Talk:Philosophy/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Philosophy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

University Professor Sources

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

Rutgers Philosophy Homepage - go to Courses, and then course webpages for syllabi and readings provided by professors
Steven Stich's Webpage
Frank Arntzenius's website

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

Some others:

[1]
[2]

--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

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.
Was Plato patronizing us when he wrote: "..for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder"? (Quoted in the article)
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)

I totally agree (or almost so) on the Second point.
But I totally disagree (or almost so) on the First point.
Before you Revert, please discuss. Ludvikus 14:07, 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.
- And this is at the turn of the Seventeenth Century. Ludvikus 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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)

Excellent work, User:JJL. Just please Sign your part(s). Unfortunately, I'm distracted by User:Dbuckner's interjections. Your overall generalization is truly EXCELLENT.You have my total support. Unfortunately, your work is being chopped up by these instant & distracting questioning interjections by Use:Dbuckner. Yours truly, Ludvikus 16:22, 29 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

Again, in my opinion,EXCELLENT work, User:JJL!!! Unfortunately, your being chopped up by the Boetians. I'd like you to collect your writing together, and submit it as the COMPROMISE introduction. I will then be willing to FINE-TUNE IT. But I am so HAPPY to have discovered a WIKIPEDIAN like you who is CLEARLY WELL VERSED in the Western Intellectual Tradition!!! And if you are not - YOU CERTAINLY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB OF SUMMARIZING IT. Ludvikus 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(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

Lucas, clearly, substitutes his opinions, and philosophical view, in brief, his own, personal philosophical view and preferences, in place of the Masters, and the recognized authorities. The ad hominum against Golier is absurd. What Golier says is by far suprior to these a-historical diatribes and ramblings in ignorance - I mean this literally - the above clearly demonstrates ignorance of writings on philosophy,or its history in the world!!! Ludvikus 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(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)

Reverting again

I'm afraid I've had to revert again. The point is to start with some brief remarks about what philosophy is NOT (philosophy of life, alchemy &c), followed by a short characterisation of what experts currently think it is, split into

its subject matter
its method
its object or goal

On the Eastern vs Western bit, in the first place philosophy has no geography. Everyone studies it everywhere, and mostly always have done. On the academic vs non-academic bit, the article as it stands is mostly about the academic bit, with bits added in that clearly do not belong, such as Zoroastranism &c. We need to keep the two bits distinct. If there really are going to be terrible arguments about this, why not make this a disambiguation page? Dbuckner 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've archived this talk page - please note that some recent comments got muddled up BEFORE I did this - this was not my doing. Dbuckner 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. We agree that that this dispute is about the introduction.
2. We should NOT begin with what philosophy is NOT. Philosophy is not an Onion - it's the first thing I could think of - but maybe it is - there is, after pealling away, nothing inside?
3. There are no "experts" - at least not alive today - in philosophy. Besides, how shall we agree on who's an expert? Suppose some say the Pope's an expert, and Philosphy is what the Church says it is?
4. "Philosophy of Life" is philosophy, but a crude way of putting it, and a focus that has been in existence in the past - for example: at a time, Stoicism was a Philosophy, of how one should live one's life. So it is in the portrait of Socrates who, by his, some say, noble example, accepted the hemlock, because he was found guilty, he had to accept the verdict of the court, irrespective of his view of its erroneousness; so too with Jesus, some would say, who had the power not to allow himself to be crucified. So it would be to deny that a "philosophy of life" is not Philosophy. In fact, it merely shifts, in the West, to Ethics. In Marxist, it takes the form of Class Struggle. And all of Buddism is just that - a Philosophy of how one should live ones life.
5. Alchemy too is, or at least was in the past, a branch of Philosophy, dealing with the nature of Substance, particularly its relation to Gold. It no longer is so where it has been replaced by Chemistry, and which in turn, as been designated as being a branch of Science.
6. Its "subject matter" has always been, and some would say still is, ALL OF Experience.
7. Its "method" cannot be separated from it, for if Philosophy is anything, it is about Method, the Method of Philosophy.
8. So too with its object or goal, for what is Philosophy without an object or goal.
9. Regarding East and West it is as absurd to deny the distinction in relation to Transportation, for all Cultures or Civilizations have mobility. You might as well say that it does not matter that the Train, or the Automobile, was invented in the West, and it is not necessary to begin its study there. Besides, this is the English language Wikipedia, and Philosophy is a word, and concept, which have a common etymology and history, and even texts; it is no accident that philology had concentrated on the classical languages of Greek and Latin, in which languages so much of Philosophy is imbedded. PHILOSOPHY begins with the ancient Greeks, and they were in the West. The fact that we are now, today, able to discover, or re-construct, Philosophy in other, non-Western, cultures, is no reason to deny its Western roots. Yes, I believe in the Brotherhood of all Men (and Women too, excuse me). But that's no reason to deny the Focus of where Philosophy began - which in the West, in Greece.
10. So what's Philosophy, in Ancient Greece (i hope you would ask)? Why it is Science, {Knowledge]], Wisdom. And it is Reason, or the use thereof. But that's just a part of the story - and out of context - so you will not have understanding. And what is philosophy if not understanding? Read Kant, but you will still not know it.
11. You speek of what's academic. Do you not realize that it all, or substancially so]] took place in Plato's academy? Why philosophy, in that regard, has always been academic. Where else indulge in it,if not in some academy? And so, philosophy is academic. But is that an essence, or merely accidental?
12. An what this about your being anti-Zoroastrianism? Nietzsche, at least, will have none of it. Do you truly deny the Philosophy of Zoroastrianism?
13. No Disambiguation please. We need an English language Wikipedia general article on Philosophy - with appropriate LINKS to all the articles where the word is prefaced by an adjective - if there be French Philosophy, so be it!.
14. But there's no better way than to begin than with the beginning, where it all began, in history, in ancient Greece, and in the West, in spite of the existence of Eastern philosophy.
15. So I have no choice, but to REVERT - at least until a better Wikipedia User/writer than I, or YOU, comes along, to improve the INTRODUCTION!!! Ludvikus 15:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So I've reverted back. Please be clear about my objection. Others have voiced it: it is that your introduction is overlong and long-winded. Moreover, it addresses the one issue about the characterisation of philosophy that nearly all professional philosophers agree is irrelevant: its etymology. Nigel Warburton (English professor of philosophy who was a student of mine way back) says says the etymology is "not much help" (Philosophy: the basics). None of the other introductions I have looked at give it much time, and rightly so. But you insist on long and tedious rambling about the etymology. So I deleted it. All modern introductions to the subject insist that the method of philosophy is rational enquiry (or something similar). Why do you omit it? Dbuckner 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You also haven't answered my question about your qualifications. Dbuckner 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think discussing qualifications will be helpful. (Relevant, possibly, but helpful--I doubt it.) I do continue to support an intro. that is relatively short and that begins by assuming the reader wants to know what the subject is, not what it isn't. An early emphasis on the etymology is of questionable value, but I don't object to it. However, phil. has changed over the course of, what, 2800 years? To me, it's an academic subject that, in the West, is largely defined by the three major areas in which introductory college phil. courses are now given--logic, metaphysics/epistemology, and ethics (broadly construed), plus possibly the hist. of phil. as its own subject. At the introductory level, that's what philosophers teach and talk about. At some point it must be mentioned that it's the wellspring of science, that there are Eastern traditions that are important, and so on. I would probably make the East vs. West distinction early and the anal./cont. distinction much later. But, please, everyone, let's do as is done with essentially every other entry on an academic pursuit, and start with "X is..."! JJL 16:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly not helpful, but it is painful to have gone through 5 years of higher degree, taught the subject, have many publications in good journals, then suffer this. On what philosophy is not, that is negotiable, though it is recognised that there are many misconceptions about what philosophy is, and many introductions to the subject start for that reason by saying what it isn't. On the branches of philosophy, I agree, and that can go in, if brief. But the main problem here is a user who is blatantly reverting to long rambling personal essays and refuses to discuss the matter except by long irrelavant and off-topic rants. I frankly don't know how to deal with this. Dbuckner 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The rest of your remarks are all very interesting, but practically unverifiable. Can I recommend the page WP:OR. "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."". Every phrase I used in my introduction can be sourced to 'reliable sources'. Your contributions appear to be OR. Dbuckner 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

3d reversion

OK I am reverting for the third time, which takes me to a territory I've never been before after nearly 4 years as regular editor in WP philosophy. The case here is blatant and persistent OR by a problem user. Can anyone help? Dbuckner 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're careless here, I hope, and not a Vandal. It is User:JJL who has submitted the compromise Introduction which you believe - I hope merely CARELESSLY - was me. But it was not. So it is your FIRST REVERSION of the work of User:JJL. I therefore have, just now, merely corrected what I believe was your sloppiness. --Ludvikus 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was being careless. You win. It's all yours. Dbuckner 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Graceful of you to acknowledge & concede. Good man. It's appreciated. Best wishes, --Ludvikus 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant, I give up! The problem now is that the current introduction is not consistent with modern introductions to the subject. Very few of them mention the etymology, and some say the etymology is confusing. All without exception mention the canons of rationality bit, and this says nothing. And there is still the rambling bit you are so proud of after the introduction, and there will be lots more to come. So I concede, in the sense of, it's a lost cause. But it ever was so in Wikipedia. Back to Citizendium, where expert qualifications are welcomed. Dbuckner 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge, Being, and Conduct

Moving forward, I suggest the three words/concepts be in that order in the opening paragraph.

Was not the first question, among the Ancients this: What is it to know?

And the 2nd, If to Know is to be able to answer What is?

The 3rd being, what is it To Do the Right Thing?

Yours truly,--Ludvikus 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Now why don't we take advantage of our philosophically wonderous Anglo-Saxon tongue.

I recommend the following parenthetical qualifications;

Knowledge (What is it To Know?)?
Existence (What is it to Be??, or briefl-ierWhat Is?)?
Conduct (What is Doing the Right Thing?)?
- Yes, there's a double question issue here!

Yours truly --Ludvikus 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Existence vs. Being

I recommend replacing the former for the latter.

Think of Being and Nothingness - Sartre

Think of Being and Time - Heidegger

But also because of Anglo-Saxon elegence, and Shakespeare's To be, or not to be

- can you imagine Shakespeare's Hamlet saying instead, "To Exist, or not to Exis"t? Yours truly, Ludvikus 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings here, but what you suggest is in keeping with what I had previously suggested [3] which was based on a dictionary defn. As to the paraenthetical comments, I have mixed feelings...it's good to elaborate on how those three terms are used here, but it invites creep as the terms are further disambiguated. I'm not sure what's best. JJL 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding East vs. West - there is an obvious way to resolve this issue.

There is, if I may remind you, a Chinese Wikipedia, as Well as a Hindu one, so there perhaps, Buddism, and Taoism, and Zoroastrianism, may be introduced earlier.

But Hey! This is the English language Wikipedia. So Eastern stuff will come along much later. Besides, it has not had such a drastic impact on the Tradition, which is Intellectual, and by and large, so heavily Western. Also, the West was isolated from the East, until quite recently. So lets not feel guilty, and compromise Truth for the mis-guided application of some moral principles of Equity and Inclusiveness.--Ludvikus 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Combining forms: Philo- & -sophy

Let's be precise. The above are not words, but combining forms, given to us by the science of linguistics.

And let's take advantage of the POWER of Wikipedia. By merely linking we have all these instantly defined.

So the opening paragraph needs correction: the word, philosophy, with the aid given to us moderns by the science of linguistics we are able to analyze our word into its two combining forms. --Ludvikus 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's MW, Collegiate, 10th ed.:

 phil- or philo- combining form
 [ME, fr. OF, fr. L, fr. Gk, fr. philos dear, friendly]
 : loving : having an affinity for <philoprogenitive>
 (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

 -sophy noun combining form
 [ME -sophie, fr. OF, fr. L -sophia, fr. Gk, fr. sophia wisdom, fr. sophos]
 : knowledge : wisdom : science <anthroposophy>
 (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's accurate as stated. It ultimately comes from the words philos and sophia/sophos. The term philosophoi already existed at the time of the Greeks, apparently, so, I think it's most accurate to give the Greek words rather than the Greek-based but truly English combining forms, as if one wanted to form the English word Philowiki to mean love of Wikis. However, I don't object to the proposed change. JJL 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. Four (4) points first.

(1) In English, philo- and -sophy are not words, but are combining forms.

(2) The transliteration, into the English language from the ancient Greek of the closest word of the first combing form is philia, which means friendship. Eros is the other word more closely related, perhaps, to our modern/English/Western love.

I guess I'd like to know, for certain, what two (2) words, in ancient Greek, our two (2) combining forms correspond to.

(3) I do not know that philos is the transliteration of the/a Greek Word.

(4) Similarly, I question what sophos sophia are exactly.

I am particularly concerned because of lack of help from Oxford Classical Dictionary (1996) ISBN 0-19-866172-X. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(5) sophos and/or sophia do translate - in both directions - as wisdom.

So what's the difference between these two Greek forms? Ludvikus 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(6) sophia, says William L. Reese in his Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, (1980), ISBN O 85527 147 7, is WISDOM. --Ludvikus 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

metaphysics = What is? (is that an accurate translation of the questions posed by the "holy trinity" of philosophy, SPA [Socrates, Plato, & Aritotle)??? --Ludvikus 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom Related

It seems that of the two sources of the above combining forms, wisdom is easier to pin down than love. And in that light, lets consider the following translations:

1: Quest for Wisdom = Philosophy

2: Affinity for Wisdom = Philosophy

3: Seeking Wisdom = Philosophy

4: Love of Wisdom = philosophy

Question: Is only the last correct???

Yours, etc., Ludvikus 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The five competing version of Introduction

I find the current introduction poorer than any of the five competing introductions (A-D given below). All five had been included here on the talk page for commentary by editors as of the 29th December. I now find that it has been suddenly archived and that one intro (D) of Ludvikus has been inserted by him the actual article and the article page locked. It was the only entry however, that seemed to have no support, in fact had a long criticism given of it.

23.1 (A) Philosophy as Analysis and Investigation

23.3 (B) Philosophy as hard to define

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

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

23.9 (E) Philosophy originally - a la Edward Zeller

The current intro I would not even honour by that name, it introduces about as little as anyone who barely knows the word would know, and even lies to them. Philosophy is not only a Western intellectual tradition nor does it concern only rational inquiry. This is an 18th century European definition.

Also it cannot be said to be literally love of wisdom. Only etymologically and not literally is it that, but also etymologically it can mean the wisdom of love.

I will again include the five competing intros below here in this talk page with all the comments already garnered on them. We can then look to choosing one of them. --Lucas

^ See the article Definition of philosophy for the sources of this definition of philosophy
^ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996, ISBN 0-87779-708-0
^ Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angeles, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1981), ISBN 0-06-463461-2
^ Grolier Encyclopedia, (New York, Toronto: The Grolier Society, Inc., 1957)
^ New Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica (Twentieth Century Edition), (New Yotk; Akron, OH; Chicago: The Saalfield Publishing Company, 1904)

[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)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]