Talk:Philosophy/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

details about today thomas' fortune?

I do not see how these lines fit into a general page, in which every period of thought is sketched in a few lines. Does the author of these lines think that Thomas should be given more importance than Aristotle or Descartes (just to name a couple)? Why citing these contemporary sources? Wasn't Thomas influencial - let's say - in the XIXth Century? Looks like a bias towards contemporary philosophy:

"Many modern ethicists both within and outside the Catholic Church (notably Philippa Foot and Alasdair MacIntyre) have recently commented on Aquinas's virtue ethics as a way of avoiding utilitarianism or Kantian "sense of duty" (deontology). Through the work of 20th-century philosophers such as Elizabeth Anscombe, his principle of double effect and his theory of intentional activity generally have been influential. Cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher Walter Freeman proposes that Thomism is the system explaining cognition that is most compatible with neurodynamics, in a 2008 article in the journal Mind and Matter entitled "Nonlinear Brain Dynamics and Intention According to Aquinas." The influence of Aquinas's aesthetics also can be found in the works of the Italian semiotician Umberto Eco." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.200.0 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The scholastics dominated philosophy for a considerable period of time and the contemporary rediscovery of that tradition (stripped of religion) is notable, especially in contrast to the analytic tradition. I think that material is fine, and we could do with beefing up the pragmatics as they are increasingly coming into play with philosophers using complex adaptive systems theory and cognitive science. --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-balancing of the Major philosophers of the 20th C list

Would like to check what the justification is of this edit: [1]. The edit summary mentions a "standard WP source". I am a reasonably experienced editor but what does that mean actually?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea and I've reverted it, no justification for deletions --Snowded ^TALK 05:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've explained the justification in the edits. The list purports to cover the major philosophers of the 20th century. Several of the entries are appropriately sourced (by "standard WP sources" I am referring to [WP:PSTS], in particular secondary and tertiary scholarly sources on philosophy). For example, the source for including Heidegger is a well-respected academic reference work on the history of philosophy, which unambiguously claims he is the most influential philosopher of the previous century. The entries for Derrida, Popper, and Rawls were all poorly sourced by comparison: the Popper source never says he is a major philosopher period, but limits his importance to a subdiscipline, the philosophy of science. Likewise the Rawls source. The Derrida source is really poor: it's a book of interviews with a deconstructivist literary critic -- no authority on philosophy at all. If we are to avoid wrangling or an over-long laundry list, this list needs a strict standard of reliable secondary or tertiary sources that clearly say the philosophers on it are figures whose influence extends over the entire field of philosophy -- figures comparable to figures mentioned in the other historical sections. I'm not opposed to Popper, Rawls, Derrida, or whomever being on the list, but they would need sources comparable to the ones provided for the other figures on the list. (I expanded the Russell cite to show just such sourced support. 271828182 (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Russell entry was excessive for a list of this nature. Neither do I think it is necessary for someone's influence to extend over the entire field of philosophy to be in it. Some discussion on criterial then agreement on the list is a way forward, your imposing your views without gaining agreement here first is not.--Snowded ^TALK 03:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed edit is problematic.

• The extension of the Russell entry is simple not fitting the short list format, as Snowded said.
• I am not a proponent of any of the removed philosophers, but they are clearly very well known. If we do not yet have good sourcing on that obvious fact then please get better sourcing. Do not just delete. The most important WP:RULE on Wikipedia is that any edit which makes an article worse is a bad edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are begging the question, which is whether the edit actually does make the article worse. I have laid out the case that including Popper, Rawls, and Derrida with the current citations is making the article worse, by adding poorly sourced material to the encyclopedia. I'm not "imposing" my views any more than the editors who put Popper, Rawls, and Derrida on the list did. Unlike them, I am sticking to a pillar of WP policy, namely, that edits must be verifiable. A list of major philosophers of the 20th century needs to be figures whose influence can be verified to extend over the entire field, or else you will beget tiresome and recurring debates over marginal figures with vocal advocates (including, as we've already seen, Rand, but also myriad less-clear-cut cases -- I am not entirely comfortable about Kripke, but there is a source). The extension of the Russell entry is trivial, since it is in a footnote and invisible to the casual reader. Can we agree that the Popper, Rawls, and Derrida sources do not match the sourcing for the other philosophers on the list? If we can, then the only question is whether major philosophers have to be influential over the whole field -- and I've laid out my rationale for that here. Any objections? 271828182 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rand is a red (sic) herring here, no one is going to be able to show that she is a major philosopher. I completely disagree that criteria for inclusion should be influence over the entire field. Popper made significant contributions to Philosophy of Science and has a world wide reputation as such, criteria which include philosophers of that nature (although personally I wish Wittgenstein had used the poker) won't work. We can agree that they should be listed in the major directories/encyclopedias and that their influence should extend to the point where they are discussed in any significant history of the subject. I'd agree that Kripke is marginal, Popper, Rawls & Derrida are not. Its about time we reviewed this though so thanks for bringing it up. Lets agree the criterial then create a list --Snowded ^TALK 02:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Rand is a red herring, as we've already had more one serious attempt at including her. And if you allow "significant contributions" to a particular subdiscipline of philosophy to be your criterion (as your justification of Popper does), then you know the Randroids will trawl for a source saying she has influenced political philosophy. And as Nozick has acknowledged her influence, it's not something you should dismiss. More likely, though, is that this list will become very long and unwieldy: Putnam, Davidson, Dummett, Austin, Ayer, Ryle, Moore, Strawson, Berlin, Anscombe, Williams, Parfit, Sellars, Rorty, Dennett, Nozick, Fodor, Searle, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Deleuze, Habermas, Gadamer, Blumenberg, Apel, Honneth, Ricoeur, Singer, Chomsky, Strauss, Adorno, Benjamin, Lukacs, Husserl, Macintyre, Taylor, Chisholm, McGinn, etc., etc. We can avoid this only if we can agree on a fairly high bar. 271828182 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We see the odd Randinista attempt but I wouldn't say they were serious given the lack of any significant citation support - what there is is very very narrow. Nozick acknowledged her influence but also was not particularly complimentary about her as a philosopher. I agree we should set a highbar, I just don't think its based on having an influence on all fields - what counts there anyway? Russell would be out. Impressive list and some I think should be included, Husserl & Deleuze for example and the pragmatics deserve a mention. Others such as the Churchland and Andy Clark will I think be there in the future but not now. I think we should go to the major histories (Kenny's for example) and get the base list from there --Snowded ^TALK 02:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with the points 271828182 has made, and I am going to restore his changes to the article. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

and reverted, WP:BRD applies DISCUSS --Snowded ^TALK 04:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I have written the vast majority of the WP article on Deleuze, I would not put him on any short list of major philosophers of the 20th century. In any case, I am glad we agree that a high bar of notability is needed for this short list. My multiple quotes from the SEP article were intended to establish Russell's importance and broad influence on 20th C phil. Can we agree that Popper, Rawls, and (especially) Derrida, as currently sourced, do not meet what intuitions we have of that high bar? 271828182 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But do you really think they are not "major philosophers" at least by some criteria? (Personally I do not think the philosophy as such of Rawls or Popper will be remembered as very good philosophy as such, but it was nevertheless influential and widely read in the 20th century.) But your real concern appears to be only a formal sourcing concern? Within reason we can and should raise such concerns but we also should always remember not to do edits which make the encyclopedia worse, or which are obviously in conflict with a consensus building approach. Lots of things on WP need better sourcing and we are all supposed to be working together to get such things. If everyone simply deleted everything they found which was imperfect on WP then WP would cease to function. Unless you seriously doubt that these were "major" philosophers, then instead of deleting, please try to help find good sourcing, or if you have no time perhaps place notes on talk pages or carefully use tags, in order to bring the problem to the attention of others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Popper is more likely to be remembered than Russell to be honest. We need to sort out the criteria and a long list then look for sources (I agree with everything Andrew says here). What do you think of my idea of using Kenny's history as an initial source? Its the most recent --Snowded ^TALK 12:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give details of what work Kenny is and which list this would imply? BTW I agree Popper will "be remembered" just not sure how. I worded myself carefully on that point. :D --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing Snowded is referring to Kenny's 4 volume New History of Philosophy from OUP. It's a reasonable source, though written by only one expert. Mr. Lancaster, my point is that the label "major philosopher" is simply too vague. By that nebulous standard, you could generate a very long list like the one I supplied above, with attendant problems over dubious sources such as the current Ronell cite. So I am proposing we tighten the standard to "philosophers who broadly influenced the overall course of 20th century philosophy" and insist on verifiable sourcing. I have looked for better sourcing on the current list -- most of the current sources are from my edits. I have yet to find sourcing for Popper, Rawls, or Derrida comparable to the other cites on the list. The anonymous editor who threw on Derrida with a really poor source, however, was the last straw, and prompted me to take action, lest the creeping chaos I describe above progress any further. 271828182 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is going to be a compromise, no doubt about it, if there is going to be such a list. But let's try it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What's essential is to provide verifiable sources. And unless we want an unmanageable, noise-generating list, we need sources that say the people on the list are broadly influential over philosophy in the previous century. Are we agreed that the current sourcing on Popper, Rawls, and Derrida do not meet the sourcing on the other figures? 271828182 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are agree with the way you are trying to conduct the discussion. Lets agree the criteria, sort a list then make sure we have all the sources aligned--Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's your proposal? So far you have merely defended the status quo ante (the overly vague criteria of "major" or "well-known"), which is unworkable for the reasons I've laid out, and as the Derrida edit is bearing out. (Kenny, by the by, is not a very useful source for this list, since (1) his account begins in 1830 and ends in 1975, (2) he makes very few judgments of who is major and who isn't (I found nothing comparable to the quotes we currently have), and (3) it won't do simply to include the figures he discusses at length, since in some cases his appraisal of those personages is sharply critical (Kenny all but calls Derrida a fraud).) I've asked a straightforward, relevant question about the quality of the Popper/Rawls/Derrida sourcing twice now, and you haven't answered it. You're the one blocking the edits for discussion, but you're not discussing the issue, just disagreeing. I've discussed the issue at some length now, giving reasons why the status quo isn't viable, and proposing a way out. What more must be done before we get to improving the article? 271828182 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the Kenny idea then come up with another suggestion. That said you are plain wrong in your statement about dates, there are FOUR volumes to the series. Yes he covers Western only so we need other sources for non Western but I think those he names provide a useful long list. There is also an argument that calling someone "major" in the last half century is questionable in terms of their lasting influence. We need a source, or a number of sources that describe the field as a whole. You can't just go (for example) with a Derrida supporter who defines him as a major philosopher in a book not matter how notable. You are not discussing the issue and proposing a way out, you are simply reasserting your original position. Please engage and stop edit warring. I have templated you talk page, and next time you revert I will make a 3rr report, a slow edit war is as bad as one that takes place in 24 hours. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made my suggestion: the list should be limited to philosophers of the 20th century identified in sources as influential over the whole of philosophy. The ones on the list already so sourced are fine. Justifying the inclusion of Derrida via an interview with Avital Ronnell is the sort of edit that gives Wikipedia a bad name. The dates for the Kenny were for the relevant volume of Kenny's history (the fourth). That you have reacted so violently to a request for better sourcing betrays that you are the one pursuing an edit war, not me. I'm acting following WP policies. I engaged you and Lancaster in discussion; as I said in my last response, I've given reasons, you've given no justification for your edits, beyond that you don't like it. Your melodramatic templating of my talk page is childish. 271828182 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not have Kenny, so could someone at least post who he lists? That at least gives us something to talk about. Snowded keep in mind that 271828182 is mainly complaining about the list being un-sourced. So putting aside the question of whether such a listing is going to be read as just an arbitrary selection, just an editors choice, or if it is going to be read as some kind of definitive list, something needing sourcing, at least if we have a list with a source then either we have a solution or we have a better problem definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have Kenny and Copleston but I'm in Seattle at the moment, will try and pick up when I get home at the weekend. Yes I do realise his point on sourcing, my point is that you need a comparative source (like Kenny) not just isolated sources for each name. --Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your logic. It is the list itself being sourced, if anything. The other approach is to say that making a list is like deciding what sentences to put in what sequence, just an editorial decision and not OR or SYNTH. I tend to think this way as it happens, because I do not think the list is currently being presented as anything definitive. But OTOH, certainly the skewed list 271828182 has created a few times would need sourcing, and not just for one entry, because it is clearly taking a strong and controversial position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking around the internet the main type of source I find is of course undergrad level, and especially things like course reading lists. This is not normally an ideal type of reliable source, but in a way maybe appropriate for a small point like who to put in a non-definitive listing, with main aim of just getting it roughly right. By the way, looking around makes me keep coming back to some names I guess could be considered:

• Dewey
• Sartre
• Husserl
• Rorty

Please consider.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree on Dewey and Sartre, possible Husserl but Rorty is too recent I think, and its not clear if his reputation will survive --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But that is the inherent problem of writing in 2010 about this. I think we could say the same about a lot of these writers. BTW, they don't get mentioned much in English literature but Gadamer and Habermas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I wonder if a 1975 cut off is not a bad idea. I don't think there is anyway Gadamer would make it as he is really understood in the context of Habermas and Heidegger, and I must admit that I have always seen Habermas as a sociologist before he is a philosopher (but realise that is my opinion) --Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the problem, we can opine all we want. So I won't argue but just say that I don't totally agree. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see Anglo-Saxon and continental philosophers separated because they represent separate traditions with little interaction. We should use a single source for the list, e.g., Stumpf's intro philophy textbook.[2] In the current list, Wittgenstein, Russell and Quine are mentioned, but not Moore, Ayer or Ryle. Heidegger is mentioned, but not Husserl or Sartre. Other writers listed, while well-known, may derive their reputation from their influence in other subjects or narrow topics of philosophy, or their popularity as public intellectuals. But why have the section at all? We do not have lists for any other period. TFD (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea, if noteworthy then in the narrative --Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If the question being discussed is "do we need a list?" my answer would be no. But I have to admit that it is the kind of thing readers, as opposed to use editors actually interested in philosophy, might like. However if we can not agree on one, then better not to have one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Each of the historical sections identifies some major philosophers by name. I find it unlikely that you will find a reliable source that gives a list identified in this way. Copleston is worthless for this purpose, since (except for his ninth volume) he doesn't discuss figures from the 20th century. Brian Leiter's informal poll on his philosophy blog [3] is probably as reflective of expert opinion as what sources you will find (though this poll covers the last 200 years): the top 10 from the 20th C are Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine, Kripke, Carnap, Rawls, David Lewis, Moore, Davidson, and Heidegger. 271828182 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone who started this tread by insisting on sources suggesting a blog as one seems a little dubious. You got Kenny completely wrong but have not had the decency to admit the error. Copleston might not be a source for the late 20th but he is at least a valid source for a pretty long period of history. Your posts continue not to engage just assert a position and/or dismiss with varying degrees of accuracy other suggestions on how to move forward. If we ignore for the moment the "271828182 knows best" solution we have two ideas on the table. The first is simply to get rid of the list, the second is to create a long list from a history and work from there. Shall we determine those questions first before we start debating the merit of individual names --Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll notice I was not offering Leiter's list as a serious source, merely noting that it's likely to be comparable to cribbing a list from some poorly peer-reviewed intro textbook written for undergrads. (As someone who teaches philosophy at that level, I know what I'm talking about.) As I pointed out in my previous edit (which you seem to have missed: [4]), your accusation that I am "getting Kenny wrong" is rubbish -- I was referring to the relevant volume of his history, volume 4 -- which I actually have (all four volumes) on my shelf, whereas you, by your own admission, don't have it near you. Copleston -- which you would know if you actually read or remembered it -- explicitly stops before the 20th century, making an exception for Bertrand Russell for his volume 8, and then forging ahead with French philosophers through around 1970 in his ninth volume. I'm basing what I'm talking about on sources, whereas you waste time with baseless personal insults, and act (as you usually do) as if you WP:OWN this article. You still haven't answered the simple question (I've asked it twice, you've dodged it both times) which is at the crux of my edits: do the sources given for Popper, Rawls, and (especially) Derrida meet WP:V? Especially compared to the existing sources for the existing names? This is a WP policy question, not "271828182 knows best". 271828182 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Its rather difficult to have access to one's books when one is in Seattle giving a series of lectures (as I pointed out). I am also very sorry but whether you teach philosophy or not has no relevance to your status here and neither does your opinion as to the value of otherwise of Kenny. In Wikipedia terms his work has more status than you or that web site. I have made several attempts now to get a process agreed to settle this and each time you have fallen back to the "crux" of your original edits rather than engage. Coupled with your edit warring I am not impressed. One interesting note however is your "as you usually do" comment. As far as I know we have never encountered each other before. Does this mean you have previously edited under another name? --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Though you may not pay attention, I have been editing and contributing to this article for several years now, all under this account: look at my contribs if you doubt it. You aren't discussing, just offering more personal attacks and strawmen -- again, I wasn't seriously proposing Leiter's poll as a source, and I'm evidently more familiar with the Kenny than you are, having actually read it and pointed out (already) why it won't help us as a source. I notice you have dodged my simple question a third time. The crux of my original edits is an attempt to follow WP:V. You may not be impressed, but who cares? You don't WP:OWN this article, and you can't evade WP:V forever. Shall we take this to a noticeboard? Please, you seem to be eager to pursue such actions, why don't you? I really don't want to quarrel with you: it's a waste of time. 271828182 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Shame on me, I should have realised that as you you teach philosophy and have read and understood any or all books better than the other ordinary mortals who have the temerity to edit here you have special privileges. That inherent superiority means that you were not edit warring, just generously correcting the self-evident errors of the amateurs who are otherwise wasting your time. It also means you don't have to pay attention to suggestions that (to comply with WP:V we need a source that compares philosophers rather than individual sources on individual philosophers --Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

More personal attacks in lieu of substantive discussion of the WP:V issue. Whatever. I'm moving on. 271828182 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving on sounds a good idea, however I have been trying to engage you in a discussion of the WP:V issue on the list as a whole without success. You want to only discuss it on a case by case basis which to my view is flawed, as it will lead to a list which is longer than the article itself. Your response has been accusations of WP:OWN and WP:V evasion. You might want to look to your own behaviour when it comes to personal attacks. --Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem of a list longer than the article itself is not caused by case-by-case sourcing, it's caused by having a too vague standard of what constitutes a major philosopher of the century (as I pointed out nearly a week ago [5] and subsequent discussion here has borne out). If we can agree on a strict standard (no sub-disciplines or sub-periods, only reliably sourced claims that state the philosopher in question is one of the most important or influential on philosophy as a whole, or one of the most important or influential philosophers of the century period), then the list will likely remain a manageable size. I don't think you're going to find a reliable source that gives a list of the most important -- as I said before, the Leiter straw poll is the sort of thing you're likely to find (and that's probably not going to fly as a reliable source). 271828182 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So do either of you have a practical proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same one I've been offering all along: limit the list to those for whom we can find reliable sources verifying that they are the most important or most influential philosophers (tout court, not just in a subdiscipline) in the time period. See below. 271828182 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against having a list, or getting rid of it. Just to point to the obvious:

1. Unless we can find definitive lists in reliable sources we are stuck with piecemeal sourcing and we'll need flexibility and understanding, or else maybe we have to get rid of it.

2. OTOH, even if we find reliably sourced lists they are also unlikely to agree. We need to be either "inclusionist" and go for a big list or else stick to an elite small number. The latter is almost impossible to imagine working in practice, because people will never agree.

So I think we have to be fairly inclusionist. I do not think much of Popper, and I am amongst those who tends to distinguish logicians as being clever but NOT philosophers, so I would for example end up with quite a different list than others if I were to insist on my own ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You (and Snowded) seem to be rushing to an "all-or-nothing" false dilemma. My proposal -- which you and Snowded have yet to give any clear objection to -- is to limit the list to those for whom we can find reliable sources verifying that they are the most important or most influential philosophers (tout court, not just in a subdiscipline) in the time period. As we already have excellent sources for many of the names on list, this is not "almost impossible to imagine working in practice". As I've been saying all along, if we can find comparable sources saying similar things about Popper, Rawls, Derrida, whomever, that's great. I don't have a partisan interest about particular philosophers, I have an interest in keeping this article well-verified, which the anonymous Derrida edit clearly violates. Can we follow WP policy? 271828182 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)We have two options, get rid of the list or find a source or sources that cover the periods (if we are doing this lets do it for all) as whole rather than works on the individual philosophers. I am comfortable with either and open to other ideas. I think deleting the list has some advantages, then its a debate as to what is in the narrative. --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

271828182 I disagree with your description. You seem to be pushing us towards an all or nothing dilemma. You just removed Derrida again. But why? If anything I would put him the core of least controversial proposals apart from Heidegger. (There is an opinion that Heidegger or perhaps Heidegger and Husserl, were the only real philsophers in the 20th century.) Like I said above if we have no good source for a list as such then as editors we should try to flexible and use our knowledge and whatever sources we have. See WP:CK. Derrida did not have no sourcing, and yet you deleted him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary philosophers list

So, after a decided lack of discussion for the past few days, let us recap the results of the above sourcing discussion:

• Husserl: "one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century" (SEP); "arguably one of the most important and influential philosophers of the twentieth century" (IEP)
• Russell: "generally recognized as one of the founders of modern analytic philosophy. [...] he is regularly credited with being one of the most important logicians of the twentieth century" (SEP)
• Wittgenstein: "More than any other analytic philosopher, [Wittgenstein] has changed the thinking of a whole generation" (Stroll)
• Heidegger: "by a wide margin the single most influential philosopher of the twentieth century" (Cambridge History of Philosophy)
• Carnap: "one of the major philosophers of the twentieth century" (IEP)
• Sartre: "arguably the best known philosopher of the twentieth century" (SEP)
• Quine: "without question, the most influential American philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century" (Baldwin); "extremely influential and has done much to shape the course of philosophy in the second-half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first" (SEP)
• Derrida: "one of the most well known twentieth century philosophers" (IEP)
• Habermas: "currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world" (SEP)
• Kripke: "fundamentally changed the way in which much philosophy is done" (Soames)

I suspect I can come up with even stronger quotes for Wittgenstein and Quine if needed. All of the above are general and comparable, and not limited in scope to a particular subfield (say, philosophy of mind). Limiting the ranks to the deceased may be desirable: that would exclude Peter Singer, Kripke, and Habermas. Also, I forgot David Lewis, who, besides being dead, has a very strong claim from his SEP article:

• Lewis: "one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century." (SEP)

Is there more to discuss? Fundamentally, this is an issue about sources, and this discussion has fruitfully improved the sourcing for this section. 271828182 (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think adding is less controversial than deleting, so I suggest all of the above should be in but not deleting anyone. Your basic list is also ok to me, but not preferable. I think it will be less stable: If we really want to get to a smaller list then we could debate for ever (for example, I think most people do not agree Kripke makes such a short list, and most people seem to think Popper and Rawls should be in).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the list has exactly ten members. Could one say that Russell was more influential in philosophy than Frege, Moore, Ayer, Ryle and Lewis. Why is Dewey omitted? TFD (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

TFD, see the discussions about these philosophers above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Moore is rejected because he was only "one of the most influential British philosophers of the twentieth century". Ayer is rejected because he was not even nominated. Russell wasn't nominated but makes the list anyway. TFD (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Concerning Russell, he was discussed and no one ever had an objection. See the reply to you above by 271828182.
• Concerning Ayer, yes, no one nominated him. Did you wish to propose him?
• Concerning Moore, yes that was the only objection given so far, but also no one really argued the case for including him either. So again, did you wish to make the case?

I do not think anyone has a magic solution here. We above to be practical and flexible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The number ten was not intentional on my part. My current suggestion is nine (to omit the still living and to add Lewis). Russell would be very hard to omit: cf. the SEP entry on Ayer: "Nevertheless, amongst British philosophers of the 20th Century he has been ranked as second only to Russell (by John Foster, in A.J. Ayer)". Popper and Rawls still suffer from a lack of appropriate sourcing: if we include them as "one of the most important philosophers of science" and "one of the most important political philosophers", then we have at least a dozen more candidates who are "most important in philosophy of X", such as Kuhn, Nozick, Feyerabend, Fodor, Hick, et al. So unless we find comparable sourcing, consistency dictates they not be included. We've discussed this for weeks now, but the bottom line about sourcing hasn't changed. 271828182 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no one suggest that the number ten or any other number is important. In any case I was not considering any number important. Really, I do not have a big preference between any of the options likely to be agreeable to anyone else. The main thing is that there is no point trying to force a solution and then being reverted by Snowded again. If you want to try to define a narrow list rather than a broad list, then I'd suggest proposing one without Kripke and keeping Popper? But of course I am suggesting this only as the basis of something that is more likely that others will accept. I can not make a consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I should think the main thing is WP:V, and simple consistency. If anyone has an objection to the set {Husserl, Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Carnap, Sartre, Quine, Derrida, and Lewis}, let's hear some objection based on WP policy or principle. 271828182 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What if there are several proposals which have an equally strong or weak case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming late to this, I am surprised by some of the candidates discussed above, but the final list doesn't seem unreasonable if we must have a list (and I concur with most of Snowded's reasons for not having one). The persistent inclusion of Habermas does surprise me, though, as much of his work is on the periphery of sociology and philosophy. Has anyone taken a look at Adorno? He would seem a much more obvious candidate than Habermas. Interesting that Sartre seems such an automatic addition to the list, as his technical philosophical work is no longer influential at all.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again (SEP on Adorno: "Theodor W. Adorno was one of the most important philosophers and social critics in Germany after World War II. Although less well known among anglophone philosophers than his contemporary Hans-Georg Gadamer, Adorno had even greater influence on scholars and intellectuals in postwar Germany. In the 1960s he was the most prominent challenger to both Sir Karl Popper's philosophy of science and Martin Heidegger's philosophy of existence. Jürgen Habermas, Germany's foremost social philosopher after 1970, was Adorno's student and assistant.")KD Tries Again (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KDTA, I do not think anyone has strongly argued for the principle of having a list. It is the current practical solution. What keeps happening instead is that people arrive in the discussion and start writing as if there there are people who are arguing that there must be a list, or even that the list has to have 10 people. I guess it is sometimes easy to argue against a straw man. What has really been argued is that just deleting the list with no alternative approach is not an improvement. It would leave the section basically empty and uninformative. It is in other words always easy to say what is wrong if you do not need to propose an alternative.

Concerning Adorno and indeed Gadamer, I did raise them for discussion before and found no-one was strongly supporting them. The quotations you give make Adorno important on a German level but do not specify a broader importance. As has been pointed out, if we allow this strength of statement it appears the list may become quite large, for example 20 or more. I myself see no enormous problem with a list that large, but my reading of the other people in the discussion is that they would prefer smaller.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest anyone argued for the principle of having a list, but merely agreed with the arguments for not having one (the point may have been made already, but once the list exists, it will forever be amended by future editors and with much less care and attention - lists are easier to revise than text). Also, I haven't done a broad search to support Adorno - just threw a quote out there. I wondered if anyone had done such a search, because I am surprised to see Habermas on the list rather than Adorno. You see, the part of this process which doesn't depend on sources is the decision being made by editors here about which philosophers should considered for the list at all.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Just to make sure it is clear, I have no problem with someone raising Adorno as a possibility, and I have no problem with trying to avoid a list format. BUT, a list format will still require decisions about who to mention, and, LOL, what order they should be in. (If you look at the editing history on the article the order the people should be in seems important to some people.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't much time to take part in discussion here, but I'd like to note that I strongly support 271828182's case for excluding Popper and Rawls. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Contemporary" Philosophy: Alternative Suggestion

Since I was more or less challenged to propose an alternative to a list, here it is. Describing philosophy of the turn of the 19th/20th centuries (Russell, Husserl) as "contemporary" is indefensible. Re-label that section "20th Century Philosophy" and have a short, properly written description of the main themes, just as we do for the earlier periods. Then create a new section, "Contemporary Philosophy," even shorter, just mentioning some of the important figures currently working and the main themes of their work. That will be out-of-date in five years, of course, but that's the least of Wikipedia's problems. More informative than a list, I'd suggest, and less open to abuse. This is not intended to stymie ongoing discussion of the list, if editors really prefer that approach.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Good idea ... --Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, one could comfortably include figures like Dennett and Singer in a contemporary section, thus informing readers, without attempting to judge their historic importance.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thanks for your post KDTA! I also proposed a section for more recent "21st century" philosophers, so agree on your proposal. But if I understand correctly this proposal would still mention some individuals? So if someone wants to disagree about which individuals, which was the main debate above, they still can. We can, I think, never fully escape the need to make some editorial decisions like that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We have subsections for pragmatism, phenomonology, existentialism, stucturalism and post structuralism, and the analytic tradition. TFD (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and those sub-sections absolutely dominate the "main theories" section, as if philosophy mainly happened in the early 20th century. Maybe we should re-name the main theories section to "20th Century Philosophy" (late 19th and early 20th century)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning this idea to change the categories, I think it has to be considered whether dividing into centuries is working at all for the recent ones. The early 19th century is, in my view, the end of the main period of modernity. The late 19th century and early 20th century are the big period of doubt and breaking into sub-disciplines. The post war period has been a bit hard to categorize.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an interesting variant and probably a better approach than using Centuries per se. The early 19th would fit well with post-modern leaving us with a Victorian/Edwardian period (which needs a name) which goes up to the 1930s. We really do need to reach agreement on this before the main space is edited however. I see that not only has the change been made, but the odd insertion and deletion has taken place on names prior to agreement here. So I'm sorry but I have reverted. --Snowded ^TALK 10:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, just on procedure, I think you should allow that edit or something like it to stand while we discuss further adjustments. It was not making very big changes, only ones which seem to have been able to get pretty fast consensus here? (Consensus is always a little hard to define, but such quick agreements from several editors are actually relatively rare on WP. If you wait for more you risk waiting for a long time?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would probably have let it stand, if it was not for the changes to the list which were added in without agreement above. If you want to reinstate the changes to the sections but not the names I'm happy with that. That said, on procedure, its always best when there is active discussion to wait for agreement on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So: who disagrees with Husserl, Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Carnap, Sartre, Quine, Derrida, Lewis? I asked before and no one actually gave any specific objection to any of the names. 271828182 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the discussion above, along with the fact that some of us are still unhappy with the criteria for inclusion. I note you are reverting your to changes without discussion (WP:BRD does apply to you in case you hadn't realised). Trying to be reasonable I have left as much as possible intact, but have reinstated some material which was removed and also deleted an opinion (abandoning epistemological approaches for example). --Snowded ^TALK 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no claim that the idealists abandoned epistemology, but it's hardly my opinion that they steered philosophy away from the original Kantian interest in knowledge. In any case, I asked for specific objections -- the discussion above is pointedly low on substantive objections to including Lewis or specific defenses of Popper (beyond subjective whims of one or two editors). The issue here is not about whether "consensus" has been reached, it's about whether the claims meet WP:V. No source makes claims about Popper comparable to the claims made about the current list. And the claims made in defense of Lewis in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are very strong. Do you dispute the sourcing? If not, then what are the grounds for your objection? 271828182 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion myself on Lewis. But 271828182 has made a clear case in terms of sources above. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain to you several times, the fact that a source says that someone is major or whatever would allow hundreds to be included. If we are to have a list its not enough simply to find one. Also, it is very clear that consensus does have to be reached. --Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also answered you each time. You've ignored those answers? Please avoid exaggerating. I realize it is only "exaggeration for the sake of clarity" but this rhetorical technique, as attractive as it is, never seems to help communication. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you check the indentation Andrew I was responding to 27182818 not to you --Snowded ^TALK 04:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hundreds"? No one has given any evidence to suggest that's remotely plausible. Even allowing for multiple encyclopedias and academic histories and a loose standard, we've yielded 20-30 candidates above. If we narrow it down by including only "major philosophers of the 20th century" (not major philosophers of X), we are at less than a dozen. This is a bogus objection. 271828182 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has done the work to check the exact number, what is clear is that for many philosophers there will be a reference which would justify their inclusion. Given the specialization of philosophy in the modern era it is likely that a major contribution will be made in one branch that over the whole field. Popper would be an example here. The proposal to exclude specialists is yours, its not been agreed by the community of editors here. Also how does one rate different forms of words? Major contribution, significant contribution etc. etc. there are many forms of words that can be used. Comparative sources are more reliable. --Snowded ^TALK 04:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the various reverts continuing between both of you, I suggest Popper and Lewis should both be included, or both be dropped. No point arguing in circles for ever?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, just to explain further, you have to accept, I think, that 271828182 has made a case in terms of the sourcing style currently being used, and it was quite some time ago. I think we can not stop someone from editing if we have no clear rationale and the discussion has effectively stopped some time back.

I vote to ADD Lewis, but not drop Popper. This is not because of my preferences, but because it seems a reasonable compromise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I will confess to being somewhat irritated by your first statement Andrew. I am simply saying that agreement has to be reached for inclusion/exclusion on the talk page before an editor makes direct changes. 271828182 is making changes without even engaging in discussion and his/her latest edit summary was false (and contained a tiresome accusation which s/he has failed to justify) - the majority were for inclusion of Popper, there was no agreement on Lewis. I have no objection to people continuing to edit but (i) they can't do it on the basis of a false claim and (ii) they have to engage in discussion if challenged. In this case the position on Popper is clear, there is no consensus to remove. In the case if Lewis I have proposed a compromise if you check the entry; if there is a similar authority in another Encyclopedia from another continent then the case is clear and its a simple request. --Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Snowded, I did not mean to irritate and also not to take sides. 271828182 could indeed also have been more engaging in previous attempts to discuss. I can see that the two of you tend not to agree and also to talk past each other bit, so my temporary proposal is to allow both Popper and Lewis. No one has really argued against Lewis, and concerning the argument for Popper, 271828182 did eventually make some points about the wording of sources which did at least make me think twice. Still, I agree there seems to be no enthusiasm for removing Popper so there seems no point arguing about that. I think in this type of situation it is often easier to add than to delete. This might cause concern that we could end up with way too many philosophers, but (a) I really don't that happening here and (b) we are already discussing further ideas below which might eventually lead to a quite new presentation anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Its very difficult to talk past someone who does not talk but merely issues statements. I've made a perfectly reasonable proposal on Lewis - find a similar statement in an European encyclopedia and I will accept. I like Lewis's work but I am not sure he is well enough known. --Snowded ^TALK 16:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would question whether it is a perfectly reasonable demand. You could be accused of moving the goals around. The sourcing we have been using is what it is, not ideal, but we have no European equivalent. If people come here with new sources, great. In the meantime what we have actually seems to be a stronger case for Lewis than for Popper. In any case we can't say we have hundreds of people for whom we have stronger or similar strength wording from the sources we have been using compared to what we have for Lewis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, yes I agree that editorial decisions will need to be made on inclusions and exclusions. I just have the feeling, from bitter experience, that a text describing the work of several philosophers and saying why the work is important will be more lastingly stable than a list. Lists seem to be there for wandering editors to revise, and especially add to, without commentary or discussion. It's hard for someone to just add their current favorite philosopher to a tightly written and referenced text.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yep. As you can see above, I tend to agree. Others also seem to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. The discussion immediately above indicates the problem. Popper is very famous beyond philosophical circles (as is Sartre). Lewis is not, but has been profoundly influential within the discipline (ditto Kripke). Different standards are at work among editors here as well as among the sources themselves. It strikes me as fruitless to trawl through publications comparing assessments by different authors with different agendas - Searle will always say Austin was incredibly major, because he is a disciple of Austin, for example. Better to face the challenge of writing about a philosopher as part of the article. I think that will help sort out who needs to be included and who doesn't.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Someone has to write something then. Do you want to try? I see Snowded is very concerned with editing before there is a clear consensus right now, so maybe try a draft here on the talk page? BTW, what do you think about the other proposals I made above?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the great diversity of current academic philosophy, a "tightly written and referenced text" would have to be disproportionately longer than the very brief paragraphs chronicling much longer spans of time. It would also lack unity, unless someone made very sweeping generalizations (in which case it might violate WP:OR, and even if it didn't, it would probably be hotly disputed by editors). While I agree that a list invites the problems you note, I think the solution is not to give up on naming major philosophers of the 20th century, but to insist on better sourcing. WP is not an essay or consensus, it is an encyclopedia of verifiable content. This whole discussion began several weeks ago when an anonymous editor added Derrida to the list, with an interview with a literary critic as a source. When I deleted Derrida, I realized, to be consistent, Popper and Rawls had to go as well. And from there the discussion has proceeded in fits and starts. But we have been able to come up with better sources for many of the names on the list. Progress has been made. It's only by sourcing claims that this article has any claim to being a legitimate source of information -- which is another reason KD's proposal would be more difficult to execute successfully than the modest list. 271828182 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion has been meaningful, even if it has also been slow and about relatively minor things. Anyway, concerning your objection above, that a text instead of a list would be very long, note my connected suggestion that a text instead of a list implies to me that we should actually also take this opportunity to change the structure:-

• instead of breaking into 1800-1900 and 1900-today, we should break into something different from exact centuries, for example, 1815 (e.g. Hegel, Waterloo)-1960 and 1960-today. We could handle very recent philosophers like Rorty and Singer in the latter section, which would be small.
• merge all or most of the "main theories" into the late 19th/ early 20th century section, however it eventually be defined, because in fact it is for the most part basically a description of that period only.

What do others think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can find sources to back up such a division, okay. But there's not much agreement among sources. Kenny, e.g., divides from 1600-1831, then 1831-1970. The Cambridge History of Philosophy opts for centuries from the seventeenth onward, except for the last volume, which covers 1870-1945. Oxford's eight volume history divides the subject into three parts: Anglophone 1750-1945; Continental 1750-present; Anglophone 1945-present. Copleston, as I noted earlier, is no help since he mostly doesn't discuss the 20th century (except in his volume on French philosophy). I don't see much reason to put a break at 1960 or more recently. 271828182 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not NOT need a source for EVERY decision like this. Please, let's be practical. Mind you, cherry picking from what you just presented 1831 and 1945 would probably suit as break points.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that rather than argue over sub-periodization of contemporary philosophy, the prose just flow continuously from one period into the next? Of course I guess that brings us back to the question of delimiting the end of the Modern period and the beginning of the "contemporary" period. I think everyone can agree Kant is one major prominent breaking point (most "Modern Philosophy" history courses I've seen end with Kant), but the question is where is the next logical breaking point after that, and where in there does "modern" end and "contemporary" begin? If I had to vote, I would say WWII is the most obvious choice, where the analytic/continental schism happened. Call everything between Kant and then "Late Modern" and everything since "Contemporary", and within contemporary just flow continuiously between sub-periodizations. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. Yes, Kant is one reasonable boundary point, and WWII is as good as any choice for the next, because of the disruption it caused in intellectual life. I am not sure in practical terms what you mean by continuous flow versus sub-periodization?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of discarded my own original point with my later suggestions. But what it was meant to be (my first point, that is) was that instead of trying to find where to divide the text into separate sections for different periods, the text just narrates a continuous chronology. "In [this year] [this philosophy] [did this]. Then in [that year] [that philosopher] [did that]." etc (not as mechanical as that of course), with loosely related series of events grouped in paragraphs, but no "Thus ended the Modern Period. ===Contemporary Philosophy===. In the contemporary period..." breaking it up into an obvious (and obviously contentious) periodization scheme. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I just noticed that I overlooked KDTA's objection which began this discussion section - that labelling the turn of last century 'contemporary' is "indefensible", so in my suggestions above I've not addressed that objection, and have been suggesting for a "Contemporary philosophy" section as an alternative to the "Nth Century" sections I saw under discussion. Others correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I was taught, "contemporary" is just a name for the period of philosophical history since the "modern" period ended (if it has ended, that itself being contentious), and is no more meant to be understood in its literal sense of "at the same time [as now]" than "modern" is meant to be understood in its (near-synonymous) literal sense of "pertaining to recent times". --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the word contemporary is first and foremost just a normal English word, and we can use it that way. If there were perhaps some universally accepted "philosophy" meaning which was very different from the normal meaning, then maybe we'd need to be more careful about it, but I do not think so. I don't quite get what your proposals are in concrete terms yet by the way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not really proposing it anymore, but if you really want to know what the proposal was I'm not sure in what clearer terms I can put it. It was just to not divide the text up into labeled periods. I thought, at the time, people were proposing the division of "contemporary" philosophy into sub-periods, e.g. 1960-present as something different from 1945-1960, etc - and then people were arguing about where to draw the lines. I was only suggesting that we not 'draw lines' at all, instead of arguing about where to put them.

As for the use of "contemporary" as a specialized period name, wikipedia's own article on contemporary philosophy says (albeit unsourced:

The phrase "contemporary philosophy" is a piece of technical terminology in philosophy that refers to a specific period in the history of Western philosophy. However, the phrase is often confused with modern philosophy (which refers to an earlier period in Western philosophy), postmodern philosophy (which is a term associated specifically with continental philosophy), and with a non-technical use of the phrase referring to any recent philosophic work.

So I guess, make of that what you will. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can go back to an earlier idea here and have late 19th and early 20th to 1944 in one section and post 1944 in another? --Snowded ^TALK 04:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I still tend to see that as a good idea. I'm not sure anything above really shows up any major problem with it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

I've been watching this debate unfold without commenting much, but I think things are heating up a bit in here and we all need to step back and look at each of the different issues under discussion separately, because there appears to be differing amounts of consensus on each of them, they are all largely independent of each other, and we don't want to conflate them all together into a single large two-sided conflict. (I see the dispute here as primarily between Snowded and 271828182 with Andrew Lancaster as predominantly a neutral mediator, a role which I intend to supplement myself). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Temporary compromise

The first thing we need to do is agree to some sort of temporary compromise to forestall the edit war that seems to be brewing between Snowded and 271828182, primarily over the inclusion or exclusion of Popper or Lewis. I agree with Andrew Lancaster's suggestion that we be inclusive and keep them both in there for now, to be conciliatory to both sides. This is not a slippery slope that's going to open up the list to all comers, because there's really not that much edit traffic here to begin with, and we're about to dive into looking over each philosopher again for inclusion or exclusion anyway. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the next point (minimum of two reliable sources) will resolve this issue, by excluding both Popper and Lewis. 271828182 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If Snowded is also happy with (at least temporarily) excluding both Popper and Lewis while we sort out the final version below, then I suggest we exclude them both and leave that as our compromise for now. I just figured including both would make the two of you happier than excluding both. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I am trying to enforce is agreement on this talk page to inclusion or exclusion. I am not specifically campaigning for Popper or against Lewis, but for consensus and some form of objective criterial to be agreed. --Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In terms of logical consistency, 271828182 seems to have a case concerning Lewis and Popper, using the sources we currently have?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing criteria

Snowded has proposed that if a philosopher is noted as "major" in a two reliable sources from different continents, then he should definitely be included. I agree that this is a sufficient, but not a necessary criterion for inclusion. 271828182 appears to agree to the two-sources part but not the different-continents part. I believe that the two-sources part should be considered necessary, because as others have pointed out many sources like SEP just love to praise every single philosopher they list as "one of the most important", so having another source checks against that kind of over-inclusiveness.

As nice as the from-different-continents part would be, I think it's pushing it to use that as a criterion for inclusion, first of all because it's a little vague (would an Australian source and an American source count? Australian philosophy mostly follows the same analytic trend dominated by American philosophers), and more to the point because analytics and continentals (which I gather is what Snowded was really getting at) rarely say anything, much less anything good, about each other, so being listed as "most important" by a source from each side of the pond would be a very high bar to reach.

You all have already composed a nice list of sources for different philosophers in sections above, so if we have agreement here (on "two sources required, different continents not"), as it appears we may, then we only need to address the next question below and we can move straight ahead with pruning/padding the list as appropriate. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion, as I said before (and Pfhorrest raises the reasons I found the "different continents" rider useless). It will likely halve the list, and exclude both Popper and Lewis. 271828182 (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty open to any reasonable proposals as long as they are not obviously just going to be magnets for further slow edit warring. Have probably said enough above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ok, so it sounds like we have consensus (between Snowded, 271828182, Andrew Lancaster, and I) that two sources are necessary for inclusion in the list. But we still have to answer the below question before we start excluding people based on this criteria. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why the different continents idea should be deemed "useless". We are talking about an encyclopedia that covers the world, and for someone just to have an impact in one area is surely as issue. If it halves the list all well and good. While the continental and analytical traditions rarely say anything good about each other (I remember the expression of contempt I got a few years ago when I mentioned Derrida at a high table dinner at Clare College), they do at least mention the major names. --Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, it is useless for the time being because we are limited in the sources we found to use. It is a practical point, not a principle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Scope of importance

271828182 has contested whether someone being called a "most important philosopher of X" is good enough for inclusion here, rather than just a "most important philosopher" simpliciter. The argument against including "most important of X" seems to be that allowing it would allow a large list of people in obscure corners of contemporary philosophy into the list, who are prominent in their obscure corners but still obscure overall. The argument for allowing them is that there seem to be some people, such as Popper, who are clearly prominent overall despite being prominent for their work as a "philosopher of X" rather than as a philosopher simpliciter.

My suggestion is that if we have sufficient sourcing (per the conclusions of the above section) for the following two assertions, independently (e.g. doesn't have to be the same sources for each assertion), then we include; otherwise we exclude:

• The person was a important philosopher of X during the period.
• Philosophy of X was a important field/school/etc during the period.

It seems to follow almost syllogistically that any person for whom those two assertions are true would be important overall. Perhaps rather than listing just the person themselves as prominent, we list their field/school/etc as an important subcategory, and list them within it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Snowded's contention that if we allow the criteria to be too loose we'll end up with way too many candidates?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems too loose a standard. For example, the philosophy of mind is and has been the most important subfield in philosophy since the 1970s. Fodor, Searle, and Dennett would all be on the list, plus quite possibly a number of still lesser figures (Rey, the Churchlands, Chalmers, McGinn). Likewise philosophy of language and philosophy of science, which would greatly promote the fortunes of (respectively) Austin, Davidson, Kripke, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Van Frassen. 271828182 (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that for example these two branches should be counted as more important than political philosophy, analytical philosophy or so-called continental philosophy? I reckon this type of proposal just heads us to more problems? Keep in mind there is no point trying to argue for anything that is likely to be only agreed to by factional groups. That is just begging for on-going back and forth for ever and ever.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand him, Andrew. He is raising essentially the same objection you did just above him: won't this criterion require that we list all these guys since they're all important in these important fields? He's not saying that these fields, being important to philosophy of the period, should outweigh the other fields studied in the period, but pointing out that if we used my suggested criteria, they would greatly outweigh them. My conjunction of the two criteria was supposed to limit such an explosion, but 271828182 seems to think that would not work so well. (Also, an aside: you seem to be mixing fields with schools. There are political philosophers, philosophers of science, language, mind, etc, in both analytic and continental schools, though granted the latter three are probably more prominent within the analytic school).

Question for 271828182: do you think there are sufficient sources (per the above section's criteria) listing each of those names as "one of the most important" philosophers-of-their-respective-fields of the period? (I'll grant for the moment that there are probably sources listing those fields as important ones of the period, though that 'since the 1970s' raises flags for me, since I doubt we want to periodize that finely; how prominent was philosophy of mind e.g. in Wittgenstein's day? Or Hegel's, if we want to lump everything since Kant together as you suggest below?)

If there really are sources that would include so many people by my above criteria, then my alternative suggestion (which someone else mentioned earlier) is to just list the field as important, and not the people within it; or possibly, if we have more prosaic sections rather than just bullets, to very briefly list the top people within that field, with no prosaic padding like generally important philosophers would receive.

But before we default to something like that, I'd really like to see if there really are two reliable sources for each claim that each of those fields was so important in the period in question (which will depend on what periodization we decide on below) and that each of those philosophers was one of the most important within their respective field during the same period. I suspect that the list will not be so long, given the kinds of periods we're talking about (not just the 1970s onward). --Pfhorrest (talk)

Yes, I feel confident we can find two sources saying Fodor and Searle are among the most important philosophers of mind, and two sources saying philosophy of mind is a very important part of philosophy. Philosophy of language and philosophy of science likewise. As I've said all along, "philosophy of X" opens a Pandora's box. 271828182 (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

List or prose

This segues into the next question, which is whether to have a list at all, or to have all names integrated into prose. I think for the short term we can begin with a list, just so we can get the right names on the page according to our answers to the questions above. But none of the earlier history subsections have lists in them, so I think in the long run we should try to incorporate all these names into the prose. As someone earlier suggested, this also makes it harder for drive-by Randians (et al) to just add a name to a list where it really doesn't belong. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the kind of idea everyone is starting to see something in, or at least I have seen no clear objection to it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The other historical sub-sections abound in lists. They're just not in bullet points. 271828182 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you objecting to such prosaic lists as much as the bulleted lists? What would be the alternative if we ruled out both of those? I thought the question was of format, not of content: between a (bulleted) list format, or a more descriptive prose format (which necessarily must 'list', in the broadest sense, the relevant players of the events it describes). --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to lists. While I agree that they invite "drive-by" editing, it seems hard to avoid in sections as brief and synoptic as these. The Renaissance and Early Modern subsections are fine, even though they contain lists. A prose approach would be preferable, but it too would need sourcing and hence would require some care in composing. 271828182 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Periodization

And finally, one way or another we need to know how to lump or divide the different periods. I think going with precedent set in other wikipedia articles is the best way to go here, since any periodization is always inherently arbitrary to some degree, and the other wiki articles on periods of philosophical history should have good sources to back their delimitation. This also allows us to {{main}} each history subsection to its own respective article, which is a little messed up right now. Going by the other philosophical-historic-period articles we have, I would suggest we lump "late modern" and "early modern" together, or possibly make them subsections of a single "modern" section, main'd to the article on Modern philosophy. That includes everyone preceding basically Wittgenstein, the logical positivists, the analytic/continental split, that general era, as "Modern", and everyone since as "Contemporary". There seems to be general agreement that 1944 is an important turning point, so this suggestion goes along well with that; but I imagine some of you will have disagreements about lumping everyone between Kant and Wittgenstein in together with everyone from Descarte to Kant. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems about right to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly on lumping early and late modern together. Scholarship explicitly recognizes "early modern philosophy" as a period (see, e.g., the two sources in that sub-section of the article, the Rutherford and the Nadler), and philosophy departments routinely search for specialists in "early modern philosophy" (which is essentially the rationalists and empiricists). If we want to lump, let us lump everything from Kant onward. 271828182 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I might sound inconsistent here but I also agree with this! I guess I had not thought much about the "merge" aspect to th proposal above. Modernism after Rousseau, Hume and Kant was something quite different to what it had been.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going mostly off the second paragraph in the lede of our Modern philosophy article, which reads:

The 17th and early 20th centuries roughly mark the beginning and the end of modern philosophy. How much if any of the Renaissance it should include is a matter for dispute; likewise modernity may or may not have ended in the twentieth century and been replaced by post-modernity. How one decides these questions will determine the scope of one's use of "modern philosophy". The convention, however, is to refer to philosophy of the Renaissance prior to René Descartes as "Early Modern Philosophy" (leaving open whether that puts it just inside or just outside the boundary) and to refer to twentieth-century philosophy, or sometimes just philosophy since Wittgenstein, as "contemporary philosophy" (again, leaving open whether or not it is still modern). This article will focus on the history of philosophy beginning from Descartes through the early twentieth century ending in Ludwig Wittgenstein.

But I see now that that is unsourced, so perhaps it is not the best guide. It is however reflective of what I was taught: "modern philosophy" simpliciter, at its core, was Descarte through Kant, "early modern" was Renaissance to Descartes, and "late modern" was Kant to Wittgenstein. I will defer to sources for final authority, but I strongly feel the Kant-Wittgenstein period is more "modern" than it is "contemporary". --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just on terminology for these periods, I think we should not be too insistent upon choosing a standard terminology, because there are different approaches. They are not necessarily wrong. But my point is that if we say there is ONE standard then I think WP would be picking a winner in a manner in which the published field can not be said to have done.
• I am not sure where to draw the line on the earliest period being mentioned in the modern philosophy article, but there was an early period, let's say before Descartes. The question there would be whether it is big enough to deserve a separate section.
• The break point around 1800 is more "catastrophic" in the sense that the modern "project" changed. Again, what exact definition and name we give this break point is not something I think the field is unanimous about. Some would say Rousseau represents the first in a "second wave" of modernity, and Kant, then Hegel, follow him.
• Another point if I may add this, is that 1900 is not really a break point, or at least not as strong. That is a problem with the current divisions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a list?

OK, formal proposal. We delete the lists and mention names in the narrative of the section if its relevant to the description of that period. --Snowded ^TALK 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am worried that this might be a case of worsening an article to get past an argument between editors. We the editors have no right to do that, at least. It is the rule beyond rules. See WP:NORULES.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the list. It is such a superficial American thing to have - the top philosophers of the twentieth century. TFD (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, if that is the reasoning for removing it then that is not a good reason. Being a superficial form of presentation may be appropriate for a basic level summary, and being an American style summary will at least be suitable for a lot of WP users. On the other hand I doubt this is just American and I find that way of explaining your edit a little aggressive? (I am not American.) The concern being raised was more to do with whether a list could be agreed upon and we were making more progress than I had expected at the point when you suddenly deleted. So your timing is a bit awkward also and if you don't mind I'd like to allow the discussion to run a bit longer, and I'd like to suggest that we bias edits towards keepings things rather than deleting things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, sorry I reverted your rollback, but I also do not think we should disallow any editing while that editing is now being based off of the discussion which is now going here, and apparently making progress. I think on WP adding material is not as bad as deleting material by the way. I hope that's ok. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, whether we should have a list is still open and if we do have a list then who should be included is also been discussed. On the argument above I can now happily add in two or three French and Russian Philosophers as long as I have a reference, and happily re-order so that my favorite philosopher is at the head of the list. WP:BRD applies here and the WP convention is for the stable wording to stand pending resolution. Please self-revert --Snowded ^TALK 07:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion below illustrates the whole problem with these lists. Individual reliable sources can be found for many individuals (such as Rand) which claim that they are major or use other similar language. The discussion below is premature until we have agreed (i) if there should be a list and (ii) if comparative sources are required, or if individual ones are OK. At the moment I am with TFD on this --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not think sourcing can be found for Rand, nor many others than the ones we have, in the way we have recently been working on sourcing. The two sources we have been looking at are not just individual works about individual philosophers and so where they or similar sources agree then there is a strong case. If you can really add more philosophers in a similar way, please try. Let's see.
• Concerning your requests that others stop editing, and your statement that we should not even be discussing possible sourcing and people who could be on a list:- I do not think you have any right to stop others trying to find a compromise. Discussing whether we can agree on a list is one way of exploring whether there should and can be one? Stopping others from testing this idea does not seem a good approach.
• To what I think is your main question, should there be a list, I think the standard approach on WP is that we do not delete things if we can find a way of doing them within policy. I do think a list will be helpful to non-specialist readers, and WP is supposed to accommodate non specialist readers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The question of if there should be a list, and if a list who should be on it is fine Andrew, editing the main article while that discussion is in progress and there is no agreement breaks WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit selectively strict about BRD. The D stands for discussion and there was now quite a bit of discussion involving 3 people. That would normally seem a good reason to feel that editing can begin especially if that editing is adding and re-ordering, rather than deleting. You have only now raised a new counter proposal, after that discussion was starting to work. So please do explain. Do you really think that there are a large number of other philosophers including Rand who can be as uncontroversially sourced as the people in the current list?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not being strict, I am asking you to apply it. Discussion means discuss, don't edit. Adding material and reordering can be as controversial as deleting and there is no wikipedia rule or convention that says adding is OK while deleting is not. The proposal to delete the list stands aside from this and was raised by TFD before you started the discussion below. --Snowded ^TALK 08:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So let's discuss whether there should be a list. So far there is not much discussion about that option, even though it has been proposed now.

• Case for deletion:

• TFD says a list is superficial and American.
• Snowded says the problem is that if we use individual sources then the list can be expanded too far.

• Replies to those concerns

• A format being superficial and American-style is not necessarily a bad thing for a generalist article like this. We are not writing cutting edge commentary, only try to summarize the basics for anyone including anyone who knows nothing about philosophy.
• The discussion which has been going on has been trying to avoid individual sources, in favour of encyclopedic ones which obviously have an interest in not naming all philosophers as "major". To me this approach seem to show scope for creating relatively uncontroversial lists.

• If not a list, then what?

• This question ALSO needs to be addressed if there is to be a deletion of the list. I do not think the article looks acceptable if we just delete the list. (Would it really make sense to have a section on the 20th century which names not one philosopher?)
• I think someone mentioned turning the list into a narrative, but practically speaking, given the split-up nature of 20th century philosophy, won't that look like a listing anyway?
• Maybe an alternative to a listing of individuals would be a listing of main "schools" or types of philosophy, with 1-3 representatives mentioned for each. I am not saying I am sure about this, but just trying to take this proposal seriously.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience lists that are long, undefined and controversial are original research and can never be neutral. They lead to countless disputes and clutter articles. They provide no useful information to readers and waste editors' time. Important philosophers should be in the text anyway, where the reader will learn something about them and can click on the internal link to find more. If they are not significant enough to be included, then the reader may go to the article about a specific school of philosophy, where their names should be included. TFD (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the subject, and to some extent you can say the same about narrative texts (break a paragraph into bullets and it looks like a iist). Of course you can argue that every editing action which selects what things need to be discussed and in what sequence is a kind of OR, but if people did act that way WP would cease to function. Anyway, the practical thing is that if you delete the list you need to replace it with something else. Just deleting it would clearly just make the article worse, which is the thing we don't do (WP:NORULES), because it would mean not one 20th century philosopher being mentioned at all. If you have a vision for a 20th century section which is different perhaps please draft it up. If you have no such alternative apart from leaving the section crippled, it is not very meaningful to complain about the list format as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this another way. Your argument would mean that any text which mentions ANY philosophers, whether in list form or not, would be OR. Because any such text would require the "research" of choosing who to write about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources that compare Philosophers

Now at home I find that my Copy of Kenny Vol IV has disappeared with daughter to University (where she is studying Anthropology and Philosophy) however I have still retained Copleston. As I have argued above a list should ideally be sourced by material which summarises the period not books on narrower fields.

There are three volumes in Copleston which cover the period, at least in part. They list

• British: Whitehead, G E Moore, Bertrand Russell, Whittgenstein, A J Ayer, Ryle, Austin, Strawson, Hare
• Russian: Bukharin, Deborin, Berdyaev, Shestov
• Other (French in the main): Mounier, Lavelle, Le Senne, Camus, Satre, Heidegger, Maritain, Poincare, Dunhem, Meyerson, de Chardin, Merleau-Ponty

Now to make it clear, I am NOT proposing this as a list, or as covering the territory. There are no Americans there for example and its the early part of the 20th C only. What I am saying is that a small group of editors, in the main from a particular background or training (see the list) cannot determine such a list by votes based on individual citations. We need reliable sources from the History of Philosophy if such a list is to be other than an idiosyncratic collection of names. We need some more sources (Is there a history of American Philosophy for example that would pull in the Pragmatists), then some selection. --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, a few issues with this posting above:

1. You do not say whether this source calls all of those listed the major philosophers of the whole 20th century. I seriously doubt that it does.

2. On the other hand, in the discussion below uses two sources which I think are pretty broad and recent in perspective, and they seem to overlap well with each other and with what people editing this article have opined. (Exact overlap would be impossible of course.) If we can see a reasonably clear picture in such sources that is in itself an important fact to be considered.

3. You keep describing the discussion below as a vote, but that is not really the point. As I mentioned, I posted my "votes" where I had an opinion, just as a way to communicate. The main gist of the discussion is an examination of sources to see if they agree with each other and seem to give a way of improving the list and also of judging it and confirming it.

4. The discussion below was going better than I expected, but I notice you keeping out of it. Like you say: BRD. You also have not explained your reason for proposing deletion above, nor responded to my request for discussion about what would replace the list. You can't just ask WP to stop. You need to be willing to make a case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I say very specifically that it does not cover them all but its a start. We need some more histories. As is becoming clear below it really is not difficult to find a source which claims high status for any individual. Five or more editors on Wikipedia which is UK/US biased really does not compare with a few properly researched histories from scholars, hence my suggest we use histories. I have participated below although I think its premature. --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For sure no one is going to disagree that when someone finds a better source we should use it. In the meantime we need the 20th century section to say something, whether that be in list form or whatever. TFD's proposal left the section virtually empty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The text on the "Anglophone world" should have more detail on the achievements of individual philosophers as should the continental section. Heidegger was certainly the first important philosopher and he influenced Husserl and the phenomonologists, who in turn influenced Sartre and the existentialists. TFD (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Husserl influenced Heidegger, not the other way around. Anyway, I still don't understand what your concrete proposal is for the 20th century section. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My proposal here is that to make a long list for inclusion any name should be included in a history by a mainstream author. If we start to rely on encyclopedias, then we have to use mainstream ones and also to check the majority make it clear the person in question was major (not just one or two)--Snowded ^TALK 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying none of our current sources are good enough? What are we to do then? Delete the section on the 20th century because we can not find good enough sources? And what is so controversial really about these sources? They do not seem so controversial to me. Perhaps I should state that when I ask what concrete proposals there are, I of course mean "given the sources we are currently working with". When someone finds better sources, no problem, but this article continues to exist while we wait and the 20th century section needs to have something in it. (Apparently those sources were good enough for the past "stable" version though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got my H's mixed up. But providing a list of the ten greatest philosophers of the twentieth century is just so tacky and unencyclopedic it is embarrassing. What I find so American about it is that it shows an interest in celebrity and success, as if what is important is that these men should be remembered because they were successful and who cares what their theories were. Maybe we should include how much their book sales were. TFD (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources all say the right things, but we will find similar for a huge number of people. To do this properly we have to use sources which compare philosophers, not articles or books about individual ones. Otherwise I agree with TFD in full on the general subject. --Snowded ^TALK 05:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who said the list had to be limited to ten?
• Reporting celebrity and success is something WP does amongst other things. It is not our place to judge that type of thing? Book sales are also interesting information for some people.
• I have not seen evidence that a "huge number" of Stanford entries call people one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. That seems like a bit of an exaggeration.
• Most importantly, Snowded you say you agree with TFD, but in terms of practical editing on the WP article, what are you and/or he proposing? Should we censor the 20th century section, avoiding any clear mention of any people at all, because of all the controversy? That sounds impractical to me. I do not think anyone is fighting for a list format, but I also see no one proposing an alternative either. So what is there to agree or disagree about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Philosphy#Pragmatism mentions Pierce, James, Dewey, Santayana, Quine, C. I. Lewis, Rorty, Lachs, Davidson, Haack, and Putnam. Philosophy#Phenomonology mentions Husserl, Heidegger Merleau-Ponty, and Sartre. Structuralism and post-structuralism mentions Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze and Barthes. Philosophy#The analytic tradition mentions Frege, G. E. Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ryle, J. L. Austin, Searle, Nagel, Putnam, Dummett, Kripke, Rawls, Nozick and others. That seems sufficient mention in the article, although A. J. Ayer should mentioned as well. TFD (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the 20th century should have NO detailed discussion, but instead it can dominate even more in the "main theories". I have already expressed my concern that anyone coming to this article without much knowledge will be punished by our failure as editors to explain this. I am also getting concerned that where this article heads a reader is that philosophy really took off in the 20th century. Actually, it has been intelligently argued that it ended. All those split offs, as we have seen below, are often described as new fields or separable specializations, which means they are not longer philosophy, philosophy not being a field as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of individual 20th C Philosophers

Note: Heidegger and Russell seemed to never be in doubt. Below are other proposals. At time of writing I think the agreed core is:

• Heidegger
• Russell
• Husserl
• Wittgenstein
• Habermas

Others are still needing more discussion. Note:

• I am not saying this is just based on a vote: there is a rational discussion and in most cases it seems possible to come to reasonable decisions so far.
• I have suggested in a few places below that in some cases a few well-known people might be usefully clumped into some sort of section concerning a grouping of philosophers.

Cheers--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I can not see the following not getting in. No one seems to have a clear reason to exclude them which is going to be widely convincing:-

• Derrida
• Carnap
• Rawls
• Popper
• Sartre
• Kuhn
• Lewis?

That would be a dozen. Others still in discussion include:

• Whitehead
• Kripke
• Ricoeur

So I doubt we'll ever need to have more than 15. Cheers--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Derrida

"Jacques Derrida was one of the most well known twentieth century philosophers." http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/ (peer reviewed) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great. That's all I've been asking for. 271828182 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Takes a weekend, and time on google, sometimes to fix things on WP. It would be great to make someone happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. I think the wording is strong enough and he is in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• In CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe - there are a lot of people who will have a source saying they are a major philosopher --Snowded ^TALK 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not an encyclopedic and recent one saying they are one of the major philosophers of the whole century or part of it. That is therefore a straw man argument. We are trying to avoid the types of sourcing which you have raised concerns about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any actual objection that has been raised to Derrida with the sourcing we have, which is pretty much as strong as what we have for any of these people?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If no one has a rationale for not including him... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Carnap

"Rudolf Carnap, a German-born philosopher and naturalized U.S. citizen, was a leading exponent of logical positivism and was one of the major philosophers of the twentieth century." http://www.iep.utm.edu/carnap/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. Looks like he is in. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe, it depends on the balance to be given to Logical Positivism in the list --Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely it would need to be mentioned. And the source is a strongly worded and recent encyclopedic source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The IEP is a very patchy source, its use was challenged on the "Is Ayn Rand" a philosopher dispute --Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are not many sources which can not be patchy sometimes. For the job we're doing it seems to frequently agree with the Stanford encyclopedia and I have seen problem. It does not for example argue that Rand should be in. Do you actually have an objection to Carnap though? You should make this clear please, because you have now deleted him twice. All you've done so far is raised general doubts which could be applied to many of the other philosophers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Major in terms of logical positivism yes, but major in the history of Philosophy more questionable, given that any list (if we have one) cannot be too long I would leave him off --Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying logical positivism was not a major thing in 20th century philosophy or are you saying it might be better to name "logical positivism" without naming any examples of individual logical positivists?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

"Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important since Immanuel Kant." http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. I think he is in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• In: Clearly needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• In: uncontroversial --Snowded ^TALK 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Uncontroversial to the editors now looking at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Frege

"Frege is often called the founder of modern logic, and he is sometimes even heralded as the founder of analytic philosophy." http://www.iep.utm.edu/frege/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Frege is already in the previous section on 19th century philosophy. 271828182 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. If we can agree on what common sense is here, despite the difficulty that entails for anyone interested in philosophy and anyone who works on Wikipedia, let's ignore him. :D --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. We are leaving him out because he is "19th century".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Out: Concur, should be in exactly one of 19th and 20th century sections. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitehead

"The staggering complexity of Whitehead’s thought, coupled with the extraordinary literary quality of his writing, have conspired to make Whitehead (in an oft-repeated saying) one of the most-quoted but least-read philosophers in the Western canon." http://www.iep.utm.edu/whitehed/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here about him being a major, most important, most influential. 271828182 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. Leaving him out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• In Source says it all. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is being quoted a lot enough? Also see "Thus although not especially influential among contemporary Anglo-American secular philosophers, his metaphysical ideas continue to have significant influence among many theologians and philosophers of religion." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible, stands aside from the positivist tradition --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So we need more discussion on this one. Anyone got more to say about the for and against here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rawls

"John Rawls was arguably the most important political philosopher of the 20th century." http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/ Oh well, good thing I did not get to vote on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I think "influential within subdiscipline X of philosophy" doesn't warrant inclusion. As I said before, this will include too many -- q.v. your note on Nozick below. 271828182 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken but not strictly relevant. "Most important" is quite a bit stronger than "influential". I sympathize but I do not think we can keep him out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. Ungh... must... be neutral... I think we can not leave him out.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• In The source doesn't do him justice, but he's major. Maybe I'll try to improve the sourcing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Possibly, major impact in political philosophy and attempting a grand picture which was ambitious --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess that 271828182 has a case here that including him would be inconsistent at least based on the wording we have sourced so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Out. 271828182 makes the case for exclusion very well. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ricoeur

"Paul Ricoeur was among the most impressive philosophers of the 20th century continental philosophers, both in the unusual breadth and depth of his philosophical scholarship and in the innovative nature of his thought."http://www.iep.utm.edu/ricoeur/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Subdiscipline (N.b. "continental"). 271828182 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is another question, and a can of worms if you ask me. Where is our source for a definitive way of breaking up the parts of "philosophy"? Can I suggest we keep it simple at least for now and follow whatever our sources do?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosophers do break up the parts of philosophy into subfields all the time. Philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, etc., etc. Following the sources means sticking to sources that actually say "most influential/important philosopher" period. Otherwise, as I already warned, the list will go on forever, and be one Google string from including Rand. ("Most influential philosopher of libertarianism" -- I can see it now.) 271828182 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they do. Still, this my point remains true in my opinion. I break up my ingredients for cooking all the time too.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've been saying all along: stick to the sources. There are sources that identify some philosophers as the "most important/influential" period. Subdiscipline tags muddy the issue. 271828182 (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Impressive" is the word here and I have not voted yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Impressive" falls under the scope of "of the 20th century continental philosophers". 271828182 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No consensus and no source, for compartmentalising this list. Philosophy has various definitions, but at least some of them insist that it is not specialized, and that any major philosopher of a part of philosophy is by extension going to be broad - not like a specialist within a science. Anyway, this is also an editorial question of whether one editor can just keep coming up with arbitrary problems!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your objection to my point that including "most important in philosophy of X" is too broad. Here you appear to be (1) denying that philosophy has sub-fields, and (2) that anyone is "most important in sub-field X" is going to be important in general. Both of these claims seem prima facie false. (2) is like saying "the most important man in Nauru politics" is an important world politician. 271828182 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote actually says "most impressive philosophers" simply, not "most impressive continental philosophers". Same as the distinction I see between the descriptions of Kuhn and Feyerabend.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Read it carefully. "Ricoeur was among the most impressive philosophers of the 20th century continental philosophers". 271828182 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it. Let's try the logic with other words. One of the most impressive presidents amongst politicians is still a president and not just a politician. He is more than just a politician, because only some politicians are presidents.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Vote: Out. Sourcing is certainly too narrow. Maybe with better...? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is maybe more clear: "Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) is widely recognized as one of the most distinguished philosophers of our time." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Possible, but needs to be balanced by a source which covers the continental tradition. I would think he is over narrow. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps another case where a mention within a school might be better?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rorty

"Richard Rorty is an important American philosopher of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century who blended expertise in philosophy and comparative literature into a perspective called “The New Pragmatism” or “neopragmatism.” " http://www.iep.utm.edu/rorty/ I would vote for him to be in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not clear whether Rorty is being singled out as important in American philosophy, or late 20th C phil generally. 271828182 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. In, but just. The wording on him is one of the borderline cases but also clearly this is partly caused by him being so recent. We need to use a bit of judgement and this is my thought.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rorty offers a highly integrated, multifaceted view of thought, culture, and politics, a view that has made him one of the most widely discussed philosophers in our time" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Am putting him for now in on this basis, noting that Kripke is also still in on the basis of less?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Dubious, "widely discussed" could include a lot of people and is very situated into a specific part of the 20th C --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed him again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Idea: a pragmatist section for Rorty and Dewey both?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rorty may start from pragmatism but he ends up in a very bad place. Modern Naturalistic approachs draw heavily on Dewey, Quine etc. but oppose Rorty --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But it almost sounds like you are saying you oppose him because you disagree with him?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF please, I was responding to your suggestion he be in a section with Dewey --Snowded ^TALK 17:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No I was looking for your reason for not wanting to include him and I only saw the bit where you say he "ends up in a very bad place".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Treat it in the same light as your comments on Rawls --Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! LOL. But remember I have said I can see no way to argue against the inclusion of Rawls. The difference here is that you do object to the inclusion of Rorty. I am just wondering what rationale you have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasons stated above when I said dubious. Reference is not good enough for a start. Also he is very recent, his impact is really not known yet --Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Peirce

Interesting that Peirce lived into the 20th century. http://www.iep.utm.edu/peircebi/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, this does not necessarily make him a 20th century philosopher.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Peirce is already in the previous section, just like Frege. 271828182 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. We should also declare this one a 19th century philosopher.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Out: Concur, not in both (and he was mostly 19th). CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Major influence in the the 20th C, in particular "abduction" in this. However this shows the need to look at the lists by period. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nozick

I would prefer it otherwise but... "A thinker with wide-ranging interests, Robert Nozick is one of the most important and influential political philosophers, along with John Rawls, in the Anglo-American analytic tradition." http://www.iep.utm.edu/nozick/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See above, under Rawls. This is exactly why I said above that "influential in philosophy of X" will not work: too inclusive. 271828182 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are building upon a foundation of sand, as explained above. And to mix metaphors there is a can of worms there also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I fear that we have to include him. Political philosophy is hardly a small side specialization within philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Out: But only just. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the iep is pretty clear though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Over narrow and geographically specific --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

At least we editors seem to agree, but the source is against us. Perhaps he could be mentioned together with Rawls?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lacan

"It would be fair to say that there are few twentieth century thinkers who have had such a far-reaching influence on subsequent intellectual life in the humanities as Jacques Lacan." http://www.iep.utm.edu/lacweb/ Do not know him very well, but seems to be a strong wording and hard to ignore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about philosophy. Psychoanalysis, yes. Philosophy, no. 271828182 (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case I can see the point of saying this might be outside of philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote: Out. 271828182 says it best. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Vote. Out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• The separation of psychoanalysis from philosophy is recent and there are whole schools of Philosophy based on Lacan. Rejection looks like cultural bias to me --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am open to learn more, but the two sources we were looking at did not specifically call him a major philosopher. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In some ways he is in the type as Bourdieu. One is known as a pyscho-analyst, the other as a sociologist, but both have made important Philosophical contributions and had a major influence. Take them back a century or two and they would have been called philosopher, in France I suspect they both are although their thought and manner of writing would not appeal to the anglo-saxon tradition. --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. From this it makes it sound like he will come in a category that includes a much bigger circle. Not in the least controversial core anyway? But maybe his "stream" does in fact need discussion. It was during the 20th century that psychoanalysis developed and split out from philosophy and in itself this was an important thing to philosophy even if we do not focus on any particular individual. Not against including him though. (I do not think the list is getting really enormous BTW.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. Out. Psychoanalysis is not and has never been part of philosophy. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hick

"John Hick is arguably one of the most important and influential philosophers of religion of the second half of the twentieth century." Here is another one for the compartmentalisation debate. I do not know of this man at all, but the wording is strong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit seems to have been eaten. As I said, this is another reason to limit the list to "most influential/important philosopher" period. Otherwise, we shall have to include the "most important philosopher of underwater basketweaving." 271828182 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Will we? Is there such a field? I do not think so. Extreme arguments like this do not always work. I do agree that a person must be in a philosophical field, not for example psychoanalysis. Philosophy of religion borders on theology but the wording of the source is pretty clearly "philosopher"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

To a not insignificant number of philosophers, the philosophy of religion is about as serious as the philosophy of basketweaving. Aesthetics, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of music, and philosophy of biology are all real subdisciplines where the "most important and influential" figures are likely to be completely unknown and forgettable to those interested in philosophy in general. 271828182 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And to a not insignificant number, the opposite. Indeed, is any specialized field that can't handle a theologist really still philosophy? I do not think so personally.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If Analysis and Continental are speaking different conceptual languages then they are games, and no longer philosophy. Philosophy is intended to by universal, and is therefore universal if it exists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. I am staying out of this one. If there is an editor who know him, please comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read three of his books. While I agree with the quoted source (especially with the huge weaselers "arguably" and "one of"), I think this is a good example of how someone can be very important within a narrow subfield but clearly not belong on a short list of major philosophers of the 20th century. I don't think we need voting, just clear sourcing. 271828182 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting is not necessary of course, just a way of communicating in this case. I did not mean to imply that we needed to have a poll, but it may be handy if I "vote" so that discussion can continue amongst other authors and a feeling of where everybody lies can build up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• A wonderful illustration of why a source which says something like "important and influential" is not enough for ANYONE. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But also an example of how we could work it out. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dewey

"John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to its environment." http://www.iep.utm.edu/dewey/ This wording does not argue against him being in the list.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• weak Vote. Depends on other sources and what we know of him. I tend to think he should be in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here saying Dewey is important or influential. 271828182 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What about other sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Major influence - like most of the pragmatists their relevance is becoming a lot clearer with modern links between natural science and philosophy in the last few decades. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Idea: these two sources call him important more because of his position in his movement - just like you do. Perhaps there should be a mention of him under Rorty or in some other way, as a member of his movement.

Dewey is not a member of Rorty's movement -- Rorty is a member of (an offshoot of) Dewey and James and Pierce's movement. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, understood.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Habermas

This review seems to call them "major": http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=4981 and this is a book also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have that book in front of me and can't find a quote to that effect. Nor does the review say in its own voice that they are major: it is describing the Cambridge UP Companion series. If you want Habermas, use the SEP entry, which is pretty firmly worded: [6]. The corresponding article on Adorno, note, limits its parallel claim's scope to post-war Germany. 271828182 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I see: "Jürgen Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. I think Habermas has to be in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• I would have thought he was uncontroversial --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much debate on him then: if there is a list he'll be in. So I propose that no one delete him unless the whole list is being replaced with something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Uncontroversial to the editors now looking at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Kripke

May I ask what the basis is for including Kripke?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in the footnote. 271828182 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I did look there. Am I missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying his work "fundamentally changed the way in which much philosophy is done" is not a claim many of the people you've mentioned above can make. If you like, I can look elsewhere. But that sounds like a pretty strong source to me. 271828182 (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't those specific words also be true of Galileo, Einstein, Hitler, Darwin etc etc? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

None of those are professional philosophers. I don't see how you can justify ignoring what a reliable source plainly says. Your voting here is the sort of arbitrary, "three guys on Wikipedia don't think he's important, so he's out" poor editing that WP:V exists to combat. 271828182 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think my argument is as you present it. I think the logic is simple enough: being influential upon philosophy as such is different from being influential upon the way philosophy is done. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference? (How can you influence the way philosophy is done without influencing philosophy?) Anyway, from the same source, p. 456: "One of the great philosophical achievements of the twentieth century, it has transformed the philosophical landscape, recalibrated our sense of what is possible, and reshaped our understanding of our own philosophical past." From Colin McGinn, The Making of a Philosopher, p. 67: "one of the most influential thinkers in the analytical tradition". From Belshaw & Kemp (eds.), Twelve Modern Philosophers, p. 153: "a philosophical oeuvre that is both accessible and widely influential [and] has played a central role in rehabilitating metaphysics in the latter part of the twentieth century and setting the agenda for philosophical logic since." I'm not crazy about including him on the list (as I remarked before), but it's not about me, it's about the sources. And the sources here are at least as good as the sources for many of the others who have been agreed on. 271828182 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Out: Very important, but too narrow. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• No reason to include --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest 271828182 that we do indeed need better sourcing for Kripke.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Cassirer

Worth considering: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cassirer/ Wording is long winded so I will not paste it all here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rand

This will keep coming up so I will just point out that the two sources we've been discussing do mention her but both choose their wording carefully and neither names her as a major philosopher as such. http://www.iep.utm.edu/rand/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ She was a "major intellectual" and a "philosopher".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. A clear "no".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Why even raise it --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. As mentioned, because she keeps coming up on WP. Pre-emptive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do think it's worth raising the question. Having said that, out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Husserl

Personally I think it is a no brainer. "Edmund Husserl was the principal founder of phenomenology — and thus one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/ "Although all of the key, subsequent phenomenologists (Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Levinas, Derrida) have contested aspects of Husserl’s characterization of phenomenology, they have nonetheless been heavily indebted to him. As such, he is arguably one of the most important and influential philosophers of the twentieth century." http://www.iep.utm.edu/husserl/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. A clear "yes". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• No question --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much debate on him then: if there is a list he'll be in. So I propose that no one delete him unless the whole list is being replaced with something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Uncontroversial to the editors now looking at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Reichenbach

I do not know him but: "Described as perhaps “the greatest empiricist of the 20th century” (Salmon, 1977a), the work of Hans Reichenbach (1891–1953) provides one of the main statements of empiricist philosophy in the 20th century." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reichenbach/ "Hans Reichenbach, born on September 26th 1891 in Hamburg, Germany, was a leading philosopher of science, a founder of the Berlin circle, and a proponent of logical positivism (also known as neopositivism or logical empiricism)." http://www.iep.utm.edu/reichenb/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My reading of both summaries is that he was a good link man with the empirical sciences, not a major philosopher as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Vote. Out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Dubious --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Davidson

"Donald Davidson was one of the most important philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century and with a reception and influence that, of American philosophers, is perhaps matched only by that of W. V. O. Quine." SEP [7] I would exclude since this claim only covers 1950-2000, but given the lax standards other editors are endorsing here, you can't ignore comparable sources. Really, as I said a while ago, if we don't insist on a high bar, this list going to be disproportionately long and full of dubious figures. 271828182 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand what standards you are applying (although accusing other editors of applying lax standards continues a pattern). I agree he shouldn't be in as it happens. Which and/or how many decades are required in your view? --Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Same standard I keep repeating: "most influential or important philosopher of the century" simpliciter. Not most important for half a century, as this cite says. Though the second half of the claim (matched only by Quine among American philosophers), given the fuzzy standards that justify Rawls, would justify his inclusion. And unless there is a clear explanation of how Hick is out yet Rawls is in, given the equivalent nature of the sources for them (essentially, that they are among the "most important philosophers of X", where in Rawls X = "political philosophy" and in Hick X = "philosophy of religion"), yes, some editors here are using lax (i.e., inconsistent) standards. There's no ad hominem here, just pointing out inconsistency that is impeding the improvement of this article. 271828182 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess 271828182 has a case here that consistency might require us to include him?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis

"David Lewis (1941–2001) was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century. He made significant contributions to philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, decision theory, epistemology, meta-ethics and aesthetics. In most of these fields he is essential reading; in many of them he is among the most important figures of recent decades. And this list leaves out his two most significant contributions." SEP [8]. A source this unequivocal is hard to deny. 271828182 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm using his work on counter-factuals on a project at the moment as it happens, to create a metaphor based military command language. I think his work is very important but a major figure? Again we have the issue of criteria which we need to sort. How many philosphers have an entry in the Stanford online which begins with "one of the most important" or equivalent? If it counts for one to satisfy WP:V then it counts for all. --Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the source given he is not in. If just being significant were enough the list would have to contain hundreds of people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry I read the citation wrongly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, I do not think there are many entries which use wording as strong as that? Of course we are all able to understand that there is a difference, for example, between "one of the most important philosophers of the 20th Century" and things like "one of the most significant philosophers of language of the time he worked in".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SO are you prepared to accept inclusion of anyone with that type of wording in the online Stanford? --Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. You've said this type of wording is very common on that source, but it does not seem all that common - at least not this strength of wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the SEP entry here and like a lot of SEP material its an enthusiastic essay. This is one of the charms of the SEP but it can make it problematic as a comparative source. If there is an equivalent phrase in another encyclopedia (ideally outside of the USA) then I can see case for inclusion. If fact I think that could be a more general criteria: reference as to having made a major contribution in at least two encyclopedias each from a different continent or a comparative history from a reliable source. That way we are not single sourcing. --Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like moving the goalposts, but having at least two reliable sources for each philosopher sounds reasonable. 271828182 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sartre

"Sartre (1905-1980) is arguably the best known philosopher of the twentieth century." SEP [9] 271828182 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't even present an argument to keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I do tend to think those words are pretty strong. And it is true that he is very well known. Remember we are only trying to make a list of "major" philosophers. Being the best known one would be a case of being major wouldn't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose including him, but I don't think that "best known philosopher" is an appropriate standard on which to decide inclusion. He's certainly well-known, but not so much as a philosopher. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The only one to have a whole Monty Python sketch devoted to him mind you! His best philosophy (my opinion) is in Roads to Freedom, rather than Being and Nothingness, and its noticeable that the French school of existentialism uses Literature to express philosophical issues (as do the Sufis and others). Existentialism is a key school and Sartre is one of the major figures. The debate here might lead is to a schools of thought approach with individual philosophers listed. --Snowded ^TALK 14:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He may be another case where he deserves mention as a representative of a bigger tendency in the 20th century. I would not be against including him. He is certainly well known and some people coming to WP for information may well be looking for someone like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like a keeper.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Best known" is essentially the same criterion being used to justify including Derrida above. If it's good in one case, it should be good in another. If this is a bad criterion, then reject them both. Can we have a consistent standard? If we don't, this will cause endless problems. If we can nail down a clear standard, then we can move forward. 271828182 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being inconsistent on this. I suppose Derrida and Sartre should be in anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely, and strongly, reject this criterion. I haven't yet formed an opinion on Sartre's inclusion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you have an argument that a person who is the best known X is not a "major" X. As far as I can see the only argument we could use for that would be to make WP non-neutral? We are not meant to be taking a position. Can you explain further?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Thomas Flynn, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2]: "Sartre (1905-1980) is arguably the best known philosopher of the twentieth century." Good enough for me. Arun92x92 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Strawson

"The range and quality of Strawson's writings made him one of the major philosophers in the period in which he lived, and his work still attracts considerable attention." Strawson's life, by the by, 1919-2006. SEP [10] 271828182 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This wording is similar to the wording found for Rorty which seems not to convince anyone. Being major for a period is not as big as being major for the whole century.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Feyerabend

"Paul Feyerabend (b.1924, d.1994), having studied science at the University of Vienna, moved into philosophy for his doctoral thesis, made a name for himself both as an expositor and (later) as a critic of Karl Popper's “critical rationalism”, and went on to become one of the twentieth century's most famous philosophers of science." Again, if we include Popper I see no principled way to exclude Feyerabend. 271828182 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is different than for Kuhn and for a reason. Kuhn and Popper are known outside of what you refer to as the sub-discipline, as philosophers simply.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"one of the twentieth century's most famous philosophers of science" is rather clear, and more or less the same as what Popper and Kuhn have. If "known outside of the sub-discipline" is the criterion, then we are back in territory congenial to Rand followers, since she's influential outside philosophy (see several months ago, above). 271828182 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Major within philosophy as a whole, outside any of the more restrictive philosophy sub-disciplines, is what I would think is the criteria we need to use. That does not apply to Rand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Kuhn

If we include Popper, then we must include him. "Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-1996) became one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential—his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time." SEP [11] 271828182 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your reasoning on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Singer

"Peter Singer may very well be the most influential living philosopher, perhaps of any philosopher in recent history. He certainly is the most controversial." From Belshaw & Kemp (eds.), Twelve Modern Philosophers, p. 232. Like statements can be found in popular media: [12], [13]. 271828182 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We may have to consider him. BTW thanks for bringing in more sources! Crazy idea: would it maybe be better to call him a 21st century philosopher?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Williams

"Bernard Williams (1929-2003) was the preeminent British moral philosopher of the twentieth century." From Belshaw & Kemp (eds.), Twelve Modern Philosophers, p. 76. "Bernard Williams (1929–2003) was a leading influence in philosophical ethics in the latter half of the twentieth century." SEP article [14]. Again, not someone I would include, but "most important moral philosopher of the century" is awfully close to the sourced grounds for including Rawls and Popper. 271828182 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Qualifiers: "British moral philosopher", and "in philosophical ethics", not philosophy simply; and "later half of the twentieth century" not twentieth century. Seems to have a weaker case than Rawls and Popper based on wordings in sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

G.E. Moore

"one of the most influential British philosophers of the twentieth century." Thomas Baldwin, in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 2nd ed., p. 805. Notable if you value "outside of philosophy influence" too. 271828182 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He is certainly a very notable individual as are all the people we are discussing. Note the qualifier "British" however. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

J.L. Austin

"J.L. Austin was one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century." Searle, in Martinich & Sosa (eds.), A Companion to Analytic Philosophy, p. 229. 271828182 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Strong quote from a slightly specialized source. Not sure, so I'll let others comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fodor

"Jerry Fodor is widely regarded as the most significant philosopher of mind in recent times." Georges Rey, in Martinich & Sosa (eds.), A Companion to Analytic Philosophy, p. 451. "Whereas many people who work at the boundaries between two academic fields succeed only in being ignored by both of them, Fodor is widely recognized as having set agendas that dominate much of contemporary debate." From Twelve Modern Philosophers, p. 115-6. "Fodor being by common consent the leading philosopher of mind in the world today." McGinn, Making of a Philosopher, p. 190.

As philosophy of mind is an even more central sub-discipline than philosophy of science, I don't see how we can exclude Jerry. (Or Searle, or Dennett.) 271828182 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Note the obvious difference between this and the other cases we've been able to agree upon more or less so far:-

• The source is more specialized, not about philosophy as a whole.
• The time period is not the twentieth century but "recent times".
• His leading position is not as a philosopher simply but as a philosopher of mind. Popper is described as a leading philosopher simply for example.

Hope this makes some sense to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Popper

I forgot to mention him but he is perhaps more controversial than Heidegger and Russell, so maybe needs a note. "Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ The wording is very clear and in agreement with what I consider to be common knowledge even if I do not agree with what is generally regarded. The source is... what we have at the moment, and everyone seems to think these two sources are good enough in the cases where they agree at least! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not a fan, but don't think he can be left out of whatever eventually makes up the article's 20th century section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, subdiscipline. If you accept this, then I see no principled reason to exclude John Hick. 271828182 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that most people are going to disagree with this way of equating a very central and big sub-discipline with one you criticized above as hardly even being philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to what I actually wrote. I did not assert that philosophy of religion was unimportant, merely that many philosophers would say it is. But if you open the floor to "most important philosophers of science of the 20th century", then (1) you are elevating philosophy of science above philosophy of religion and political philosophy (and aesthetics, and moral philosophy, etc., etc.) in an arbitrary way, and (2) as a result, you will have Popper, Kuhn, Hempel, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Van Frassen, Reichenbach -- a bunch of relatively minor figures, comparable to Nozick and Hick -- on the list. Again, it's a matter of consistency. 271828182 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, please also read what I really wrote. I am saying you are making equations which do not seem to make sense to me.

• If someone is a major "philosopher" simply, with no qualifier, that means more than a "philosopher of x". Why are you ignoring that obvious distinction?
• Not all sub-disciplines are equally close to the core of whatever philosophy is. Discussing what knowledge is, is obviously closer to that core, and therefore more important to a wider range of philosophers, than psychoanalysis and theology.
• Not all people who can be described with the same adjective are equal just because of that. Just because we let is Rawls we do not let in Nozick. Just because we let in Popper we do not have to let in Lakatos. That is a non sequitur.

Please try to structure what you write in a way that it allows for some sort of common ground to be found.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that describes Popper as a major philosopher [not merely major philosopher of science] of the 20th century? Or a like claim for Rawls? 271828182 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see I was misreading. I stand corrected. Thanks for your persistence and thanks for now pointing this out to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep -- I'm sure we can find better sourcing. Popper's influence was vast; larger than most of the philosophers on this list, I'd wager. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It terms of public knowledge etc. his reputation goes beyond Philosophy of Science and his "Three Worlds" has been extended into other fields, although generally at the popular end of knowledge management rather than epistemology. I'm not a fan either, But its difficult to exclude him. --Snowded ^TALK 05:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. His reputation in every field is partly because people know he is well-known in other fields. It is an interesting phenomenon, caused by the splitting up of philosophy during the 20th century. But this is just my description. I don't suggest we can say this here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Out. Sourcing does not seem adequate, and letting him in would mean we would have to include too many other figures who were important within their sub-disciplines. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

As far as I can see this is three for keep with 271828182 and Philosophy Teacher against. That is not sufficient to delete. --Snowded ^TALK 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are misreading or miscounting, since Andrew Lancaster eventually conceded my point, making the vote 3-2 against. But the content of WP is not a matter of a five-person vote of a likely-to-be unrepresentative sample. As WP:V clearly states, inclusion of content is not about what editors think is true, it is about whether "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". As I have repeatedly pointed out, the sources on Popper merely say he is an important "philosopher of science". That is an insufficient claim, as it would entail adding persons such as John Hick, Jerry Fodor, and Paul Feyerabend to the list, and as it fails to match the sourced material in favor of the persons already on the list (who are described as important philosophers of the 20th century simpliciter). There is no reliably sourced reason to include Popper on the list. If voting mattered, Ayn Rand would get on this list. Please stop reverting my efforts to make this article better sourced. 271828182 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you check Andrew thinks Popper should be included. I also note that the only contribution from newby editor Philosophy Teacher is to say "I agree with 27182182" but provide no argument so that is interesting. You have repeatedly asserted the position that a claim in an individual discipline is insufficient. Other editors have disagreed with you. I see however that you are taking the position that your position is correct and anyone who disagrees with you should simply go away. I am, per Andrew's suggesting compromise adding Popper back in. I will leave Lewis for the moment, but if I can't find a similar reference when I get back to the UK in a few weeks time I will remove him. In the meantime you really have to learn to edit collaboratively --Snowded ^TALK 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm discouraged to see Snowded's comments. I could go into long arguments about which philosophers should be included and which should not, but I do have other (and better) things to do with my time than edit Wikipedia. I hope other editors can respect that. 27182182 has summed up the case against including Popper and others well. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, your latest response is a farrago of strawmen and falsehoods. The insinuation that Philosophy Teacher is a sockpuppet or somehow less worthy of note is particularly cheap. Lancaster changed his mind on at least the point that Popper is only sourced as a major philosopher of science [15]; I don't know if that extended to his position on inclusion, but in any case it's hardly a "consensus". I am moving on, though, since our disagreement appears (for the moment) otiose given that we agree that having at least two reliable sources should be a necessary condition of inclusion, and that will likely scotch Popper from the list. 271828182 (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position on Popper I can see arguments both ways, and so I suggested that while things are unclear we err on the siding of keeping, but then we should do so for other unclear cases also. I do not see we are at a stage of having hundreds of candidates in this situation. Wikipedia is never finished of course, and as people bring new ideas about sources that can used, or indeed about how to structure these sections, new solutions might appear which are more broadly acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

criteria for inclusion in a list

Personally I hope we can move away from lists per discussions above. However it seems we may not, so I would like to suggest some criteria for inclusion other than any one editors opinions of how to interpret WP:V. So here goes

• There should be source from a major encyclopedia of Philosophy which firmly establishes their status
• They should have worked in more than one field, but post 19th would not be expected to have covered the full range of the subject
• Their names should appear in other encyclopedias at least at a significant level (i.e if someone is not mentioned in a major encyclopedia or dictionary on the subject they would be excluded, one is not enough.
• The above is clause is repeated in respect of their exclusion from any major history of Philosophy from a reliable source.

Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 00:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly to be suggesting that if an editor can find one major source (encyclopedia, history) which does not mention a particular philosopher, then that philosopher should be excluded, despite any other sources that do mention him/her? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I debating being that explicit, but I think that would be over harsh but it would cast doubt especially as we go back beyond the last few decades. At the moment we have an over reliance on one online source (Stanford). I also qualified it to say that at least they should be mentioned, even if the wording does not say they were one of the greatest of all time. The idea was to get some criterial agreed on which decisions can be made, so I am expecting some amendment! --Snowded ^TALK 06:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowded I think we have a practical problem for the time being, which is that over-reliance you mention. If we can get more sources that is great, but while we haven't got that, then we still need to be consistent with what we have. Of course this does not stop us changing the whole section further in future steps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets agree criteria then implement them - easiest way. I did my best to incorporate the various suggestions.concerns (such as number of fields) --Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is, focusing upon the practical problems of this temporary situation, that the criteria you seem to be suggesting apparently make consensus impossible, because you want us to use a European encyclopedia and we have none to discuss right now? Don't your criteria mean we can not accept any philosophers? Is that practical?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I just don't get that, I am saying you can't just take a US perspective if you listing people of world wide reputation. Are you really saying that because Stanford is the only online one its the only source, or that its not possible to validate against other sources?--Snowded ^TALK 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is purely practical. Which European sources are we currently using? Do we have such sources right now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I have the Oxford Companion at home, but the online contents might even give us the list that we need --Snowded ^TALK 09:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

More sources would be great, but for now they are just a possibility for the future. OTOH, if by European you include English I am a little sceptical about whether American and English agreement is a good way to get a balanced view. I had been assuming you meant continental European, because in philosophy there is obviously a strong Anglosaxon connection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not clear why we need any criterion more elaborate than "two reliable sources", which in this context covers encyclopedias, histories, and like reference sources. I have added multiple references from non-SEP/non-IEP sources. The Cambridge History of Philosophy, e.g., tags Heidegger, Russell, and Wittgenstein as the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and (in separate entries) identifies Heidegger and Wittgenstein as possibly the most important. The relevant volumes of the Oxford History of Western Philosophy don't appear to make such judgments, nor does the Kenny New History of Western Philosophy. Copleston doesn't cover much of the 20th century. The Edwards Encyclopedia of Philosophy is understandably reticent about passing judgments on the whole century, since it was published in 1967. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is comparable to the Stanford, but it is generally inaccessible outside of academic libraries. 271828182 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And recent encyclopedia judgments are ultimately a reflection of these sorts of feelings: [16] 271828182 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a belated remark on Popper. I think the SEP entry has been misrespresnted in this fairly lengthy discussion. Reading through the first paragraph rather than just the first sentence, the author is saying that Popper was not just a great philosopher of science (SEP). As for the rest, it's clear that there is no single, verifiably correct way the historical sections could be divided, and I suggest the important thing is to make a division.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but is there any concern that the list being discussed here should be consistent with the thematic sections. I just noticed that a large number of names are sprinkled into the Analytic section (usefully, I think), far beyond the few names under consideration here.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

In a way yes there has been such discussion. I proposed above that we should to some extent merge aspects of the two types of section you mention. In particular I think the themes are dominated by late 19th/ early 20th century divisions, which should possibly be discussed in a periodic section instead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason the thematic section skews somewhat towards a later period is just that we had editors willing to complete those sections (no, modesty forbids...). The page has long lacked editors with interest and expertise in earlier periods. That's also the reason the article is "dominated" by western philosophy - easy to find editors who will complain about that, but they won't do the work to correct the balance. I don't have a strong feeling about merging the themes into the chronological sections (although one then wonders why there's a separate article on the history of philosophy), but it will just mean the more recent chronological sections have more meat.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think it would make sense to have the themes/issues/"main theories" rolled in with their historical periods, because different historical periods have had different questions at the center of their discourse. The Problem of Universals, for instance (which is what the first section on "realism and nominalism" is about), is not really problematized in contemporary (or even modern?) philosophy, but was huge in earlier eras. Pragmatism, Phenomenology, Existentialism, (Post)-Structuralism, and the Analytic tradition are all distinctly contemporary/late modern schools. Idealism is squarely modern. Skepticism runs the whole gamut of periods and so seems really out of place in there IMO.

"Main theories" of earlier eras would include the various theodicies that were very big topics in the medieval era; the different ontological theories (different 'all is x' monisms) that the presocratics concerned themselves with; etc; all of which are (rightly) not covered in the "main theories" section because they aren't really major camps in the current philosophical battlefield anymore, but would be great to flesh out the earlier historical sections. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking a step back, I think the subheading "Main Theories" is itself a problem. What one finds here are several schools of philosophy, alongside several enduring themes. Phenomenology, for example, is not a theory - still less the Analytic School. Empiricism, skepticism and idealism are themes which appear almost throughout the subject's history (I disagree that idealism is in any way modern - although certain schools of Idealism were). Perhaps the sections on schools could be tucked into the correct chronological sections - along with their subheadings. Dealing with the themes is more difficulty, as they recur. Any idea?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

Here is another point. Movements and periods over-lapped. I've noticed that in one of the other language wikipedias, I think German, they had humanism as a the last sub-section of the medieval section. British style modernism in its core form has continued past Rousseau and Kant down to the present day, via figures link Adam Smith, Mills, Freud, etc and is still a powerful force in the way people really think all around the world. So this is another reason for for in a sense merging or re-distributing the themes in the periods and main themes sections. Concerning main themes there are a couple which do always come back, but then a smaller number? A few are within the big question of what is knowledge, but I would say political philosophy/ ethics is also still a philosophical question (what is the best way to live?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

20th century philosophers

Current list: Husserl, Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Carnap, Popper, Sartre, Quine, Derrida, Lewis.

Husserl, Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Quine, and Lewis all have at least two independent sources stating they are "major/most important philosophers of the 20th century". That leaves Carnap, Popper, Sartre, and Derrida undersourced. Popper doesn't even have a single source describing him as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, merely that he is an "important philosopher of science". It's been over a week since the editors here agreed on double-sourcing. Shall I go ahead and remove Carnap, Popper, Sartre, and Derrida now? 271828182 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never said double sourcing is a preference, I've just said I can accept it if necessary. I would imagine others think in a similar way. What I've said more strongly though is that if there is disagreement likely I strongly suggest have a "keep" bias.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Popper citation is still being misread. The SEP says several things, but the last thing it does is say that he is merely a phlosopher of science. It emphasizes that his philosophical work cannot be reduced to his work in philosophy of science. Check it out. Also, without wishing to sink the wheels too far into the mud, I think the line drawn in the sand by User:271828182 is arbitrary. There is an inappropriate insistence on finding just a particular form of words. Looking back, the rejection of Davidson on the grounds that he was one of the most important philosophers only of the second half of the twentieth century seems indefensible. He was only in his early thirties when the second half of the century began - how could he have been important throughout? This is just one example. Given the paucity of sources examined, I can't support rejecting this or that philosopher just because the form of words used by the author doesn't match an arbitrary standard.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Fair enough. The SEP entry says Popper is (i) one of the most important philosophers of science of the century, (ii) a political philosopher "of considerable stature", (iii) unusually influential outside of philosophy, and (iv) has an often-overlooked unity of philosophical vision. Nonetheless, I argue that being "one of the most important philosophers of X" is an unworkable criterion, since it would necessitate including figures such as Plantinga, Hick, Fodor, Searle, Davidson, Dummett, Rawls, Nozick, et al. Perhaps (iii) in conjunction with (i) is what separates him from the pack? Maybe, but borderline figures such as Kuhn, Chomsky, or Foucault would then be up for inclusion. As for arbitrariness, well, any criteria will be somewhat arbitrary -- being a "major philosopher of the century" could justify a hundred names -- but given the brevity of the sub-section and the difficulties inherent in any such list in a high-profile article, I am suggesting a fairly strict standard would be the simplest way to limit the sort of open-ended, unproductive edit wars we already find ourselves in. 271828182 (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are unassailable, but the point is that the author is stressing that it's reductive to view Popper as only a major philosopher of science. But I am not supporting Popper's inclusion as such, just questioning the "strict standard." I fully understand that a lax standard would produce an endless list. But you see, that is exactly the problem with having a list. You're asking for a standard which is stricter - much stricter - than Wikipedia:RS. Fine for the few of us editing here right now, but it's an ad hoc approach which won't remain stable.KD Tries Again (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Not having a list at all seems like an all-or-nothing false dilemma. And every other section of the history mentions the most important philosophers of each period. You may protest, "but not in a list!" but the prose is often little more than a list written as a sentence or paragraph. While I agree that prose is preferable, that would take still more time, and it would seem necessary to figure out who to mention first, before writing the prose. 271828182 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And many twentieth century philosophers are mentioned in the topic sections - the section on analytic philosophy, for example - and something, however inadequate, is said about their work rather than just that they are "important." I am not going to launch a resistance to what you're suggesting, but I can't really satisfy myself that a solid basis exists for principles like 'being "one of the most important philosophers of X" is an unworkable criterion.' After all, Husserl, Quine, Lewis - they all had very narrow areas of interest. None of them ranged across the subject like Plato or Kant or Hegel. It just happens that an editor here has found what is (arbitrarily) the right form of words.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The topic sections are of variable quality, and the choice of topics is rather arbitrary (lumping all of analytic philosophy together is somewhat misleading). Philosophers today may not "range across the subject like Plato or Kant or Hegel", but neither are modern physicists like Newton. Nonetheless, a one-paragraph subsection on 20th century physics should prominently mention Einstein but probably not Bethe. I am trying to reflect what sources say, and if sources single out some 20th century philosophers more than others, that has a place in a sub-section like this. 271828182 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The structure now is definitely confused. Here we are arguing about whether to include certain 20th century philosophers of lesser importance even within the 20th century, and yet there they are in the main theories section as if they are all-time greats. Obviously merging the most specifically 20th century main theories into the 20the century discussion should be able to make more people happy without adding size to the article, and at the same time avoiding the obvious danger of redundancy and of creating a false impression about what the real "eternal questions" are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"as if they are all-time greats" - No, not really. I don't think it was (or is) a rating thing. They came to be mentioned as one or more editors tried to do justice to a discussion of the topic. No bad thing, however imperfect.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I do agree with that. I have discussed it above in more detail. My point is that in effect we have two sections about the 20th century, and merging them would avoid some of the debates about how adding a certain person would inflate the article un-duely.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

271828182, thanks for being bold and making an edit. I am not against people making actual edits, because this discussion has gone a long time. I think you turned the bullet points into prose and reduced the number of people? I think that it at least defines the problems. To me this looks worse, but I'll be interested to hear what others think. It is an amorphous block of text now, which I think should be divided up into sections. However it's overlap with 19th century and main themes also becomes more jarring if you do that. I still propose that if we are going to get rid of bullet points it becomes more urgent to divide up the 20th century and merge in most of the main themes discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The edit was done in haste, so I am not satisfied with it either. But I think it reflects the consensus view of KD and others that prose paragraphs are preferable to a bullet list. Also the edit right now can serve as a stub for further development. (Not that I think the twentieth century section should be lengthier than the other historical sub-sections -- quite the contrary.) 271828182 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In effect, the 20th century is taking a lot of space now, because a big part of the main themes section is really only about the 20th century. OTOH, I do not think it is strange that the 20th century gets a fairly detailed discussion because (a) it was recent and therefore defines a lot of what is still being talked about today by students and professors and people reading about philosophy (i.e. it is NOTABLE) and (b) the 20th century, while not a great one for philosophy, is a complicated century because philosophy has been facing a crisis and splitting up and/or dissolving into specialist disciplines. ANYWAY, if this is not yet quite good enough for anyone I'd suggest being bold and trying to get it better rather than leaving the job half done. People can always revert you of course but then at least you've shown you're vision more clearly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Preview

On the internet search engine Google, is a short description of Philosophy, as given by Wikipedia, and the description is the same as the first sentance of the introduction to this article, but at the end, the preview declares the philosophy is "bullshit". Here is the entry: Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language and it is bullshit. I am unsure of how one would fix such a problem, but I ask for someone to attemt to repair this preview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.70.16 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of things on the internet contained material copied from Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think his point is that the Google preview of this article still on Wikipedia is a preview of a vandalized version of this page. Their cache appears to be of the last revision from earlier today, which was vandalized.

Unfortunately, original poster, there's nothing we can do about that, but wait for Google to recache the page, which should be by tomorrow most likely. Sometimes this happens, but time wounds all heels. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Early Modern Philosophy

Might be worth a new section just in case anyone wants to act on my suggestion above. I haven't tried to wade through all the diffs, so I am not taking sides, but this section as I look at it right now loses itself in pointless list-making. Name after name, and really there is absolutely no need to mention figures as obscure as Mersenne and Conway (and many of the others) in an introductory article on philosophy. Show me an introductory book which mentions them. I don't know how long this list has been there or who is responsible - just saying.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I hope to expand the early modern section somewhat, adding more historical detail (e.g., distinguishing the Enlightenment from the 17th century), while still keeping it appropriately concise for an article introducing philosophy. The list is a bit of a place-holder, and an attempt to not leave anyone out. 271828182 (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, please note I posted a last remark in the section above after this one started. Sorry. But I'll leave it there because it is a direct reply. Please do not ignore it because it is relevant.
• Secondly, I agree with KDTA that the lists are idiosyncratic. Given how I've seen discussions about this go before on this talk page I have not even tried to argue for excluding any of the obviously less important figures, because I figure 271828182 will be willing to argue forever and use the methods of then deleting more important people, and adding multiple footnotes which in many cases will not actually support the edits. Life is too short, in other words, so I follow an inclusionist approach for the time being.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A particular edit needing more discussion

I won't try fitting my response to this edit into an edit summary. Here is a more detailed response. The edit summary of 271828182 is the Bacon ref is to the IEP article and nowhere says he is of equal stature to Descartes as an initiator of modern philosophy). With this edit, new sourced information was simply deleted. I will revert this for some very basic reasons...

• Firstly and most importantly, the text being deleted does not say that Bacon is the same as Descartes in terms of anything like "stature". I have removed the word canonical and any implication, even through misunderstandings, that we are making or granting such judgements ourselves. This is in keeping with "encyclopedic style". The removed materials only says Bacon and Descartes are both called originators of modern philosophy, and the sources do confirm this much. Please note that such editing decisions can not be trumped by sources.
• Secondly, in fact the sourcing given quotes many leading figures of the Enlightenment as considering Bacon MORE important than Descartes.

If anyone sees a problem in my reasoning then please mention it, but as far as I can see this edit was extremely tendentious and this style of working is very awkward.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from overlong experience, it's pointless too. Edits which don't attract consensus won't survive long. I've suggested a way forward to make discussion easier here and get other editors involved. Any better ideas? Let's not turn a content dispute into a tedious edit war.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That's a bit pessimistic! Sometimes reverts are based on a misunderstanding. The above edit summary is incorrect, and that is why I have tried my hardest to explain here what is wrong with it. My edits have also not been simple reverts by the way. I've tried to tighten sourcing and respond to criticism. So if 271828182 is really going to edit war against that then what can I do about that except give up? I can only do my best to edit in good faith, and honestly I can't feel comfortable with something that makes basic mistakes like implying that Machiavelli is a theologian of the Protestant Reformation, a monarchist, or a humanist (three things which I have with much edit apparently now managed to get changed with 271828182 approval). Nor can I agree with this "canonical list" approach which, in case you have not understood what is happening, effectively currently seems to mean that no one is allowed to add to that passage except 271828182 simply because it contains a "canonical list". Discussion continues.

Concerning your proposal, I don't really see what you mean. What do you propose precisely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lancaster, stop making false accusations. (1) The passage never implied that Machiavelli was a Protestant Reformer or a humanist (you simply misread the passage and I freely invite anyone to read the original to see so) and in any case my subsequent edit clarified it to remove any possible misunderstanding, (2) you seem to be construing "monarchist" in an excessively narrow way for an introductory article if it excludes the author of The Prince, (3) I have clarified precisely what is meant by "canonical" with an extended citation and it is backed now by three expert sources — your false allegation that "no one is allowed to add to that passage except 271828182" is petty character assassination that gives the lie to your painting yourself as an innocent good faith editor here. You cannot delete the reference to the seven authors as canonical in this sense unless you want to say Nadler, Rutherford, and Kuklick don't know what they're talking about. It's not my opinion, the quotes are in the footnotes and are very clear: it's verifiable content referring to expert consensus.

As for your Bacon edit, I reverted your edit because it was (1) incorrectly sourced to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, when the quotes were actually drawn from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (you have silently fixed this egregious error, though I notice you still haven't fixed an obvious misspelling), and (2) you are willfully going beyond what the sources actually say or imply.

Here is the source, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [17]:

"The French encyclopedists Jean d’Alembert and Denis Diderot sounded the keynote of this 18th-century re-assessment, essentially hailing Bacon as a founding father of the modern era and emblazoning his name on the front page of the Encyclopedia. In a similar gesture, Kant dedicated his Critique of Pure Reason to Bacon and likewise saluted him as an early architect of modernity." "Leibniz was particularly generous and observed that, compared to Bacon’s philosophical range and lofty vision, even a great genius like Descartes “creeps on the ground.”"

Here is your edit:

The initiators of modern philosophy, are generally described as Francis Bacon, who argued the philosophical case for empirical science as a project for all humanity and Descartes who showed how geometry and algebra could be combined and used within science.

There is a big difference between the source and what you wrote. The source justifies saying, essentially, that some Enlightenment thinkers greatly admired Bacon as a founder of the modern age. That is not the same as declaring that Bacon is generally described as an initiator of modern philosophy on par with Descartes. Also, you are misrepresenting the source: if you read the section [18], the central point is that Bacon's reputation is mixed. "Bacon’s reputation and legacy remain controversial even today," as it says. You have cherry picked only the most glowing verdicts. So pardon me if I continue to revert your edits, it's not edit warring, it's just that your edits are poorly sourced. 271828182 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. "Some Enlightenment thinkers?" Actually, the sources I showed, which just happened to be quick and easy ones to find because I could quote from all over the place, that pretty much all the main Enlightenment thinkers thought of Bacon as the founder of the Enlightenment. And the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert itself had him "emblazoned" on the front page! How much more "encyclopedic" can you get? "Canonical" folk, to use your word for them, like Hume and Leibniz, are among the most clear on this. It also shows that some modern secondary sources think the same way, for example saying that what you think of Bacon depends on what you think of the Enlightenment (see the comment about Hegel). Please tell me what type of source would actually be good enough!!

2. Concerning your "canonical list" I'd like to summarize how I understand your position: You are saying that whatever a canonical list means in normal English, this particular way you are using it can be clearly understood if Wikipedia readers just go and make a study of the original sources and how academics sometimes use words. Problem is that your sources make themselves more clear in what they mean than you do. It is you, not the sources, that is insisting on wording which will normally be read to mean something else. Adding more and more enormous footnotes is not a good solution either.

3. I also want to raise a new subject. I believe the build up in footnotes you are doing is tendentious and bad for the article. No amount of footnotes can justify the types of things you are insisting on anyway, because these are editing decisions about wording, format, and due weight. Pretending that there are no sources for anything you don't like, and pretending that you can somehow prove this by just putting in more and more footnotes, is a waste of time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, let's consider whether the following very long footnote (currently number 38) about the way the word canonical can be used is really suitable for this article:-

Bruce Kuklick, "Seven Thinkers and How They Grew: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz; Locke, Berkeley, Hume; Kant" in Rorty, Schneewind, and Skinner (eds.), Philosophy in History (Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 125: "Literary, philosophical, and historical studies often rely on a notion of what is canonical. In American philosophy scholars go from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey; in American literature from James Fenimore Cooper to F. Scott Fitzgerald; in political theory from Plato to Hobbes and Locke [...] The texts or authors who fill in the blanks from A to Z in these, and other intellectual traditions, constitute the canon, and there is an accompanying narrative that links text to text or author to author, a 'history of' American literature, economic thought, and so on. The most conventional of such histories are embodied in university courses and the textbooks that accompany them. This essay examines one such course, the History of Modern Philosophy, and the texts that helped to create it. If a philosopher in the United States were asked why the seven people in my title comprise Modern Philosophy, the initial response would be: they were the best, and there are historical and philosophical connections among them."

Isn't that a highly unusual type of digression to load onto an article? Haven't you only put this there as a defensive measure to justify your on-going argument that other editors should not change the word "canonical" (for example to important or notable)? And the reason this is important to you is that you don't want anyone adding information about other figures considered equally or more important by other good secondary sources (such as Bacon or Rousseau)? You're saying that unless other sources actually by chance happen to use the exact same word (canonical) as your sources, they can't be used, right? Which is basically declaring a rule uni-laterally that you know others will find hard to meet. Hence my description of your approach above "what is happening, effectively currently seems to mean that no one is allowed to add to that passage except 271828182 simply because it contains a "canonical list"." It is just a description of exactly what you are doing, and you have no right to unilaterally declare rules like this to other editors in order to exclude other sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Further explanatory note for completeness, just on the logic, in case anyone missed the point: having a well-sourced list of canonical figures does not mean you have a source which excludes other possible lists or other sources, furthermore the sources being cited do not even seek to argue that they are definitive lists. There is no source currently being proposed at all for excluding Bacon or Rousseau from being canonical, in the common sense of canonical as being amongst the most influential and notable figures in 17th and 18th century philosophy. But while that is the clear implication of the wording being insisted upon in the article by 271828182, and the defenses of that wording here on the talk page, actually 271828182 has no source for that exclusion of other information, and that exclusion is the point of disagreement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here again, an uncompromising deletion of strongly sourced material. How can such editing possibly be justified?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's justified because you are just ignoring what I have pointed out:

1. Yes, some. Plenty of others simply ignored Bacon. What you wrote just isn't supported by the source: "generally described" ≠ "some (or even many) Enlightenment thinkers". The article is not presenting Enlightenment thinkers' POV on philosophy, it is supposed to reflect contemporary expert consensus. Furthermore, hailing Bacon as a great mind or architect is not the same as what you wrote, viz., "initiator of modern philosophy". I bet you any sum you like that when someone uses the phrase "founder of modern philosophy", it refers to Descartes rather than Bacon on at least a 5:1 ratio — I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10:1, considering that most non-English-speaking scholarship treats him as a marginal figure. So treating them as being of roughly equal significance is flat-out wrong or, at best POV or WP:UNDUE. Either way it's poorly sourced and hence doesn't belong in this article. Essentially, our differences have come down to your wanting to highlight Machiavelli and Bacon as important forerunners of "modernity". I think that's anachronistic, POV, and UNDUE, especially given the extremely compressed and introductory nature of these sub-sections.

2&3. You keep redescribing my edits as though I am sinisterly importing my preferences and judgments into the article, when the word "canonical", and almost the same list, have been there for a long time, well before my edits this month. Again, it's not me, it's not how "I use the word", it's how every serious scholar who talks about the subject uses the word. And that list of names is how they use the word too. Take it up with the scholarship. 271828182 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This is Wikipedia. Your estimate of how many scholars prefer Descartes over Bacon is original research, but also totally irrelevant to what we should be discussing. The problem is that you have NO SOURCE for saying Bacon was NOT a founder of modernity. You are trying to prove this by pointing to sources which do NOT mention him but at the same time you know, you admit, I have shown, and you have deleted, that there are many good contemporary sources, not only old ones, which claim Bacon is even the founder of modern philosophy and also the founder of modern empiricism. According to some of the most important Wikipedia policies we are not supposed to be taking sides when we know that there is more than one mainstream opinion. And this is clearly the case here, as you repeatedly show that you also know. It is also against basic policy to delete well sourced material or reference to well known published positions. Our debate does not just come down to disagreement about these philosophers, but about a blatant breach of WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PRESERVE.

2. What is your obsession to use this word? Why is it so important? I have no problem with scholarly works using it properly in a scholarly context. You are not writing in a clear scholarly context which makes clear which meaning of canonical is active, and you are not sticking to your sources. You are combining them and trying to make them say more than they do. The basis of your position is an example of WP:SYNTH. Anyway, I see no reason why you should revert people who try to swap academic language with standard English if it is possible, which it very often is. How can you justify that?-Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Your argument is weak: if (let's say) 1,000 sources call Heidegger the founder of German existentialism, and 10 sources call Jaspers the founder of German existentialism, you are implying it is appropriate for Wikipedia to give them equal billing. You are the one taking sides in a controversy, by cherry picking quotes to exaggerate Bacon's importance, when there are sources that marginalize Bacon, just as you are making Wikipedia take sides in describing Machiavelli as modern when many experts argue that reading him as a modern distorts his meaning. My proposal is to not take sides at all and not bill either as "initiators of modern philosophy". So claiming I am involved in a "blatant breach" of WP policy is rubbish. You are the one advancing an aggressive para-Straussian agenda about "modernity".

2. I'm not "obsessed", I'm keeping content that imparts information and is verifiable content (unlike the other list, which is, as we are seeing, unsourced and cause for open-ended controversy). "Canonical" has been there for months and no one complained. You're chafing about it, I guess, because you are importing a value judgment into the meaning that isn't there. To avoid that misunderstanding, I have added a big footnote and rewritten the sentence to clarify. Why are you obsessed with it? 271828182 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1. "Let's say" that the world is black and white and completely different from the case we are talking about? Or let's stick to reality and say that we are actually not dealing with a situation where the sources agree 1000:1? Above you guessed that about 1 in 6 texts grant Bacon founder status. That doesn't sound like you truly believe it is "fringe" does it? And it must refer to more sources than Strauss right? Actually, a quick google will show a lot of modern textbooks mention both Bacon and Descartes, just like I suggest Wikipedia should. Remember, I am not the one insisting on NOT mentioning what a large number of sources say, you are.

2. That a word was there before is obviously no excuse for stopping editors trying to improve the article, is it? Do you have another explanation? If you say that canonical in this context is not being used in one of its strong and most common meanings, then we should be able to find a compromise quickly by just swapping it for normal English words that take away the misunderstanding? For example, above you have written that "it is not a judgment of greatness or importance, but a report of who the usual suspects are in philosophy curricula on the early modern period". So let's change the wording to reflect that? But then if we do that then both the passage and your defense of it will seem odd won't it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. BTW everyone, the Nadler source which mentions who is canonical, is on Google Books. A few sentences after the quote being mentioned very often above in order to exclude Bacon being called a founder of modernity along with Descartes, it mentions Bacon and Descartes as the two people modern philosophy is generally thought to begin with. Also see the more extended discussion at page 306 which says he "inaugurated" modern science and page 298 which calls him a "founder". There are many different lists in the book which include the same men in the "canonical" list and quite often Bacon is added. Of course they don't all use the word canonical, but 271828182 is correct in saying that the one place a list is called canonical it is just talking about what is normally in textbooks. (Is it therefore even something we need to cite on Wikipedia?) Just sticking to the textbook genre, as apparently preferred by 271828182, Nadler is of course only one such example of a textbook on early modern philosophy which makes the same comment. Editors are invited to try searching "early modern philosophy" and "bacon" on google books. BTW the book also contains a passage describing Bodin as an early modern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate Lancaster on opening a book, even if only virtually, and only courtesy of Larry Page. He continues to show an inability to read carefully, though. For example, the Bacon article does not say he inaugurated modern science, as Lancaster claims, it says he "inaugurated the transformation of philosophy into science", further glossed on the next page as the "conditions of possibility of the emergence of a scientific culture". A subtle difference, but noteworthy, as illustrated by the Edwards Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Bacon (v. 1, p. 239): "He was by far the most 'modern' of Renaissance thinkers. In the words of one of his biographers, Thomas Fowler, 'He stood like a prophet on the verge of the promised land'". As I've been saying all along: he is a borderline or transitional figure. As for co-billing him with Descartes, see R.S. Woolhouse, The Empiricists (OUP), p. 8: "neither immediately nor ultimately so influential as Descartes". Anthony Kenny in The Oxford History of Western Philosophy (1994) devotes 85 pages to early modern philosophy in a chapter entitled "Descartes to Kant", discusses all seven figures in the canonical list in separate sub-sections, but only mentions Bacon twice in passing (one of those is a photo caption). So I, too, invite editors to search for references to Bacon and early modern philosophy, in Google Books and in just plain books. You will find a mixed reception for Lord Verulam, which is exactly my point, as I said in my previous comment here: "My proposal is to not take sides at all and not bill either as 'initiators of modern philosophy'." Note I am not denying that Bacon is important, nor am I saying he shouldn't be mentioned in early modern. I am merely pointing out that Lancaster's elevation of Bacon to coeval status with Descartes or indeed any of the other six 'canonical' figures (Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant) is an WP:UNDUE distortion of expert consensus. As for "canonical", the word is used that way by the consensus of experts. That's good enough for Wikipedia. 271828182 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in a game with no end, and fill this talk page up with walls of words. Everyone can click on the links above, or run a google books search, and read what they say at more length than I quoted. It is clear enough, as are other sources.

• If you want this Wikipedia article to say there is disagreement about Bacon, I can see that you can source it, but I am not sure it is a justified editing decision to want to go into a lot of detail. But is that what you are truly proposing? Not so far.
• If you want to try to completely censor the article so that it does not at all mention a major point which is commonly mentioned in mainstream literature over several centuries then I will continue to object. Removing all reference to an easily verifiable and well-sourced and major mainstream position (even if it is not the mainstream consensus position) is "taking sides" and is directly contrary to WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PRESERVE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not engaged in a game, I am trying to improve this article. Anyone comparing the length of my comments here with Lancaster's will see who is trying to fill this talk page with walls of words. My position doesn't fall into the false dilemma offered above, though, so let me try to explain it yet again: the notion of anyone being "the initiators" of modern philosophy is too vague to waste time pondering, just as WP should not be in the business of deciding who is the greatest footballer of all time, or the biggest celebrity of the 1990s. If we tried to do so, however, it would be wrong-headed to elevate Bacon to equal status as Descartes. I would guess the ratio is upwards of 5:1 in favor of Descartes, so how are we going to phrase that in a way that respects expert consensus and doesn't violate WP:UNDUE? "Descartes is overwhelmingly referred to as the father of modern philosophy, though on occasion English-speaking authors will throw a bone in Bacon's direction"? As I said, it's too murky an issue to bother with, especially in one sub-section of a survey article introducing philosophy as such. Better to talk about more specific and easily verifiable information. It's hysterical to call wanting to get rid of this non-scholarly partisanship "censorship". It's common sense avoidance of WP:PEACOCK. 271828182 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear, not murky at all, that mainstream literature concerning early modern philosophy, I'd say all of it, describes early modern philosophy as a deliberate project with founders (either Descartes, or Bacon, or both, or them amongst others) and followers who were conscious of what they were doing. The Enlightenment philosophers engaged in this also described what they were doing this way. It is pretty much one of the most notable facts about the two centuries of philosophy under discussion. Do you really deny this to be so and insist that I am making it up, or that it is some kind of fringe theory? Please justify trying to remove all mention of this basic fact. (I'd say if this section had to be stripped to one sentence it would be pretty similar to the various proposals you have continuously deleted.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Also note my most recent proposals which you have reverted went so far as to imply Descartes is possibly more frequently cited, although you have not proven it and it would be difficult to prove. When you try to justify your reversions please do not pretend otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW the most interesting Nadler quote I think was the one a few sentences after the one now cited in the article, written by Nadler himself, and extending form page 2 to 3. I mention this now because I note 271828182 mentioned only other parts of the book in the response above, and maybe there is a hope people will miss what is going on. It is the passage which asks why "should the early modern period in philosophy begin with Descartes and Bacon" and then goes on to explain that it is hard to explain but "suffice it to say that..." etc etc. In other words this could not be more clear. And this is the same source whose other listing on the same page is being treated as semi-sacred by 271828182 to the point that they can not be added to and nor can the word canonical be adjusted in any way. Will 271828182 claim that Nadler is using peacock words in the case of "begin" but not "consensus"? I don't know, but it is hard to see any way to avoid concluding that 271828182's POV "thing about Bacon" is not looking like anything to do with what sources say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Founders" and "followers" is about as much a "basic fact" as thinking Milton a more important figure in philosophy than Thomas Reid, that is, it is your imagination, Lancaster. A basic fact is that Descartes is more commonly cited as the "founder of modern philosophy" than Bacon, by a broad margin. Since you are fond of Google:

Google exact phrase search for "the founder of modern philosophy Descartes" = 8,290 results

Google exact phrase search for "the founder of modern philosophy Bacon" = 3 results

Google exact phrase search for "Descartes the founder of modern philosophy" = 2,530 results

Google exact phrase search for "Bacon the founder of modern philosophy" = 10 results

Google exact phrase search for "founders of modern philosophy Bacon and Descartes" = 4 results

Google exact phrase search for "founders of modern philosophy Descartes and Bacon" = 4 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "Descartes the founder of modern philosophy" = 221 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "Bacon the founder of modern philosophy" = 18 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "the founder of modern philosophy Descartes" = 55 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "the founder of modern philosophy Bacon" = 2 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "founders of modern philosophy Bacon and Descartes" = 9 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "founders of modern philosophy Descartes and Bacon" = 8 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "Bacon and Descartes the founders of modern philosophy" = 10 results

Google Books exact phrase search for "Descartes and Bacon the founders of modern philosophy" = 0 results

So I guess I was wrong to say the ratio is 5:1. The ratio is more like 12:1, 23:1, 253:1, or 2763:1.

So you see I am actually being sympathetic to Bacon to not list only Descartes and ignore him. Again, if you really want to include this in the article, how are we going to phrase it? "Descartes is overwhelmingly referred to as the father of modern philosophy over Bacon by a margin of at least 12:1"? As I said, better for WP just to pass over this peacockism in silence. 271828182 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

When confronted with a direct quote from your own source, you report the results of a pseudo-research project you've run based on exact phrases searched on google? I guess you've got nothing worthwhile left to say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I never denied that some sources will pair Bacon and Descartes with the vague peacockism "founders of modern philosophy". You, however, have repeatedly said things like "Descartes is possibly more frequently cited, although you have not proven it and it would be difficult to prove." A Google phrase search is not definitive, of course, but is likely indicative of a representative sample on this matter. Certainly it constitutes far more objective evidence than your spotty knowledge and your handful of confirmation-biased selection of sources about early modern philosophy. 271828182 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Bacon and early modern philosophy the word founder is not vague or unclear at all. It is what he is frequently described as, and indeed it is how he talked about himself even if he did not use anachronistic terms from the 20h century. Concerning whether Descartes is more cited, I have for quite some time being proposing wording which accepts your position, so please drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass? The google search as you've formulated it is just silly. Most sources, by my judgment, mention both Descartes and Bacon, but the wording tends to become complex in order to leave open various options such as saying that Bacon only founded a certain aspect of early modern philosophy (such as empiricism, the separation of science from philosophy, modern science, empirical science, etc). And indeed the wording I proposed for this article also attempts to keep a lot of options open, as per WP:NEUTRAL. Please do treat WP:NEUTRAL as an important goal of editing here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, I find your recent edit a much better compromise and much more accurate compared to previous deletions of all mention of this point. Thank you!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)