophy. I would also not go along with the trite old thing about philosophy as a luxury, I'd say it came with the first necessity not with the first yawn.

The "superfluous text" is a little serious I know but it does orientate someone into the topic as it is practiced today, since many readers might already have at least an everyday notion of the word's meaning. Which might even be probably closer to the meaning of it than "curiosity".

--Lucas

The remarks made here are rather subjective: "it sticks out", "it is condescending", etc., which is why I find them unconvincing. (Though I would agree that "behooves" sounds like a word that Mr. Belvedere would use.) Ultimately, though, I just don't care that much.
The meaning of "wonder" is somewhat separate from "curiosity", of course, but one wonders what may be condescending about the latter that is not present in the former. Since I detect none in either, there must be something wrong with me; enlightenment is required.
I don't understand it when you write that it should not be "so Greek". Do you mean, "So Western"? The latter I can understand. But the former, not really. In the body of the article (forget the intro for the moment), the philosophy of ancient Greece is given proportionally identical treatment to that of other cultures. Namely, a single paragraph.
Anyway some of the intro has been trimmed, I see. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems Lucaas doesn't much care about WikiStyle guidelines. Great stuff, then; this article is officially destined to never reach A-class. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was only talking about the intro.

I agree it might be unconvincing when I just say its condescending without explanation. What I mean is that it the article sounds like it is addressed to a child. Most people already have an idea of philosophy and may even have a better idea of it that is given by this intro. So rather than give a misleading and clichéd description of philosophy as "human curiosity" or when humans first began to yawn, etc., better just direct them straight away to more info and details about how it is practiced today.

Your word wonder is better, but miracle or marvel or something more affecting like anxiety are also as much a part of the picture.

The Greek bias in the into was obvious, Greek is Western and anyhow there are large articles on both Western Philosophy and Greek Philosophy.

Whats this about rules of style ? I never break rules especially when they are not written in stone.

--Lucas

WP:LEAD contains some good reminders about the length/content of an excellent wiki intro. 3-4 paragraphs are in order for our friend Philosophy, not more than that (it's presently 7).
Perhaps the matter of 'curiosity' is just a question of interpretation. But I don't think you can describe philosophy without either that, or wonder (which I still don't see as being relevantly different).
Yes, there continues to be a Greek bias in the intro, but nothing has been changed about that so far. Chopping will do it. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is too long and confusing

...even for me, a student of philosophy. It should have:

  • More concise and clearer definition of philosophy (as opposed to the current state of swirling it through etymology and other linguistics/word-stuff). Or at least it should have much more citations included if it is circled around different interpretations.
  • There is almost a self-dialogue-like feel to the introductory part. Very unencyclopedic and very unprofessional. Needs drastic improvements throughout.
  • References, references (a lot of statements in the intro are very confusing, because there aren't sources/references provided that would enlighten the reader)!

It's absolutely appalling that this article is considered to be a core topic and it is in a state like this. An article considered core topic should in my opinion be a featured article, or at least very, very close to a one. And now it's rated B. Disgraceful. Otvaltak 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be editted

Content arguments aside, the structure and language of this article is rough and amateur at best. Could an English professor or two with some background in philosophy spend a few minutes re-doing the worst sections?TeamZissou 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Update: I cleaned up that awful intro a little, but the whole of the article reads coursely. As for length, I'm glad it's so long! Look at some core-topic entries in paper encyclopedias, and you'll find that this length is acceptable for the breadth of the topic.TeamZissou 07:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone fix the paragraphing on the descriptions of Metaphysis, Epistomology etc??

Reverted

See history page. Could whoever is removing the cleanup tags discuss this on the talk page before doing so. Dbuckner 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Digital philosophy

Hi all. Anybody sees the need and the place to add a link to digital philosophy on this page? Regards.--Powo 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

introduction

(Please see heading above on this topic (the introduction) to which a number of people familiar with the area have contributed.)

The introduction is still poor. The opening about etymology contains the sixth-grade 'It can be construed then either as the love of wisdom or the wisdom of love.' It is nowhere mentioned that many philosophers consider the etymology misleading or unhelpful.

Then there follows a bit about the 'schism' between analytic and continental. A bit too detailed for an introduction, plus it introduces the new idea of 'western philosophy'.

Then some 'tentative definitions'. 'The study or discussion of the truths, principles and practices of knowledge, and conduct, being, and ideology'. This is ungrammatical. What is the practice of being? What is the practice of conduct? As for 'That which grasps its own era in thought', what does that mean. Similarly 'The dissolution and relief from enigmas and mysteries' is ungrammatical.

For all of the definitions, citations are needed. Dbuckner 08:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the intro. is very poor. I prefer to see a "Phil. is ..." definition, expanded on as the article goes on. I concur that the anal./cont. distinction is given too much prominence too soon. The list of multiple defns. isn't helpful so early in the article. What is an acceptable one-sentence defn. of the subject to start the entry? I have suggested (C) above. JJL 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dbuckner, I redirect you to extensive discussion on this above. But do note that most others have tried to give more than destructive comments, if you would like to give us an example of how you might word the intro, without losing much of the information that other editors have considered important, please add a section here on the talk page and see what response it might get. --Lucas

The discussion was irrelevant to my criticism that there are no references for the claims in the introduction. Which philosopher defined philosophy as 'That which grasps its own era in thought'? If you can't find a reference eventually I will delete the whole introduction. Dbuckner 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Clashing of borders

I've taken a quick glance at the layout of the article, and it seems that some of the borders are clashing and over-lapping on the right side of the screen. It can probably be corrected with some minor paragraph clean-ups. I'll do what I can, but I won't be able to do it all.

I have unaligned the table of contents for the meantime to eliminate the overlapping problem. Although there is a lot of whitespace beside it now, it looked a bit too packed with text up there before. As to any thumbnails overlapping with the "need of attention from an expert" templates, hopefully we'll be able to get rid of those soon. Pomte 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest version of the introduction

This (27 Dec 2006) is the worst yet. I've reapplied the clean-up tags. Would anyone like to claim credit for this? Dbuckner 16:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's totally content-free and summarizes nothing about the topic or the article to come. I'll put back the (imperfect) version from a few weeks ago until something better can be written. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a bit like ploughing the ocean? Dbuckner 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to content disputes, I have gotten into the habit of making the argument that philosophy is always going to be a bit nebulous, and maybe I'd say something about how the public school systems totally and completely fail to teach core material, making it easier for totally innocent misconceptions to arise. But that would be if we were dealing with substantive disputes. The most recent intro has so little content that it is not even wrong. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Outline

I propose to work to improve this article.

I suggest we discuss an outline of the article first.
I have done some editing, and development. However, part of my work has been reverted.
To avoid waste, and increase efficiency, I propose ussion here.
Anyone who wishes to revert, unless the work is shockingly absurd, etc., please lets discusses it here first - and lets presume Good Faith!
Just notice above comments! They are CONCLUSORY! Totally unhelpful in understanding dissatisfaction!
"worse yet" does not say WHY!
"it's totally content-free and summarizes nothing about the topic or the article to come" what does that mean???
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Lud, I didn't mean to be harsh. And certainly, we're all willing to cooperate and talk about the issues, and your expertise is certainly welcome.
That being said, there are a couple of problems with the intro and with the subsequent sections. According to Wiki style rules, the introduction is meant to provide a hint of what's to come in the rest of the article: there should be, perhaps, a short sentence about every major section of the article. But the most recent edit doesn't foreshadow anything about the article to come.
Also, it doesn't even tell us anything about philosophy, what philosophy is, or what it means, etc. We could substitute any word at all with "philosophy" in the intro paragraph and it would remain totally coherant. IE: "The notion of dog, in the English language, may best be explained by accounting for the word, its meaning, and its history. When other European languages are considered, etymologically, it is found that the same word exists there as well, indicating a common heritage. That is not necessarily the case with other languages whose speakers are not in physical proximity to the Mediterranean Sea. The word enters our language in the Fourteenth Century. It does so by way of (in reverse chronological order) Middle English, Old French, Latin, and Greek. [1] As it turns out, both the word, and the subject behind the notion, shift, or change with time, or in historical context, as is more fully narrated below." That's a bad thing, because it shows us that the intro is too vague.
We should also, as a matter of style, try to refrain from making sections too small. The article is really cluttered as it is, so we have to keep the material together in big batches. That's why I think we ought to merge together the smaller sections. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The "dog" (or as Hilbert said about Euclidean geometry, chair-table-something) example is dead-on. The current intro. is atrocious. Other entries on major areas of an Arts and Sciences college start with "X is..." and I think it's hubris to imagine that phil. is so general, so special, as to be an exception. We need to agree on a "Phil. is..." start for this page. JJL 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you have learned a technique in your courses in Analytic philosophy. There are many things to say about your position above. However, the symplist is to take your very own example, that of the dog, and what our MW (Merriam...) has to say (I only give 1st of the four definitions).
  1dog \dog, dag\ noun often attrib [ME, fr. OE docga] (bef. 12c)
  1	a : canid; esp : a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris)
           closely related to the common wolf (Canis lupus)
  b : a male dog; also : a male usu. carnivorous mammal
  2	a : a worthless person
  b : fellow, chap <a lazy dog> <you lucky dog>
  3	a : any of various usu. simple mechanical devices for holding, gripping,
           or fastening that consist of a spike, bar, or hook
  b : andiron
  4	: uncharacteristic or affected stylishness or dignity <put on the dog>
  5	cap : either of the constellations Canis Major or Canis Minor
  6	pl : feet
  7	pl : ruin <going to the dogs>
  8	: one inferior of its kind: as
  a : an investment not worth its price
  b : an undesirable piece of merchandise
  9	: an unattractive person and esp. a girl or woman
  10 : hot dog 1
  doglike \dog-lk\ adjective
  
  (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just added additional material to the Introduction.
Will you take offense if I remind you here that it is easier to be a critique than a producer. Also, the diversity of views, throughout the 2,500 years or so since philosophy arrround the Mediterranian Lake makes it unavoidable that an encyclopedic article will be quite general. Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly true that those who try to generate content deserve more praise than those who merely natter, i.e. about infractions against imaginary grammars. As Franco or I about the FAC process and you'll get some horror stories about that.
But the edit(s) in question substituted a slightly less-than-adequate introduction with a very inadequate one, which is as destructive as it is constructive. Note that my point in saying this was in reference to coherance and not ultimate accuracy. If the intro were originally something like, "Philosophy is the reasoned inquiry into fundamental questions", then the substitution of "dog" for "philosophy" would yield "Dog is the reasoned inquiry into fundamental questions"; and that's patent nonsense. And this isn't a technique special to analytic philosophy, I don't think, but just plain good sense. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Philosophy comes from a word"?

    Philosophy comes from the ancient Greek words philo, to love or to befriend, and sophia,
    to be wise. It can be construed then either as the love of wisdom or the wisdom of love.

The above is what I found today when I visited the page for the first time. Accordingly, since the view here expounded -- that "Philosophy comes from an ancient Greek word" -- I presumed it would not take much effort to improve it!!! --Ludvikus 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy, Eastern and Western

To avoid the accusation of ethnocentrism, it is important to distinguish among cultures, and their relation to the subject of philosophy. On the other hand, we are writing for the English language Wikipedia. This itself justifies beginning with Western Philosophy.

As any of us who are trained in the history of the West, and more particulary the History of Philosophy, the ideas of Science, and Knowledge before it, are new ideas. As I've introduced into the article already, Newton called his book "Natural Philosophy." In other words, Newtons work, which we now call Physics, was in Newton's time a brach of Philosophy.
So in this ENCYCLOPEDIA we must explain how Physics, today, is regarded as a subject distinct from Philosophy.
What some may regard as trivial, I do not - namely, the shifting meaning of words in history!
I do not see any way of writing a good article on philosophy without considering both its history, and the change in meaning, or the change in the conception, in a historical context.
I would find it extremely useful if I were to receive specific coments, rather than vague generalities about inadequacies. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Many Schools of Philosophy

A User, above, would like the Introduction/First paragraph to give a definition, or a quite definite specification, as to what philosophy is. But this is impossible - because there are, arguably, as many as there were philosophers since Philosophy began 2,500 years ago.

To be specific, in satisfaction of that user, we might say as follows (naming each philosopher):
  * Philosophy is the proposition that there is no change (Parmenides).
  * Philosophy is the proposition that all is change (Heracleitus).
  * Etc., ...

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an authority: 

    Says author, Prof. Peter A. Angeles, Professor of Philosophy,
    "Philosophy has as many meanings as philosophers engaging in it."
        Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angeles
        (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1981)
        ISBN 0-06-463461-2
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New introduction

>> Will you take offense if I remind you here that it is easier to be a critique than a producer. (Ludovicus)

Well I've tried working on this article many times before. But since you ask, I have replaced the current, slack introduction, with a very short one. I've moved the cleanup tags to an appropriate place. Dbuckner 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On the article generally, it is far too long as it stands. It consists mostly of long, rambling personal essays about various bits of philosophy. The article should be short, directing the reader via links to the relevant, more detailed articles. Furthermore it is a mixture of different traditions of thought, some of which are not philosophy (in the 'academic' sense) at all. I am going to move these to a separate article. The only prose in this should be connecting threads to tie the various sub-articles together in an organised and helpful way. Dbuckner 09:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Western philosophy vs. Eastern philosophy

I have removed the section "Eastern vs Western". It makes the demonstrably false claim that people (meaning philosophers?) in the West only become aware of other philosophical systems after WWII. What do we make of Schopenhauer, then? And all the other non-philosophical stuff like Madame Blavatsky &c. The sentence " It also became clear that these systems lay geographically east of the United State, Europe, North Africa, and eastern Asia." is banal in the extreme. The sentence that begins "And it was no coincidence that …" has no main verb. So it goes. There needs to be something about the Eastern/Western thing. But this will not do. Dbuckner 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com keeps a separate section for east: Eastern philosophy & Western philosophy.
Also, Wikipedia recognizes the distinction - as there are articles on it!!! Ludvikus 13:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Then keep them distinct. Dbuckner 15:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. Its literal meaning derives from the ancient Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom." It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; a body of philosophical literature that created over the centuries by a culture or civilization, as in 'Hindu philosophy'; a personal outlook or viewpoint, as in 'my philosophy of life'; truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone.

This article, however, concerns what is sometimes called 'academic philosophy'. Philosophy, in this sense, is the discipline whose subject matter is the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality, whose goal is to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates, and whose method is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality.

The above is totally inconsistent with the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, and the influence of these on the nature of philosophy, and the attack on Metaphysics, and the consequent broad generalizations as the users above wishes to maintain.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 13:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The definition I gave is consistent with all modern introductions to the subject. Wikipedia is not intended for original research. It simply reflects the consensus view of experts, right or wrong. Dbuckner 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The only useful, good, thing in your 2-paragraph intoduction is giving the Greek word for it.
You removed Buddism, but keep Tao and [[Hindu] philosophy? Would you discuss Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in these articles (B, T, & H)? Why not? I think you could common ground, let's say, in what Socrates maintained, and Buddist beliefs; is it not also so with the other 2?
And this term Academia! Why? Why? Why?
Also, aren't most views that B, T, & H are RELIGIONS? Then why not mention Christianity (C), Judaism (J), and Islam (I), which are closer to us??? I think I'll do that for you!!! --Ludvikus 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Natural Philosophy of Isaac Newton

Wikipedia, and Isaac Newton, recognize(d) this categorization.

  • it is important to acknowledge that in his time Physics was Philosophy.
  • There was, in HIS time (not a-temporal God), Un-natural philosophy, so to speak.
  • And that, itself, was bifurcated into all that concerns God, and the Supernatural, on the one hand, and whatever concerns Man (yes, there was sexism then) on the other.

---

Yes, but 'Natural philosophy' was not the same as 'Philosophy', even then. And we are now concerned with the modern meaning of the word, as in 'Department of philosophy'. Dbuckner 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Your confusing the change in particular views within philosophy with a change in the overall view as to what philosphy is? In your opinion, what WAS philosophy in the time of Newton? Are you willing, or able, to commit yourself in WRITING, as I have?
Why do you bring in Buddism in the opening paragraph on Philosophy in the English language encyclopedia? Besides, Schopenhauer, and even if you name many names, can you give explicit citations, with the use of the term "Buddism" in the Western Intellectual Tradition? Why don't you include Beans as well. Pythagoras had wriiten on beans, you know? --Ludvikus 16:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The opening paragraph, if you read it, brings in Buddhism only to rule it out. Read it carefully. Dbuckner 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

heading for third revert

Which is probably going to be mine. But some things are worth fighting over ... Dbuckner 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think this is silly? Shouldn't we find a better way? --Ludvikus 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What better way do you suggest? Some of the points you make are interesting, but do not belong in an introduction to an encyclopedia whose policies and principles are to provide the average reader with a concise introduction to a subject, and not to include possibly OR material. OR does not mean "incorrect". Your theory of what 'philosophy' means may well be correct, but it would be better placed in some Journal of Philosophy (or possibly not, given the profusion of grammatical and spelling errors that you did not bother to correct). Right or wrong, the introduction I have is absolutely consistent with current academic views of the subject. These may well be wrong. But it is not the job of Wikipedia to make that judgment. Read the policies. Dbuckner 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) I suggest you read Western Intellectual Tradition (full citation in Article, or its Reversion).
  • (2) "Some points..." Which points? Your generalization about policy is totally useless to me - it does not at all tell me where, in your opinion, I have gone astray!!!
  • (3) OR (Original Research). How do I distinguish that from your mere Ignorance?
  • (4) ". . grammatical and spelling errors . . ." that's partly due to rushing to avoid your REVERSIONS!!! Anyway, any editor can correct my grammatical and spelling transgressions. Why don't you do that - and I'll concentrate on the CONTENT???
  • (5) "...introduction I have is absolutely consistent with current academic views ..." Oh, yeh? Can you give me at least a SINGLE citation? Also, what's your ("I") view, aside from the triviality that there are many meaning to the word philosophy - and your examples, all from non-European sources? Do you hate Europe? Are are you one of those "liberals" who will given in to anything, just to satisfy your non-European, because of some deep-ruited sense of guilt?
  • (5.1) Sorry for my incivility - but the above might be theraputic! And in addition, you opened it with your ad-hominum(sic? -I don't have the time, or patience, to check or correct the spelling) regarding my GRAMMAR & SPELLING! It merely take TIME to correct these things, and almost anyone can do it. But you seem to imply that writing an introduction to the subject of philosophy in general is an easy task, and spelling, grammar, and the rules of Wikipedia, at the same time, can be adhered to, at a drop of one's hat (I wish I got the metaphor correctly, but I probaly didn't, that another item for you to harp on.
  • Regarding the policies of WP, and your request that I read them - I will not - they are common sense to me - besides, I gotten them straight from the horse's mouth!!! I've read Jimbo Wales, and heard him speak on Charlie Rose. Also, I believe it is the User(s) who will ultimately determine the nature of WP. And I think Jimbo is beginning to realize that. And that means that the will likely be a difference - the founders may discover that WP has evolved not in keeping with all the priciples of it original intent.
  • Finally, that me inform you that I've been a Wikipedian since the month of AUGUST of this year, and that I've made substantial contribution to over 250 articles - most from scratch! BUT THIS CONTRIBUTION IS MADE DIRECTLY IN MY FIELD OF STUDY - THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY!!!
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: BMost likely there are grammatical & spelling errors here - I leave that as material for you to attack me on - I think you need it!!! --Ludvikus 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your point about anti-European. Have you actually READ the new introduction? The point actually made is that, while 'philosophy' can mean the Tao or the meaning of life or whatever, the article is about 'academic philosophy'. Read it carefully. On the citations, I've already said below that the claims in my introduction are fully cited. If you had bothered to read the introduction as far as the footnote, you would have seen that. Where actually did you study the history of philosophy? Dbuckner 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest Introduction - by User:Dbuckner

The word Philosophy has a variety of meanings. Its literal meaning derives from the ancient Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom." It can mean a system of belief, values or tenets as in Buddhist philosophy, or the Tao; a body of philosophical literature that created over the centuries by a culture or civilization, as in 'Hindu philosophy'; a personal outlook or viewpoint, as in 'my philosophy of life'; truth found in mystical experience, or even alchemy and astrology, such as the philosopher's stone.

This article, however, concerns what is sometimes called 'academic philosophy'. Philosophy, in this sense, is the discipline whose subject matter is the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality, whose goal is to discover the absolutely fundamental reason of everything it investigates, and whose method is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality. [1]

  • I oppose include examples of Eastern philosophy in the introduction to a subject which has, until very recent times, has been an isolated European subject, influenced by Islam, and somewhat by the Middle East primarily in its Biblical roots.
  • How the "common man", or the "man in the street," views philosophy should also not be included here. What a "housewife" (dear educated housewives, please forgive me) believes philosophy is, also should not be included in the opening paragraph - do we really want the trivial, "what's your philosophy" included here?
  • And the fact that there is a huge body of work (texts) which falls under the category of PHILOSOPHICAL - of what help is that, to our enlightenment?
  • And isn't physics, Academic? As is medicine? There is, I know, the notion of alternative medicine!!! And there are those who seek it. There is also chiropractic (I probably misspelled it). And also. accupuncture.
  • I suggest an article entitled, Ordinary man's philosophy (as opposed to, Ordinary language philosophy.
Yours truly, Ludvikus 16:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC) --Ludvikus 20:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no mention of 'housewives' in the current introduction. As to the 'ordinary' view of philosophy, it should be mentioned if only to inform the reader that philosophy is not actually this. The introduction says 1. Its literal meaning is 'love of wisdom'. 2. It can mean a number of other things. 3. This article is not about those things, but 'academic philosophy'. What's wrong with that? Dbuckner 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Competition Between Introductions

The notion of Philosophy, in the English language, may best be explained by accounting for the word, its meaning, and its history. When other European languages are considered, etymologically, it is found that the same word exists there as well, indicating a common heritage. That is not necessarily the case with other languages whose speakers are not in physical proximity to the Mediterranean Sea. The word enters our language in the Fourteenth Century. It does so by way of (in reverse chronological order) Middle English, Old French, Latin, and Greek. [2] As it turns out, both the word, and the subject behind the notion, shift, or change with time, or in historical context, as is more fully narrated below. In brief, philosphy , orginally, roughly, encompassed all that we today mean by the three words, science, knowledge, and wisdom. As the content of these subjects increased, and changed, and in more recent times, with the historical phenomena known as the Industrial Revolution, and its consequent division of labor, philosophy became a vestige of what was left and not subsumed by the specialized sciences. Says author, Prof. Peter A. Angeles, Professor of Philosophy, "Philosophy has as many meanings as philosophers engaging in it." [3]

  • Please note, to begin with, that the above concerns, inter alia, the notion, rather than the word. It also traces etymological evolution with a dictionary duly cited. User:Dbuckner, on the other hand, gives no citation, but apparently graces us with his ORIGINAL views. --Ludvikus 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, I give citations in the footnote at the end of the second paragraph. For example, the stuff about rationality is in the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. See Definition of philosophy for all the sources. By contrast, all this stuff about the Industrial Revolution is simply uncitable. Dbuckner 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The History of Philosophy

I have removed all of this section, as it was entirely ungrammatical and illiterate. There needs to be a short and unrambling section on the standard view here, namely that the history divides broadly into the Greek and Roman period, the Medieval period, and the Modern period, then a link to the appropriate article. Dbuckner 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I only just noticed that there were two sections on the history of philosophy already. I have left the other in, although it is dire. At least it has a link to the appropriate article. Dbuckner 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed the sections on Analytic and Continental - if the person who added these had bothered to read further, he or she would have seen there is already an overlarge section dealing with this. Also moved the quotes from Marx and Hegel to the quotes section. Dbuckner 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a ray of hope in what you say immediately above. G, R, M, Mp.
Why don't we be more specific by naming the philosophers, and go from there:
Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, ...
Can we agree on that? Shall we then abstract from them their view as to what philosophy is?
Yours, etc. --Ludvikus 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On not re-inventing the wheel - So what is philosophy?

I give you Merriam-Webster's:

philosophy \fe-la-s(e-)fe\ noun pl philosophies [ME philosophie, fr. OF, fr. L philosophia, fr. Gk, fr. philosophos philosopher] (14c)
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical art
(2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy>
3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
b (1) archaic : physical science
(2) : ethics
c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom
b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts
b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: Why don't we use the dictionary as a guide & outline? Ludvikus 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The last way to explain philosophy is to ask a philologist, especially an Oxford or Webster one!

Please see the discussion below (was above) on competing introductions. If you would like to change the intro then add your example in here on the talk page like the rest of us, in its own subection below (see following point 43 of this page, to where I moved the discussion so as not to lose it, A, B and C are the three alternatives. A separate subsection is also added to allow others to comment on your intro. One of those entries seems to have more support than others but only marginally, maybe your intro will get the most concensus, for me however, there is a problem with how it flows and how immediately useful it is. Remeber there is alreayd a page called Western Philosophy. --Lucas

Introduction

Ok, we all know at this stage that the intro was too long to meet with good practice. We now have two different intros which are being switched and reverted between. Let me copy them both here for comparison, each in its own subsection, with comments for each in further subsections. First the one that says philosophy is analysis and investigation. Then the one that says it is hard to define.

I've tried for a "Philosophy is..." introduction to get the ignorant--I use the term nonpejoratively--reader up to speed on what's being discussed before the academic debates start later in the page. JJL 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(A) Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation

Philosophy is the investigation and analysis of the basic principles which are the basis of all our knowledge and activity and are normally taken for granted. As a concept and as a subject it encompases all of knowledge and all that can be known including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired. The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. This organization of the subject is still largely in use today and can be profitably used regardless of where one's answers to specific philosophical questions lie.

Metaphysics is concerned with the nature of existence in the most fundamental sense. It attempts to answer the question as to what are the most fundamental attributes that all existing things share, if any, as well as fundamental questions concerning how they relate to one another. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and how man can know things. As such certain aspects of the functioning of man's mind is included -- his rational faculty (particularly his conceptual capacity) and how it functions as well as his emotional nature. Ethics is concerned with the nature of values and in particular how this concept applies to man and his relationship to the external world and to other men. Politics is concerned with the behavior of men toward one another in the social context. Hence the first question of politics as a philosophical subject might be: how should men deal with one another in such a social context? Thus it can be seen that politics is really a sub-category of ethics since ethical criteria must be used in order to answer its questions. Aesthetics is concerned with man's artistic creations. It also involves choice, i.e., value criteria and as such can also be viewed as a sub-category of ethics.

There are a number of broad approaches to the subject as a whole which vary according to the traditions of people all over the world. One notable approach is that of Western philosophy, a school of thought originated by the Greeks and developed in the West (discussed above). Eastern philosophy is considered its counterpart since subjective non-rational criteria are largely used to evaluate and resolve issues. The methodology of philosophy is itself debated within the field of metaphilosophy and epistemology.

Why do you say 'Western philosophy' and 'Eastern philosophy'. Since the idea of a rational, non-subjective method is essential to 'Western philosophy', and since the very opposite applies to 'Eastern philosophy', how do they comprise 'the subject as a whole'? I've long fought two battles on this page 1. To distinguish clearly the discipline of 'academic' or 'western' philosophy from anything else 2. To have the name 'philosophy' applied to the 'academic' variety. (You don't have a department of Western philosophy, for example). Perhaps I should give up on (2) as a lost cause. In which case, we have an article entitled 'Western philosophy' or 'academic philosophy' or whatever, and delete all reference to Kant, Descartes &c from this page.Dbuckner 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on "Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation"

Philosophy as a form of analysis is really quite a narrow category to include it under. Secondly, saying it refers to all knowledge only covers (badly) epsitemology (unless you want to calll ethics knowledge). Thirdly, we already have an article on Western philosophy and this opening should be general enough to apply to Eastern, African and Western philosophy. --Lucas

My purpose in reverting was to get the cleanup tags in place. I have put them back at the top, where they belong, to warn any unwary reader of what follows. This applies to the current introduction. E.g. "The easiest clue to indicate which of these philosophies is being referred to by the word philosophy is to note the language used." Slack, ungrammatical, no context &c. Dbuckner 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought it a good idea to put the tags just after what was currently being debated. And then perhaps shift the tags as the cleanup progresses throught he article.

I agree with Dbuckner on this "slack" comment, it should be removed or tidied up.--Lucas

(B) Philosophy as hard to define

Philosophy is that which has almost as many definitions as there have been philosophers. No simple definition can do it justice. Uncontested however, is the etymology of the word.

The word philosophy comes from the ancient Greek words philo-, to love or to befriend, and, -sophia, to be wise. It can be construed then either as the love of wisdom or the wisdom of love.

In the contemporary English-speaking academic world it is often used implicitly to refer only to analytic philosophy and, on the other hand, in non-English speaking countries, it often refers implicitly only to continental philosophy. This modern-day division of analytic and continental philosophy (confined largely to academia) is problematic for understanding the current use of the word philosophy since both of these two areas talk of philosophy in general but are often only referring to that school. The easiest clue to indicate which of these philosophies is being referred to by the word philosophy is to note the language used. But modern usage of the term is much broader than this rather academic division.

Philosophy as a concept and a subject encompases all of knowledge and all that can be known including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired. The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. This organization of the subject is still largely in use in Western philosophy today.

Comments on "Philosophy as hard to define"

This would be preferable if the last paragraph were placed closer to the top, and the comments about the problems of definition were left as a caveat, not a lede. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is problematic since what it declares is a difficulty of definition at the heart of philosophy, not as a caveat. A more positive lead may, as you suggest be better, however, the proposed last paragraph does not talk of philo-sophy, it declares it to "encompass all knowledge and all that can be known and the means of knowing."
It repeats the word "know" or a cognate, three times; it is fairly clear the definer only speaks of epistemology (just one of the five main branches of western philosophy). "Encompass" also implies some kind of priority. Encompassing the "means of knowing" also sounds odd. --Lucas
"X is that which has almost as many definitions as there have been Xers" is true of many areas of inquiry. Look at the discussion about trying to define Mathematics for example. This is a self-indulgent description ("Our area of study is more esoteric than yours."). There are lots of definitions here. Yes, they are all incomplete...that's always going to be true. I strongly dislike the "philosophy is too hard for the likes of you to understand its definition" approach taken here. JJL 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the thrust of your post -- it's not so tough to give a tentative definition -- but at the same time, the philosophers really are across the board in ways that other fields aren't. The sheer number of disparate definitions is exactly the problem. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree it would be nice to have a tentative definition. Al I try to say is that, other than the etymology, there is no such general definition. We can of course talk of Western Phil and its 5 branches, this again is a narrowing and alreayd covered on the page for Western Phil. Whatever def is tentative I suggest it be able to at least apply to these 5 areas but also work for Eastern philosophy.
I don't know where you see a comparitive, "our area is more esoteric than yours". Truth of the matter is that it is different just like the others are different in their own way. Almost with each philosopher we get not only their texts but also a redefinition of what philosophy should be about: it is an under-labourer to Science for Locke, the Queen of them all for others; a vow to know thyself and the good-life, for some ancients, a synthesis and cocktail of previous thinkers for the historically inclined; Aught it interpret the world or change it?
By the way, which area of study, in your opinion, is in fact the most esoteric, would it happen to be the oldest?
Whatever difficulties other areas may have in defining themselves they at least have some agreed practice, (eg, the giving of a proof in Math is, maybe not 100% agreed, but, well agreed and is either accepted as sound or rejected).
--Lucas
Lucas, we seem to agree that etymology and the five branches are essential. (Dean mentions below that the role of the definition in actual usage should be clarified, and I don't argue with that.) We also agree that Western and Eastern philosophy should be included. I am ignorant of much of Eastern philosophy, but would have to know where and how Eastern works do not fall under the five branches (regardless of how each branch may be intertwined with the others).
Redundancy shouldn't be too much of a worry -- the purpose of the intro is to give the reader a quick idea of what's to come in the rest of the article.
And we shouldn't worry about relational matters as much as we have in the past. I think a lot of the disputes up until now have been concerning how philosophy fits with everything else: science, religion, language, psychology, etc. These matters have been deeply intertwined with negative discussions of "what philosophy is not". While important, and while they demand some kind of a treatment, we shouldn't let these topics distract us from the positive works of philosophers as philosophers. We might mention a few of the popular positions, but the disciplinary limits of philosophy is a topic that is more suitable for discussion elsewhere, such as at Metaphilosophy. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes etymology seems to thing that is least disputed. You say "Dean" mentions something below, I can't find this, anyhow the usage of the word "philosophy" at universities should be given, since it can be used to refer to philosophy generally, its history, or certain schools.

The five branches are Western and the problem we have here is that there is already a page called Western Philosophy. Do you have any idea when philosophy began to be seen in 5 branches. It seems impossible though to avoid some duplication since even the etymology is Greek and Western. But to say philosophy is such and such and merely give the Western point of view fails the article. Unless you suggest merging the two articles together.

In Eastern philosophy, in Taoism or Confusianism, for example, there is a kind of holism that does not suit these 5 branches, but there is also a tendency there to associate philosophy not with theology (as occured in the middle ages) but with the politics of how best to rule and bring happiness to the state. Of course the massive Eastern take up of Marxist thought would also be worth a mention in this overview article. As too, perhaps the influence of Indian and Chinese philosophy on the West during the Enlightenment and later. And perhaps the Persian one.

"relational matters" as you say, that is, how philosophy relates to the sciences and literature would be better covered in this article (where else could they be). We could mention for example how many sciences were originally philosophy later being called natural philosophy, then science. And how such relations are both western and eastern. As to the idea of a separate thing called metaphilosophy, I think this is some kind of joke, since most philosophers in history have a "meta" position on philosophy (eg, Aristotle philosophy only comes in times of leisure). It also means metaphysics would have to be called meta-meta-physics! I don't deny some philosophical positions have a metaphilosophical angle even if this involves re-introducing philosophy to certain sciences that were originally considered as philosophy, to for example, historical anthropology or sociology. --Lucas

a) Dean's comment is at the end of the page. b) I don't know when the five branches began, but it's a start. c) Again, duplication in this sense is irrelevant, and is even a good thing that is both expected and required in an intro to a general topic. d) We would be grateful for some sourced remarks on Eastern philosophy in the intro. But "holism", so stated, isn't especially unique to the East. I believe we discussed this previously. e) Don't blame me, I don't make up the names for these things. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, Bertrand Russell would've endorsed this option. "We may note one peculiar feature of philosophy. If someone ask (sic) the question what is mathematics, we can give him a dictionary definition, let us say the science of number, for the sake of argument. As far as it goes this is an uncontroversial statement... Definitions may be given in this way of any field where a body of definite knowledge exists. But philosophy cannot be so defined. Any definition is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude. The only way to find out what philosophy is, is to do philosophy." (Wisdom of the West, p.7) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(C) Philosophy as the study of being/knowledge/conduct

Philosophy is the investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. The word comes from the ancient Greek words philo-, to love or to befriend, and -sophia, to be wise, and is commonly translated as "love of wisdom". In Western philosophy, the emphasis is on the rational investigation of truths and principles; in Eastern philosophy, there is greater emphasis on a more intuitive investigation. Philosophy is differentiated from science by an emphasis on first principles over empirical methods.

Academics distinguish between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy within Western philosophy. This modern-day division of analytic and continental philosophy is problematic for understanding the current use of the word philosophy. In fact, modern usage of the term is much broader than this academic division would indicate. In its broadest meaning, Philosophy encompasses all of human knowledge and all that may be known, including the means by which such knowledge can be acquired. The ancient Greeks organized the subject into five basic categories: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. This organization of the subject is still largely in use in Western philosophy today; sometimes the former two are taken together and the latter two are taken as being under ethics, with logic added as the third basic category.

There are many approaches to the subject as a whole which vary according to the philosophical tradition being followed, but the major threads are those of Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy. The methodology of philosophy is itself debated within the field of metaphilosophy.

Comments on "Philosophy as the study of being/knowledge/conduct"

A Philosophy is... introduction is appropriate for those not yet familiar with Western vs. Eastern and analytic vs. continental divisions. This intro. states the general subject matter and etymology up-front, as well as the major E-W division. JJL 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To quote the first sentence of this intro, it says, "Philosophy is the investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct." This I believe is taken from an online dictionary. That aside I think that it is far to self assured. First thing to admit about philosophy is an ignorance and that there are really no easy anwsers. In detail the term of this intro: "investigate", sounds like detective work and ignores the interpretive and political aspects; "truths and principles" already assumes there are such things; "being, knowlege, and conduct", a list like this can only be partial, how manys ideas are left out, one could equally add, eg, society, essences, metaphysics, history, justice, life etc., etc.. "Conduct" sounds very odd, the conduct of what? Do you mean ethics or morals? --Lucas

Look at: mathematics, sociology, psychology, physics, Literature, etc....all these fields/areas have an entry that starts "X is..." and philosophy should be no different. It's an intellectual conceit to think that mathematics--which predates philosophy--can be summed up briefly but philosophy cannot. The fact that a simple definition is inadequate is why there's a whole article. But, the current intro. is out-of-step with the rest of the similar entries on WP.
For 'investigation', one can write 'study' instead. 'Conduct' is meant to refer broadly to concerns of ethics/politics/etc. The rest of the article can expand on those ideas. JJL 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that you want to equate all these different items: [mathematics]], sociology, psychology, physics, Literature. Is it an intellectual conceit to equate everything? Let editors their make their own discussion about how to define the area. As mentioned above Math may be easiar to define since its practice is pretty uniform and it is taught even to 5 year olds. The earth is also older than philosophy, reems of books have not been written trying to define it though. Anyhow, if it is uniformity you like, the current consensu into begins "philosophy is" and so is with wiki guidlines on this. Nor did you resolve any of the issues raised above on this intro. Also I do not like the way it refers to Eastern philosophy as irrational. The 18th century idea of philosophy as the "rational pursuit of knowledge etc." sounds like a quote the first ever Encyclopédie.

I am suggesting that these major areas of knowledge should be treated in a somewhat similar way. I find your habit of reflexively reversing any argument directed your way--as your facetious use of 'conceit' here, or claiming your reversion has 'consensu'--tiring. As to Eastern philosophy...edit the intro. to phrase it differently. I have modified it in response to this concern already. Do you disagree that that appraoch is more intuitive/subjective? JJL 01:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This is clear, but what I ask is why you want to treat them all the same? They are as different as chalk and cheese: Sociology, Literature, Philosophy, you almost span the complete diversity. To equate all these things does seem to me to be a conceit of yours.
I think it is not a conceit, but honest, to say up front that philosophy is not easily defined. Perhaps one particular school might agree on some wording but this is not even the Western philosophy page, this is philosophy overall. This intro as the "study of the truths of conduct" and "rational investigation of principles" would suit better a definition of philosophy to be given by someone the 18th century. It ignores the entire 20th Century and all of Ancient and medieval times, it ignores Existentialism, it even ignores Hegel, Wittgenstein, Eastern, Quine etc.
Nor do I see anyone other than you supporting this intro, hence my remark on consensus. Again unlike the other entries you have not responded to criticisms made above.
By suggesting the West is rational and East intuitive you are trying to draw fine lines when it requires a broad opening. Let Western and Eastern define themselves in their own subsections.
--Lucas
Moving the more specific discussion of E vs. W downward is fine by me. As to the similarities between math. (say) and phil., that isn't at all the point; the WP entries for major areas of (academic) knowledge should have some consistency--a style issue. Those entries are similar in nature and intent. But, as with anal./cont., you seem to be very focused on the differences. An opening paragraph is the time for statement that says what something is, not what it is not. If phil. can't be adequately explained, why have an entry for it?
I would definitely like to hear others' opinions on the matter. JJL 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, philosophy is not only academic. The academic use of the word is covered in the intro but at a later paragraph, the academic usage that refers usually to either analytic continental is relevant at that point. Since philosophy is not only academic, it is a choice to follow some academic style of "philosophy is". If you consider it only as academic discipline, to which academy are you refering? Western? Continental? Analytic? Since your definition may only represent one.

My issue anyhow is not with "philosophy is" but what comes next. Here I find you definition constricting for an opening line. Only later in the article should we narrow it down.

As to others opinion, the "philosophy as hard to define" seems marginally more agreed upon since no one else seems to agree with this one. However, I'd prefer we could agree on something rather than just get a random vote. With this in mind please try to respond to the criticisms as I hope I have to yours.

--Lucas

(D) Philosophy as a Western intellectual subject, an defined by encyclopedias as X

Philosophy is a subject in the Western intellectual tradition. A rough, but brief, sense of what that subject is can be acquire from the etymological and linguistic analysis of the word philosophy. Its two combining forms come down to us from the ancient Greek word, "Φιλοσοφία;" these are philo-, or phil-; and -sophy. The former is tracible to the transliterated Greek philos, originally meaning dear, or friendly, but translating as loving, or having an affinity for. The latter is tracible to sophia, or sophos, originally meaning wisdom, but translating as knowledge, wisdom, or science. And it is from this analysis that that the common conclusion is deduced - that philosophy is the love of wisdom.

According to the Grolier Encyclopedia (1957), "When the word philosophy was first used by the Greeks, it meant simply the search for knowledge or science. Soon after, through the influence of Socrates, Plato, and later, Aristotle, it took on the additional meaning of the search for wisdom or the best life." [4] According to the New Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica (1904), "A specific sense of the word first meets us in Plato, who defines the philosopher as one who apprehends the essence or reality of things in opposition to the man who dwells in appearance and the shows of sense. Logic, ethics, and physics, psychology, theory of knowledge, and metaphysics are all fused together by Plato in a semi-religious synthesis. It is not till we come to Aristotle that we find a demarkation of the different philosophic disciplines corresponding, in the main, to that still current." [5]


Comments on "Philosophy as a Western intellectual subject, an defined by encyclopedias as X"

I find this fourth option for an intro, like the editor above, as the worst of the four optins so far. I will list my reasons for this and it is not merely negative. First philosophy is not a western subject anymore than it is eastern, geography is not something it concerns itself with much, in any case there is already a page Western Philosophy and unless you suggest a merge of the two pages, this statement is off the mark and dismisses the other editors above, who only seem to agree so far on etymology and not that it is a subject of western intellectuals.

I find the second sentence, "A rough, but brief, sense of what that subject is can be acquired from the etymological and linguistic analysis of the word philosophy.", to be very awkwardly constructed. Previously what was there was just that etymological meaning was the least disputed and agreed by all editors as a good place to start.

References to Goliers 1957 famously inaccurate encyclopedia and to the Americanised one are poor places to go for authentic information, they seem to ignore many philosophers and give a very biased account of the subject. They say philosophy was science before Plato! This is such an odd thing to say, and is contradicted by the second encylopedia. Many of the pre-socratics weere mystics and the like not scientists, it mixes up centuries. The second encyclopedia quoted above is clearly biased (unlike history) toward Aristotle, the author perhaps being scientifically minded.

Further trying to track down an origin for philosophy as you do by refering only to Plato and Aristotle in the introduction is a mistaken view of what it means, it loses itself in an etymological discussion which was already been given and that should be brief.

The intro should be as inclusive as possible, that means not ignoring people like Wittgenstein or Russell or Hume, nor Hegel or Heidegger nor Lau-Tzu or Confucius.

Most importantly wiki is not a meta-encyclopedia, we don't just reproduce what the dusty old ones said, there are scholars and experts directly online who know more about it than these archaic compilers.

--Lucas

(E) Philosophy originally - a la Edward Zeller

After giving 3 names, of ancient Greeks, in Greek, Zeller begins his Outline, "The term φιλόσοφοι, although it existed at the time, was not applied to them. It seems first to have acquired its technical sense in the circle of Socrates and Plato and only after that to have attained general currency." There is no better way to begin the INTRODUCTION than with the view of what φιλόσοφοι was according to the views of these great Greek Masters!!!

Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludvikus 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ See the article Definition of philosophy for the sources of this definition of philosophy
  2. ^ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996, ISBN 0-87779-708-0
  3. ^ Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angeles, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1981), ISBN 0-06-463461-2
  4. ^ Grolier Encyclopedia, (New York, Toronto: The Grolier Society, Inc., 1957)
  5. ^ New Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica (Twentieth Century Edition), (New Yotk; Akron, OH; Chicago: The Saalfield Publishing Company, 1904)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy/Archive_11&oldid=1136243107"