User talk:Peter Damian (original account)/archive1

Draft for article on Logic

Inference etc.

Sorry for long delay in replying to your message. Your original suggestion for the restructuring of the article was:

Why not organise it according to the true division of the subject, referencing the relevant historical distinctions as we go along. E.g.

1. What 'logical form' is - I have some nice definitions in my collection of logic textbooks. How traditional logic viewed if (all/some A is/isn't B), how the predicate calculus views it (there is/isn't some x such that it is/isn't the case that Fx &c). How the idea of the variable or schema is central to formalisation ("The introduction of variables into logic is one of Aristotle's greatest inventions" Lukasiewicz).

2. Truth and falsity – law of contradiction, excluded middle &c

3. Semantics. The intension and extension of terms. Medieval semantics (supposition theory), early modern semantics (propositions connect ideas), modern semantics (model theory).

4. Inference. Medieval theories of inference, consequence &c, early modern and 19c psychologistic theories, modern views. Strict versus material implication, ex falso quodlibet &c

5. Other bits and pieces. Recent developments. Philosophy of language. Computation.

In my reply I said I'd be very interested in seeing what you planned for points 1, 3 and 5, and I sort of had the impression that that was what you planned on writing up before we figured out what to do with the article. If you don't want to write this up, it is still clear to me that what you have now written is enough to rework the article, which I am happy to take the lead on. (In fact, since CSTAR has left, I'm probably the only editor left who really knows why the article is the way it is, so it is best that I do this). I hope to get started on this on Tuesday, though I'm moving office, so maybe not. --- Charles Stewart 02:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Division of the subject

Happy New year, indeed! Two hours to go for, you, I guess.

This is the part of your contribution I'm least sure about, and I don't think it replaces what exists in the article (eg. the division between formal, informal and symbolic logic is useful to make). When I have a bit more focussed time I'll play about with alternative content for this section, and we can see what works best.

While I'm typing, I think the semantics section should talk about Quine's doubts about the value of semantics relative to what he called theories of reference. I'll do this. --- Charles Stewart 21:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Unfortunately, you are not allowed to vote twice for the philosophy collaboration Template:PhilosophyTasks/vote. Would you please remove one vote? Thanks. Banno 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sense and reference Larry's text

You kindly offered to provide a copy of this on my talk page, but I missed it until now. Yes, please, I'd like to see it.

BTW, I like what you wrote in your semantics section. There is more that needs saying: I'm guessing that you want me to bring in current issues in semantics? --- Charles Stewart 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Division

My thinking on your content is that when we have your material on Inference then we are in a good position to figure out what needs doing with the logic article. At the moment, I'm think pretty much everything you have written in the logical form and Semanmtics sections can go in the article, but I'm leaning against having anything resembling the division section at all. How we should get to the sections describing the substance of logic isn't clear, but it would probably revolve around history & definitions sections.

I'm going to be away for a week, and before the new year I'll have limited internet access. --- Charles Stewart 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics.

It needs all the critical help it can get. Banno 04:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition to Zermelo set theory article

I added a remark to this (excellent) article about the usual modification of the axiom of infinity and the amusing fact that the two forms of the axiom of infinity are different: neither can prove the other in the presence of the other axioms.

As a philosophical logician, perhaps you have some interest in New Foundations, which I have been writing about. Randall Holmes 17:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful article

You said: I think this could be a beautiful article, which I missed because I was in a hurry. Yes, indeed, I think it could be. It is extraordinary that so few people try to give an encyclopediac overview of the subject, I think there is a space here to do something exceptional. --- Charles Stewart 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Commitments

I'm afraid that I've been hit with a credible libel threat due to my involvement with the Stephen Schwartz (journalist) article. I don't know when I will next find time for thoughtful input on this article. You can always ping me with requests for thought-free input, though. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 08:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy intro

I gotta say, I think the edit you had as of 12/29/05 was pretty darn good, and it has since gotten out of hand. I'm gonna try and work on my own version to act as a compromise between what is currently being fought over and your old edit, but i will be using your original intro as the foundation. I'll send you a draft of the intro when i've got it. Shaggorama 09:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, for putting up with so much ridiculouness over the philosophy article, here's a barnstar.

---

That seems to be the trend among wikipedia philosophers. The encyclopedia is infested with self-proclaimed academics, and it is really a form of vandalism when they twist quality articles presenting accepted research with subjective readings they think sound right. I'm sorry you've been so disappointed with your experience here. We just need to keep the ignorant in line. I don't know if it's necessarily true (I haven't been here that long yet), but I have a theory that if an article gets good enough, people less educated on the subject will become afraid of touching it in awe of the information presented therein. Of course, maybe they can't all recognize good writing when they see it. Shaggorama 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Philosophy

Thanks for your message. I hope that you'll be contributing to my attempt to improve the Philosophy article by consensus; I've not had much luck yet, but I have hopes... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm against the unilateral rewriting of the article by anyone, including me — and eschewing false modesty I think (though I might be wrong) that I'm the best-qualified editor on the scene at the moment in terms of academic experience and qualifications and of writing and publishing background. The point is, of course, that though expertise is useful on Wikipedia, it doesn't trump the method of consensus. I'd much rather achieve an improvement of the article by discussion and gradual change than by the overnight replacement of the article by a new version written by one person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but my worry (backed up by experience at other articles) is that following sweeping changes by further sweeping changes just sets off a cycle of non-consensus editing, and even edit-warring. I doubt that I'd be happy with any one person's version of the article (except mine — but no-one else would be happy with that). For example, KSchutte's version is riddled with inaccuracies and PoV passages (for example User:KSchutte/Philosophy#Branches of philosophy and User:KSchutte/Philosophy#The Analytic/Continental Divide) respectively, is surprisingly outdated (look at User:KSchutte/Philosophy#Quinean neopragmatism for example), and written in an awful style of English — tenses all over the place, purplish prose, etc.); it's not much better than what's there now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will not take my recent post too harshly. I just wanted to remove some of the sting of your newcomer bite. Peace. The Rod 17:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current dialogue on Philosophy talk is going to solve the generic problem. Producing a stable version might help. WP 1.0 presumably will both need that and provide a fixed point once it has. Something a group of doctors are trying is a somewhat similar project, aimed more narrowly at the profession, and restricted to those registered in the profession. Whether a degree in Philosophy would be a suitable entry marker ... Our thing is at http://ganfyd.org (I wrote the licence).

I do think the Philosophy article has much tht is good about it, and some of the other articles in the project are excellent. Midgley 11:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reponse...

Thank you very much. I'm honored by such comments coming from a professional philosopher with much experience in the field. Re the philosophy page, it seems to me to be the usual sort of thing that happens with broad and popular philosophy or social science topics that I've noted throughout Wikipedia: everyone on earth feels the need to get their two cents in on the matter and everyone, of course, knows something about philosophy because that's just what people do when they think about life or existence, isn't it? On the other hand, no one will go over and lay their hands on the neuroanatomy page unless they are extreely qualified to do so or have done the research to make sure the facts are correct. At any rate, thanks again for the kind words. --Lacatosias 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Logic again

The libel threat, if it hasn't gone away, receded about 2-3 weeks ago, and I'm not expecting any more trouble with it. I've nopt had much time for Wikipedia since then, but I hope to get stuck in again this week. Inference from 1910, eh? I guess I really need to rewind a bit and talk about Boole, Frege & Pierce before I can tackle Hilbert&Ackermann and Tarski. That's a tough piece of condensed writing. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have convinced myself that all kinds of things need to be said in this space that probably can be skirted around. It's probably best just to get stuck in.

WRT Syllogism, I saw what happened but didn't have much time to spare to get involved. I'll pipe up on the talk page if you think it will help. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Syllogism

I've read your proposal to keep Mel's work and though I am inclined to agree with you on some of his material my sense of justice precludes me from starting anywhere than Twrigley's original article. Let us start there to right a wrong. Then let us work paragraph by paragraph to add Mel's writing in order to improve the article. That would be the logical thing to do. It would also be the morally right thing to do. Working together mountains can be moved and the world can progress. Working apart, molehills become mountains and the world fills long lost hopes with the tears of the oppressed. --Northmeister 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not leave wikipedia. Your a valuable member of the community. Twrigley has requested that I not involve myself, and since I was there to defend his honor, I will abide by his request. That was what it was about. If somehow I angered you, forgive me. I was not intending that. Best wishes and good luck. --Northmeister 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

In mocking me once, I recall you mentioned that you speak Latin. I'm editing a page (Pufendorf) and came across a passage in Latin which didn't have an English translation. I tried to translate the passage by using an electronic program but I doubt that it's any good. The passage reads: vir parum jurisconsultus et minime philosophus. I guessed that that roughly meant: "He is a minor jurist and even less a philosopher", but again, that's just a guess. I'm sure the readers would appreciate a better translation than that which is the result of my random gropings. Lucidish 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Lucidish

Help me, before I do something drastic!!

This is taken from an edit summary by Kenosis:

Deflationary theory is one of many "robust theories" (whatever robust means)--).....

My jaw has dropped to the point where I can no longer see above my shoelaces. And this is after I directed him to the article on deflationary theory of truth which I wrote myself. It can't be that bad, can it? --Lacatosias 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sanger and the madness of Wiki

Yes, I've read Mr. Sanger's astute analysis of the essential problems with regard especially to such fields as philosophy on Wikipedia. I could not agree more. In fact, if such a supervised and genuinely peer-reviewed version of Wikipedia existed and were open to contributions from knowledgable but non-professional (or not-yet-professional) students, I would immediately abandon trying to midly ameliorate the absolute lunacy and nonsense that eventually takes hold of almost every philosophy article on this project. On the one hand, I'm sorry to hear you that you have given up on this thing, because it is precisely the contributions, intelligent discussion and obvious expertise of people like yourself and a small handful of others in the philosopy section (beside some of the outstanding work in many of the hard sciences, mathematics and other areas) that gave me some hope that the prospects were not totally bleak. On the other hand, I am absolutely not surprised and have rather been shocked that there are still any serious people left who are trying to contribute to this project. Did I realize that most of the people who contribute are mad? I guess I always suspected this, even from the beginning. But only recently has it kicked in how thorough, pervasive and perhaps irremediable the situation really is.

In answer to another one of your questions, though, it might be somewhat important to point it that it wasn't the article on deflationary theory of truth itself that was attacked, but the part of the article on truth which deals with deflationism, "robust" theories and so on. In my limited experience, articles on very specific topics like "deflationary theory" or "modularity of the mind" (or what have you) do not tend to be subject to nearly as much edit-warring and ridiculously uninformed intrusions as the major articles. I don't know why I got myslef mixed up in these "major" articles recently. I guess I felt it was a challenge worth taking on, since the more specific articles tend not to be noticed or read without first going through the major ones. Big mistake. In any case, if you do continue to contribute, I strongly advise you to focus on specific topics or individuals (e.g. Alexius Meinong) which are generally ignored and for reasons that I'm sure you well understand on the Wackipedia.--Lacatosias 08:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Logic Museum

It sounds like a worthy and worthwhile project. However, I have to confess that I honestly don't see in what way I could contribute: a) the only language that I am capable of translating at a serious and professional level is Italian-to-English or viceversa. I know only a few phrases in Latin and absolutely nothing of German; b) my current circumstances (living in very small town in the south of Italy) make it not that easy for me to get access to primary source articles. The nearest library is a good distance away and I have buy almost all the books that I am interested in. But if there is some way to work around these problems, I think I would be interested.--Lacatosias 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail about this a little while ago. Thanks--Lacatosias 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam FAC

Furthermore, a journal or publisher will typically differentiate the hopeless case from the 'needs improvement' one. Every good writer has to deal with the latter at some point. But a journal or publisher will make this clear a very early stage. I don't see this here (Except for Sandy).

I am not sure, but should I take this as referring to me since I am not specifically excluded? The article has some sections of bad writing. It turns out that Lacatosias didn't write them, but they were in the article, and Lacatosias agrees they were bad. These sections need improvement. The article is overall quite good, and while recent FAs have a pretty high standard, there is no reason this article cannot be there. Gimmetrow 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to exclude you. Thanks for pointing this outDbuckner 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm still confused. Are you saying the issues I pointed out were baseless, or not? Those were some technical formatting issues, a possible factual issue, and one rather poor paragraph which Lacatosias then rewrote to great benefit. Gimmetrow 15:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they were not baseless. The ones I took issue with were Tony's, which were highly pedantic and wrong, and Sandy's. I have now listed them out. Dbuckner 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

HP FAC part 2

Hi - I just wanted to say hello, and thanks for your good sense in the debate over the Hilary Putnam article. Cheers, --Sam Clark 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - just got your message on my talk page - our messages crossed in the mail, it appears. Yes, I'm in York in the UK, although not currently employed by the university. I'm going through the unofficial tenure system for early-career British academics, moving from one short contract to another. Just finished working at the University of Glasgow, now looking for a job for next academic year, which is why I have time to get sucked into wikipedia. Given my experiences so far, I can well believe the difficulties of excluding 'my philosophy of life, by me, aged 17-and-a-half' from articles on academic philosophy. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

hmm, I tried to write a hello earlier and something didn't work, let's see if I can recall my points. First, I'm not much of a medievalist, I just know a bit about many logical traditions. Supposition theory was my first WP article, and I did it because I found a broken link. I didn't know any of the WP subtlties at the time, including the caps issue, BTW thank you for catching that I've fixed it. I've edited term logic and square of opposition a little. I suck at copy-editing, and probably have too informal of a style, so you might double check. I fear I did more harm than good to the poor Putnam article. Ah well. Why isn't any of this on the Philosophy portal task list? That seems full of tarbabies to me, I probably should have tried to help on any of them. I love and admire WP, and it is sooo useful in many areas of research. I'm also a bit fan of the pro-am movement in general. I should certainly work on my own OR rather than here (as Lacatosias says my professional that is paid stuff), but Wikipedia gets so many more users than any philosophy journal, and there is so much more worth doing here ... It is a shame that the philosophy section is in so much worse shape than other areas of WP. I think this is for several reasons. Those with a passion for it burn out and get driven off, but more importantly, NPOV and No OR just conflict with each other so much more in Philosophy than elsewhere. Figuring out what is and isn't POV is the heart of OR in philosophy, and basically all publications are POV. It is just SOOO hard to avoid POV even when you are honestly trying. Likewise it is so difficult to be global in scope and encyclopedic. Take your Logic draft, for instance, its all POV, even though your trying, and it says nothing of Chinese logic, Indian Logic, the arabic traditions of 'ilm isnad, or 'ilm ijtihad. And even if you focused just on the Greek/European/American tradition, how much should you deal with teh many POVs like the sophists, or Stoic Logic, or the Ramist stuff, or Hegel, etc. Do we ghettoize all POV to a history page? Trying to do an honest job of a logic front page that is encyclopediac, NPOV, and global in scope without being POV, or OR, is a herculean task. Hell there hasn't been a book like that since Kneales and it looks badly POV now. This is not to insult your work just to point out that the problem isn't just annoying carping critics, its that the WP goals are far more deeply in conflict in philosophy than elsewhere. Ok back to my OR for a while ... :) Bmorton3 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

B, you know what?? I think you have to be careful to copyedit even your comments on talk-pages these days. Tony1 will now get a look at this sloppy writing above (;, copy it, and use it as an example of why YOU should be disqualified from addressing issues of writing standards (and whatnot) on the 'pedia. I've actually found evidence that he does this on talk-pages. (0: --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:REVIEW

Please see WP:REVIEW and help to write up a set of guidelines. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Tony's response to it? See here and scroll down. I thought I was helping to resolve the dispute by creating that page, and I tried hard to steer a middle course between both "sides." That's the thanks I get. I'm stunned by his rudeness. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, DBuckner. I haven't seen today's developments, but am going to try (again) to stay away from them for a bit, as it has all gotten much too personal. I think the idea might have fared better if there had been some time, allowing more distance from such a difficult FAC. Regards, Sandy 13:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the note. IMO, the timing of the proposal was just a bad strategic choice, and the personal issues are alarming. I commend you for stepping back a bit, but hope that we'll see you in the future on FAC or FAR. We are really overworked there and could use more critical eyes. Sometimes all the well-written objects can't overcome the fan support; no wonder it upsets someone like Francesco, when he compares to some of the other articles that carry the star. Sandy 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FA writing

Hi DB, could you leave a comment here, please, if you have time? Tony1 wants to add a link to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? giving his own views about writing standards. The problem is that the link is to his user subpage, and so others can't edit it. I think the link should either not be on the page, or we should make clear that they are his own views only. Otherwise, nominators will think that, in order to satisfy so-called criterion 2a, everyone has to do what Tony wants, which isn't the case. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Putnam again

Hi - I've just noticed that Raul has reopened the nomination for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hilary_Putnam. All brief supports so far (including from Sandy, Tony, etc.), but it might be worth rounding up the troops... Cheers, Sam Clark 09:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

fregeatbtinternet??

Are you still around, sir? I thought perhaps (sorry Tony1) they had banned you or something. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

I hope you enjoyed your stay in Italy (though I understand it was a business-related visit and you probably didn't have all that much free time for sight-seeing or "vacationing"). It's good to hear from you anyway. Thanks for the compliment on the FAR. I had a good deal of help from Bmorton3 and EdHubbard (on the neuroscience stuff). The article was in such bad shape that almost anything would have been an improvement. The real, distrubing issue, though, is the fact that so many of even the best articles deteriorate so horrendously on the first place. What's the point of working to salvage an article if it is destined to degnerate all over again? The usual claim is that the evolitionary process of continuous editing by many people actually improves Wikipedia artciles. I would like to beleive that. This is one of the centeral pillars of Wikipedia--open source collaboration. But, if you look at many of the FAs, it seems like the opposite is the case. Well, so much for my ranting. I can't think of any better solution for this type of project. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey how can i add you

---

Hi, and good to have you back. I'm following the expert rebellion with interest... Cheers, Sam Clark 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Experts Problem

Thanks for looking over my Experts Problem page and adding to it! My original intent had been to place any summarised issues sourced directly from leaving essays (or similar) within "Stated Reasons for discontent", leaving "Community statements about discontent" to be used for individuals to then add additional speculation (under individual headings). But no matter :)

One thing you may appreciate learning about is mediawiki's footnotes system. You can create a new footnote with <ref name="name">this is a footnote</ref>, and later refer to it again using <ref name="name"/>. This will automatically number the footnotes for you, preventing editors from having to renumber them by hand when adding references.

Thanks again for your involvement, and please continue! I certainly agree that it's not just expert editors who are disgruntled, so it is important that we examine the issues and work towards some form of answers. LinaMishima 14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to appologise - I actually wondered if I'd came across too harshly above! It is good to hear that you were planning to do it in my prefered manner, and I know exactly what you mean about editing on when in a hurry. I'll be working on it later tonight myself, too, to try and flesh out the reasons detailed for leaving. With regards to the motto, I have to be honest... it's a template made by someone else, and I personally don't know latin :( It's a useful little thing, though. LinaMishima 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey

As far as I can tell Jon is an editor who wants to create special editing privileges for those who are 1) experts in their field and 2) edit under their real names. Of course he refuses to specify how he would reliably tell which editors fall into those categories. Its hard to be sure what his aims really are as he delights in obfuscation and hyperbole, not to mention sockpuppetry and evasion. My perception is that Jon is a highly intelligent man who has dug himself into a hole and refuses to stop digging. He is rapidly heading towards an indefinite ban here because he refuses to compromise on anything but his exact way, yet can't (or more likely won't) articulate exactly what that might be. I would advise you to steer clear of him. Best, Gwernol 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. While I personally don't agree that experts should be given special status on Wikipedia (despite being one myself) I can respect your position and greatly respect your stance of trying to work to improve Wikipedia within its ruleset. Good luck, Gwernol 13:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox (+leaving)

I wanted to ask you if you were comfortable with the changes that had been made to Omnipotence paradox and whether the WP:FAR review of it could be closed. I notice your leaving note—the second good editor I've seen this from in less than 24 hrs. I hope it turns out to be a break, rather than a departure. If you are still about, perhaps drop a note on the review. Marskell 08:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So as not to seem impolite, I will respond to this one. The article is still a bit of a mess stylistically (e.g. a reference to some guerilla in the American revolution that seems a bit out of place, as one example). In terms of content, there were still some unresolved questions about where the 'stone paradox' actually comes from, and where the 'triangle problem' originates. This would have been useful work to do, because as Prof. Morton notes, a lot of the stuff in Wikipedia is urban legend, and needs weeding out. But the job is a THANKLESS task. There is no point in continuing. It's not as though I hopped on board after a few weeks, and hopped off. I worked solidly on this for three years and it is like ploughing the ocean. Best. Dbuckner 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Farewell Dean, good luck on your next projects! Bmorton3 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you are leaving, even though my interaction with you has been brief. I still remain hopeful for Wikipedia (or more generally, for the concept of a free encyclopedia, whether hosted here or elsewhere), though changes I think will be necessary. For that reason, I would like to ask permission to move the expert rebellion discussion out of your userspace, into the Wikipedia space. You left no e-mail, so my only way of contacting you is here.

Good luck in your future endeavors. Perhaps in the future this, or a similar project, will be a place where you are happy to contribute.

--EngineerScotty 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, please do. But please respect the fundamental concept, which is that it was meant to be a constructive project, not a load of complaints, and that everything needs to be backed up by evidence. And don't call it anything like 'expert', for I see that has upset some people. All the best. There are a lot of good guys here. Dbuckner 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• The move is now done. And I'll certainly try to keep things constructive, though you never know who will show up. Many of the kooks here on Wikipedia are known to jealously guard what they see as their right to be kooky. --EngineerScotty 19:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Joined the rebellion.

Joining the rebellion!

me too! Vonkje 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Helpful

I hope that helps. Olin 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You had also asked about the multi-identity of the editor in question. He claims he set up a new account to 'protest' his ban. He has been faithful on the uranium trioxide page at staying off the main page, but continues to edit on the talk page, to the point where he has put comments on other talk pages--not on the article at hand--to get someone to put in his edits. He was banned for a week for tendenicous (sp?) editing of the talk page, but has started to continue again. He should be banned from the talk pages as well, in my opinion. Olin 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Informed and mob consensus

If you'd looked, you would have found this to be from the original page in my namespace, where commentary was welcomed in an attempt to decide how to procede. It's been removed from the project space version, as anyone was free to do, along with the invite for comments. It was by no means a recient or new addition. LinaMishima 16:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dialectical monism

Can we discuss the reason(s) you applied a "cleanup" tag to Dialectical monism? --Nat 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page, you state that "it is not a well-written philosophy article," but you provide no reasons why this is this case. Where, specifically, do you see problems, and how can they be resolved? --Nat 12:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised

to see that you'd made an edit to Sandra Ingerman after MAJOR VANDALISM [all in caps] had occured and you either did not see it or choose to leave it. Carptrash 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

it seemed to me that your edit was a fine one, i was just surprised that while you were editing an article that was only half a dozen lines long that you missed this:

• MELISSA JANE DAM- THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMAN IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD. THE QUEEN OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. GODESS OF LOVE.

that's all. Not a big deal really. Mostly i hold my surprises to myself. This one just sort of leaked out. Carptrash 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Good to see your sudden interest in categories. May I draw your attention to the guidelines for including an article in a category, found at Category talk:Philosophy. Here it is proposed that the main category include only the main article, Philosophy, main philosophical fields such as metaphysics and so on, philosophy of... articles relating to another specific field - eg Philosophy of science, and finally Meta-articles that are about philosophy generally, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy. These guidelines are set up so as to conform to Wikipedia:Categorization, especially point three of the general guidelines, that articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. Some of your recent edits breach this procedure. You might like to re-consider them, or discuss them at Category talk:Philosophy. Banno 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The new cat, Category:Philosophyattention, is interesting. But you might note that such a cat should only be added to the usertalk namespace, not to the article - see the discussion of namespace at Wikipedia:Categorization:

Categories relating to the Wikipedia namespace should be added only to the talk page of articles. For example, tags suggesting the article needs work would be placed on the talk page as they are relevant to editors and not an aid to browsing in the way ordinary categories are.

Doing this would have avoided damage to the hierarchy. The "main issue" with respect to cats is effective navigation rather than locating articles that need work - they nearly all do, as I'm sure you will agree.

Also, once you have over 200 articles in a cat, the cat page splits in two. This also splits the list of subcategories, making a general mess of the cat page. You are nearly at the point where this will happen with the philosophy cat. Keep going, if you wish to see the result. There are over a thousand articles in the philosophy cat, about five pages to navigate. The sub-cats are here to stay. The best bet is to try to make them as useful and navigable as possible. Banno 11:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You could solve your problem more easily by setting up a template for pages needing work - one that includes what needs to be done would be best - and attaching that to the talk page of the article. Then you could construct your list by finding all pages linked tot he template - one click.

But for my money, the full solution would be to set up a classification system, as discussed on the project page. I might have a bit of time to look into this next week, but not until then. Banno 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this conversation to the project page for now. Banno 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium

On the Citizendium planning wiki, a key contributor is User:Jon Awbrey. My hopes for that place are diminishing, sadly. --EngineerScotty 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Hamiltonian Christ

You have gathered up such a collection of miserable abominations that I was, literally, sitting here with my jaw on the floor for several minutes. Is it possibel to link to all of these articles at once? I would like to be able to show them to some nutjob who has been pestering me (with a little help from one of your long-time friends (;) on the "poor quality" of the Talk:Free will article. Would you mind weighing in on this one? Bmorton seems to have fled the field. --Francesco Franco 08:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

definition

The record 11:56, 23 September 2006 by Dbuckner shows your cleanup tag. Do you mind entering a starting point from which editors can start working? The talk page would work. I can put a watch on it to see your note about where to start.

My motivation is the physics rewrite which some would like to start with a definition. This is proving to be hard, and maybe pointless. What better place to start than the article on definition .

If you do not wish to put a starting point down, you can send me a message on my talk page instead. But for now, I will simply watch the talk page.

With thanks, --Ancheta Wis 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dbuckner, thank you for responding. Where might we/one start in the definition article to clean it up. If you believe the definition article to be a total loss, which is what it sounds like, then what might we/one do to help.

My interest is to apply an appropriate definition, or its lessons, to the physics rewrite. Currently, several months have passed and we are bogged down. I am used to the wiki-action where people work in concert. However, there has been a conscious effort to improve the content of the physics article, but the inter-editor chemistry isn't right for some reason. There is a community of editors on the article, and several POVs have been mooted, but only a few paragraphs have been produced in this rewrite. Compared to what I am used to, it feels like slow-motion.

As a matter of policy, I stay away from editing the philosophy articles, as I am a user of its contents, and am not an expert in the field, but I can pitch in to help it along, if that helps. Thus my concern when I see a cleanup tag, because I do not know what you are objecting to in that article. --Ancheta Wis 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have read some of the rationale for those cleanup notices it appears that you are pointing out that it may be a little too easy to add 'purple prose' to the offending articles: unsupported statements, guesses, etc. Based on your standards, I suppose that I should just lurk on the physics rewrite page and let the wiki-action play out, even if it feels too slow for me. But let me know if there is anything I can do to help you further your standards for the encyclopedia. Thank you for not giving up on us. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will apologize in advance for pasting your material into the article. I hope it might, as Ancheta put it, provide "a starting point from which editors can start working". Banno 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

adding brief annotations to the references

Hi, thanks for bringing Joyce and Joseph to our attention. I don't know much about these books and was wondering if you would be willing to add brief annotations to the references. I haven't seen this done too often but 0.999#References seems to be a good example. (I am wondering in particular, what the title of Joyce, Chapter X, is, and what prerequisites a reader might need to read them.) --Jtir 21:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi - good to hear from you. In answer to your question, J strikes me as an enthusiastic amateur, not quite as on top of the material as he thinks he is, but willing to listen to reason. We had a perfectly sensible chat after he made some alternations to Justice, so I think a gentle approach would probably work. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Viscount

While I am in no means fit to judge either the statements of Christopher Monckton on global warming, or the criticisms by you and other editors of those statements, I would urge you to be very careful of any making any statements that could be perceived by Viscount Monckton as an ad hominem criticism. Thank you. DS 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to put an article-still-in-tinkering-stages in main article space, as it can be found via Random Article. I have moved it to a subpage of Global warming. DS 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it was genuine, yes. The complaint addressed other Christopher Monckton-related issues as well. DS 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Russell

Thanks, Dean. I appreciate it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

So you too have a background in philosophy I see!

So lets work TOGETHER to improve it.

How about discussing things, SPECIFICS, on the TALK page of the article?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up Tags

I'd like your support to move the Cleanup Tags--which you legitimately originally put up--down, to the portion of the article which has not yet been revised or edited. --Ludvikus 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy in dire straights

These things are usually blown out of proportion. The relative balance between this and that sort of content (i.e., mentioning etymology, history, Eastern and Western contributions, branches, and... etc.) is a nicety that can be smoothed out if we all come to agree about general goals.

But the past few days have been an exception. I'm very happy that we've gotten rid of the content-free intro. If I were marking it as a short answer to the question, "What is philosophy?", then it would deserve a 0%.

By the way, and on a totally unrelated note, by your suggestion I bought a copy of "1066 and all that". Hilarious. (Queen Victoria was not amused). { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

On the Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy article, or, more specifically, its deletion page.

Thank you for your time. 271828182 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contribution toward the deletion. One small step at a time.... 271828182 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

Beats the heck outta me. I've had zero luck whatsoever imparting any useful advice to him. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Fuckwit" has a certain charm to it, I must admit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

logic

Thanks for your comment, and I apologize if I misscharacterized your views. We still disagree, but it helps if we both understand exactly where we disagree.

If I understand you correctly, you think that philosophy is a method of investigation, while I think that philsophy is an area of investigation. In other words, you think philosophy is more like science, which is everything discovered by a certain method, the scientific method. I think philosophy is more like history, an area of study in which many methods are used.

I don't know that this helps, but at least we may understand each other better, which is always a good thing. Rick Norwood 18:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

I just wanted to reply to your comment on the Philosophy page re: Buddhism (I didn't want to get off track on that page). The four noble truths are arranged in a pseudo-syllogistic manner, which qualifies them as a sort of reasoning. Also, I find the Buddha's four noble truths to be a serious and substantive challenge to hedonistic ethics (esp. "the cause of suffering is desire"). That's essentially my rationale for thinking that a discussion of Buddhism, at least to the extent it deals in the four noble truths, must be a matter of philosophy.

By contrast, a clear example of philosophastry would be Mao Tse Tung's famous epistemological "proof":

"Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No." { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Damn you Buckner — damn your eyes! Why did I let you sweet-talk me into going back to that gods-accursed swamp of an article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel brings up a good point. I think the only feasible solution at this point is an exorcist. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Just noticed the above! What passion! A "gods-accursed swamp"!

Anyway, it's related to what I want to say. Clearly, passions come into play in Philosophy.

I recogize the love and dedication that you must have towards this article.

I, although I love philosophy as well, are cold about what happens to the article - so maybe that's the reason I'm keeping my cool.

But I wish you would acknowledge, from your own current experience, in a Cartesian kind of way, the role of the emotions. If you do that, I think you will be moved to drop the ideal of rationality as a distinguishing characteristic of philosophy.

Also, I think you should abandone your ambition to be too profound in your effort to define philosophy, and accept the reality that the only way to go is to be sufficiently general so as not to provoke controversy.

Remember the source we both cited - the Oxford companion - it tells us about this controversy.

I think your effort to find the defining qualities of philosophy is commendable; however, don't you see that your goal along those lines is similar to the righteous struggle of Don Quixote of Cervantes? I do not mean to under-estimate your ability regarding your quest. What I wish you to consider is precisely the description given by your colleague above, Μελ Ετητης - that your entering a gods-accursed swamp.

So your effort to abstract the nature of philosophy today I think is bound to get you deeper into that swamp.

Think of me as trying to avoid this swamp. There is a way. But not by outdoing the Great Philosophers' efforts and failures.

I wish you peace - from the unintentional aggravation I must have caused you.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Growing a sense of humour might help you, you know. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

eastern philosophy

Let me try to pack as much information as possible - Every school of thought that develops within hinduism goes through a process where they define their epistemology, ontology... under epistemology they first define what constitutes right knowledge. usually they are some variations of -

• pratyaksha - direct experience
• anumana - reasoning
• Agama - scriptures

These three divides the world into - spiritual domain and physical domain. In the physical domain direct perceptions and reasoning are primary and in spiritual domain, scriptures are primary. What this means is, if scriptures contradict direct experience or reasoning in physical domain, then experience and reasoning wins - ex. if scriptures say "fire is cold", then experience which is "fire is hot" wins.

In the spiritual domain, if scriptures say "God is immanent" then, since direct experience and reasoning have no access to "God experience", scriptures win.

[SV 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)]

you say - "But Aquinas (thirteenth century scholastic) replies Cognitio autem nostra naturaliter ex sensu oritur, et per principia rationis procedit (Super Sent., lib. 3 d. 21 q. 2 a. 3 contra) – our knowledge naturally arises from the senses, and proceeds through the principles of reason. Although what we hold by faith may be beyond reason and sense, nonetheless we examine these things by reason"

The above would not have stood in the debates that different schools of hindu thought indulge in. The reasoning from them would be along these lines - How could one examine something beyond senses through 'reasoning' when reasoning is completely dependent on direct experience for its formulation as well as sustainence. it is direct experience which shows us the causal relationships in Nature, its time invariance etc. From this, given the cause we can deduce the effect or given the effect we can deduce the cause, but extrapolating it into a different domain would not 'produce' right knowledge.

[SV 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)]

Dont delete subsection in edits summary

There is loads of stuff on the phil talk page, but when you edit you always remove the subsection name from the edit summary so no one can find where you added your comment.--Lucas 17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

rationality

No, you're quite right. Philosophy needs to be defined as rational, in large part because that distinguishes it from religious pseudo-explanations of the world. An enquiry into the source or identity of the demons possessing a person isn't a rational enquiry.

("Inquiry" means something different from "enquiry" in British English, but in U.S. English it's just about the only current spelling, and is used for both.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to talk rationally about anything. I think that religions are unconvincing and self-contradictiory sets of fairy tales, and that belief in them by any marginally intelligent adult is perplexing. One of my main areas of teaching and research, however, is the philosophy of religion, and I spend a great deal of time reasoning about god, miracles, etc. One can be rational in drawing out the implications of a proposition, seeing whether it is consistent or inconsistent with other propositions, and so on — but if I started enquiring into why god had created my eyes so that I needed glasses rather than going to the optician, then it would be time to section me for my own good... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that you're reducing rationality to (deductive) logic; rationality doesn't demand that premises are unquestioned — that depends upon the circumstances. For example, when reasoning about the best way to get a certain job, it would be usually be irrational to question premises such as "the job exists", "this application form needs to be filled in", etc. Similarly, in the sciences it would be irrational to question all one's assumptions and hypotheses, though they may well be questionable in certain circumstances.

In philosophical enquiry, similarly, questioning all one's premises would lead to an infinite (well, indefinite) regress. That doesn't mean, though, that premises are beyond question; the result of one's enquiry might cast doubt on one or more premises, or at another time one might focus on the premises as the subject of a different enquiry. For example, I've written on practical ethics, and assumed the correctness of a metaethical theory (roughly, McDowellian objectivism), but I've also written on metaethics, and objectivism was then one of the things that I was questioning and assessing.

This all links in with what Broad called "Basic Limiting Principles (I'll start an article on those in a minute); it's usually not rational to question them in everyday life, it's sometimes rational to question them in the sciences, but philosophy questions everything. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I somehow missed your later message. I'll read, think, and reply later.
2. I'd forgotten that you'd been at Bristol (I passed through your User page on my way here). I don't know if I mentioned it, but I have a nephew and a niece living in Bristol, the former did his first degree there (physics), the latter is doing her doctorate (psychology). Do you still live there? (You probably told me this before...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki therapist

Thanks for your nice comments, and the summary of the background. I am currently reading the last several archives as fast as I can to get the background, but I see the need to "jump in" with the diaadvantage of not reviewing, because the discussion is progreessing so fast. What I do notice is that the discussion that I'm having is rational about a dispute: the communication is making sense; also, there are times where due to emotions, there may be a mixture of rational-irrational comments from different points of view. But there is a rational process of communication, that elaborates. Or maybe more accurately, there is a dialectical process going on of rational-irrational, and a hermeneutical process. What about the idea of having a side article on the different positions on the debate over the definition? Would that be helpful?Richiar 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

unlocking Philosophy

Since you disagree so vehemently with him, if you really expect Ludvikus to hang himself, I can't see why you object to giving him the rope. And if he behaves, then the problem is solved. Banno 10:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for your effort here

I dropped in right in the midst of all the controversy, without the benefit of knowing the background to the current discussion. I am reviewing the archives as quick as I can, but just the current one is 55 pages long and growing. In reading your recent comments, I think I may see the issue, and think I support your view. I have seen the same thing in a couple other areas, eg. the James Kim article where the debate was over a timeline, and the Kit Carson article, where an editor felt he (or she) had the truth, but, was unwilling to make his or her sources available accept in a limited fashion, to prove they were right. I agree with your point that regardless of the "truth" one believes in, it is verifiability, and consensus and the general context of an encyclopedia article or elaboration thereof, that matters; your contribution is greatly appreciated here, and I hope if you take a rest, you don't leave. We need to continue to have people like you around. Richiar 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you leave

That means I have to play Bad Cop.

I'm not very good at it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Double editor at Talk:Philosophy

Sorry, Dbuckner. It would be improper for me to say more. People's identities may be revealed, and that is not Wikipedian. Anyway, you and I don't do it, I'm sure. I only edit as Noetica, and I'm confident that you have the same sort of integrity. I understand your frustration at the situation with the article. Good luck! Stay (or get) calm. I'll hold back until I have surveyed the terrain a bit more. – Noetica 10:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that things are still hot and sticky at Talk:Philosophy. I'll just keep watching, since no good seems to come of contributing there right now. Thanks for your remarks concerning Talk:Paul Valéry; I hope you will keep it on your watchlist. Honestly, I don't want to send time on these bickerings any more. One can get addicted to dispute, and that is a truly pernicious addiction. All the best to you. – Noetica 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

You need another monkey wrench to get you to snap out of your naiveté and use your Cartesian doubt against those you consider your Wiki colleagues.

It may be that it's your Wiki ally/allies who belong(s) to a kind of mini-Wiki Cabal - and I'm not joking, like you were, in using this term which you yourself introduced.

So here's my semi-helpful assertion(s): User:Ludvikus does not equal User:Noetica - and I do not even know him/her.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Stepping down

I quite understand your frustration. May I assure you that my paternal tone was not directed at you. The page will be the poorer for your absence. Banno 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite recommend taking a break occasionally - having just returned from a month spent over at my favourite forum[1]. The change from one environment to another is refreshing. Let's hope the deterioration will not be irreversible. Banno 10:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis on Ludvikus

I thought perhaps it might be useful to share with you the views about me which your Prof. Mel Etitis expressed to Banno regarding my philosophical position. You seem to think that because I wish to drop the word "rational" from the opening, that it follows that I hold that philosophy is irrational. I've told you that that's not so. It merely means non-commital. I found your position on User:Peter J King's page. There are several reasons why I want it dropped - but it is not because of the one you subscribe to me. Also, you are mistaken as to my flip-flopping in my views. They are constant.

But I want you to think about the fact that all of us here (on the Philosophy page) are involved in some sort of philosophical activity: are we not all somewhat versed in philosophy? And also, we are looking, like Socrates, at something like defining philosophy. If you grant me that, then let me show you how that professor you so admire, actually behaves in this debate! And after that, I want you to tell me whether or not his philosophical conduct demonstates Rationality. But don't assume that this is my only sense regarding my desire that that word be dropped.

Here is what he says to Banno:

  Thanks for alterting me. To be honest, and I might as well be,
  I find Ludvikus ludicrous, self-contradictory, often deeply uncivil
  (and equally often deeply obscure), baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control,
  self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy. He and a few other editors
  have taken over [[Philosophy], which is a laughing stock;
  it and one or two other similar articles have often been cited in my hearing
  as evidence that Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously or used as a reliable resource.
  Although I find that depressing, I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do;
  editors like Ludvikus are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the
  Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for
  Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Even if I had the time and energy to commit myself full time
  to improving the article, they would frustrate that attempt. Just look at the article's history
  as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring
  thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess.

Clearly, that's not a rational way to argue against my position. In fact, it is precisely irrational on Mel's part. But because I Mel conduct is irrational here, it does not follow that that philosophy is irrational, which you've expressed to User:Peter J King, whose identity I hold in suspension (as Descartes would have it), until I can really believe he is Peter J.King.

Notice, also, that I'm able to do what he does, your distinguished professor Mel. By the way, I have also suspended my belief regarding his identity as an Oxford man. And I wish you would also consider that possibility - perhaps he's not whom he claims to be. Remember: He only tells us that he published a book in which he speaks in the voice of a woman. I did not make that up. It's on his page. And we are not able to read anything he has published in philosophy.

I also write to you because you seem the most sincere of all these characters involved in this enterprise. And I noticed that all this has put you under stress. That makes me aware that unlike all the others, you are not ego-tripping.

So I think that it is Mel who, because of the respect you have for him as an Oxford professor, you are totally unable to listen to my rational arguments. That, by the way, is another reason to drop rationality from the opening characterization of philosophy. But again, it does not necessarily follow that you are, thereby, committed to philosophy being irrational.

Also, you might consider trying to do what I do. I sometimes come up with "working hypothesis." It's like becoming Sherlock Holmes. We already have a "Voluntary|Slave". What's that? A Philosopher King whomay be an impostor? Mel says he's confused for a woman. What's that?

So try to be a bit more independent from Mel - and perhaps then you'll be moved to the rationality of my view, that we should dropMel's rational from our description. Does it really do anything for us in the most critical situations regarding significant questions in philosophy? Can we expound the Rules of rationality? Or is it most often just a nice sounding word that fails to do its job in the most critical moments? Read up on Postmodernism and maybe even on Freud.

Anyway, my sincere best wishes. I do not know you. And it makes no sense for us to be enemies just because we disagree on such abstract issues. In fact, is it not itself irrational? Ludvikus 07:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly type for laughter, but at least we've established what I'd suspected for a while: Ludicrous Ludvikus can't read. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes, it's depressing, because Wikipedia could be a useful source, and things like this make it a laughing stock. On the other hand, I have too much marking and preparation for this to prey upon my mind. (I loved Ludicrous' belief that an editor had "disappeared" because he hadn't edited for a day or two; the concept of having a life – responsibilities, duties, perhaps even a job – seems alien to him.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps we could write to all Columbia professors and see which ones reply in Ludicrous' style (I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to place a small wager on 0). I was puzzled about the reputation business, though. He's certainly built up a reputation here, but I doubt that anything that I did or said could affect it.

As for credentials — I always find it amusing when people doubt that I am who I say I am; it implies a touching belief on their part that I care (or that it has any relevance to what I do here). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Patience

While I understand your frustration, I will not be able to deal with the issue for a while (several hours at least); Real Life intervenes. May I suggest that you request either Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct so as to ensure that your conduct stays within Wikipedia guidelines. This is most important. Banno 10:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Section name when you edit

I still never know which section you are editing after your edits. You must always do "edit page" at the top instead of clicking on the edit button within the section (there is an option to turn this on/off). It is also much quicker and does not conflict so easily. --Lucas 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Darmook and Gihead at the Disco

The intro in Rick's version was one which I wrote, so I'm happy to keep it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In support of constructive editing

I have been through some of these bun fights on other sites, so I'll hang in there and try to help. Weirdest thing - and this will suggest a conspiracy to some - we share the same alma mater for both BA and PhD - but quite possibly without meeting. In my case, BA 1984, PhD 1991. We must know some of the same people though. I did my PhD with Pivcevic, hence a foot in both analytic and continental.KD Tries Again 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Edo, etc I know Edo's retired, but I haven't been in touch for a few years. David Hirschmann's death was a big surprise, poor Christopher's less so. Did you hear Andrew Harrison passed away? The only name in the Dept I know now is Andrew Woodfield. I see Adam Morton is busy and has a web-page. I'll be in touch further. I have a bone to pick (politely) with Lucas right now about cluttering the main Philosophy page with material which Wikipedia deleted from another article. KD Tries Again 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

How to proceed?

I have been in favor of developing a consensus, but is seems to go no further than typing the sentence. Though I am new, I am beginning to see the problems here. I will likely bring the credentialing issue up on WP Policy. I'm sure its been there before. I'm appalled at the abuse I've seen some people receive. I would and will support Voluntary Slave's version to stabilize the page; he or she speaks respectfully, and reasonably well. There are other versions that I could support, but this is just as well. Voluntary Slave has not retaliated that I can see, and has shown good restraint, as far as I can see. I don't know how this will sound: I would consider developing a protocol for speaking, here. People should go in order, and wait until everyone had said what they want, and listened to everybody. I don't know who Peter King is, but he said good things, as has KD. I listen to Ludvikus then to the reponses to him, he has made some points, but others have made points equally well. I notice that he controls the writing of the definition when he can, and was upset noticably when Lucius changed his version. A good editor would be reserved, gather impressions from others. See what they have to add. He uses words like a sword to cut people up, or mock them. This is not a good editor. But he says things that make me think, and does use citations. He uses quotes to support his view.

Protocol: present each persons version in turn, on talk page. Present version A by Ludvicus, on the talk page, let him have two hours. Then everyone will go in turn and say what they like or don't llke. Set a time, you have your time, say what you want, good and bad about his version. Let KD write version B. We will all read it and put our comments below what we think. Everyone would go in turn. Then systematically begin to list more issues, and they will come up. Then we each have time to comment below, in order, and no one intrudes or disrupts. In the meantime, There are no changes to the chosen version; I support Voluntary Slave for the reasons I said above.

If anyone breaks protocol they are banned for say 24 hours, or 48 hours. New comers would have to be told that we are working within a protocal. It would help if we had a discussion monitor. The military history section has coordinators, and a lead coordinator, so I know it can be done. Someone needs to be invested with temporary power to designate violations of protocol, and have the ban enforced. Besides my interest in philosophy, I have a day job, so I can only write before and after work, Pacific Standard Time. Maybe this is a silly or bad idea. Richiar 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several editors who right now are establishing their version of a "stable" page. They have established suggested rules. The several editors here could write out definitions for themselves. Critique them, and monitory the events on the other page. This way issues and grammar could be worked out without interference. At least for now there would be productive work getting done. If this sounds dumb, then ignore it. Richiar 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

the main article History of philosophy which is atrocious

Oh god, I hadn't seen that. No, there isn't currently a page on Analytic/Continental, thanks to Lucas's stubborn insistence that his content was unassailable. Whole thing deleted. I agree we need a good article on that. Currently I am spending a lot of time trying to demonstrate with cites that what is obviously wrong to me actually is wrong. I am hoping that the weight of evidence will encourage other editors to tell Lucas to stop restoring inaccurate information. KD Tries Again 16:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Philosophy

Well, let's go take a look at it. I'm sure it will be relatively easy to sort out, on a clear head. I've had a fairly arduous day today, so I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow, and try to reason the situation through. But not until I've relaxed and got some sleep on it first :)

All the best -- FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll give up for today too

Several editors have spent time today pointing out reasons that the material which is being posted directly onto the page, without discussion, is sub-standard. Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people that Scandinavia is an English-speaking country, that Karl Marx was a contemporary commentator on 1950s politics, that Russell deemed Principia Mathematica somewhat of a success. A reversion war has ensued, understandably I think. I would support locking the page, on a version without the crap obviously. I can see no other way to compel editors to respond to correction of obvious errors on the Talk page rather than just republishing the same errors. Anyway, I'm done for the weekend. KD Tries Again 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Editing the philosophy page

Hi

there are approximately 14 major sections on the philosophy page, there are probably about 28 subsections. Is it a complete coincidence that you only seem to contribute to the particular one I have chosen to renovate?

Advice, just choose a section, some area that you know about and have references for etc. Go and edit it, it is unlikely that others make major changes to your edits, if you have references etc.

--Lucas 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to edit a page

...when other editors revert to the previous incorrect version, even though the error has been pointed out with sources where necessary on the Talk page. Is there any Wikipedia policy which prevents this? McCarthyism didn't continue until 1965, no matter how many times it's republished in the Philosophy article. KD Tries Again 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Complaint

Yes I will, but against both of them. Otherwise we might as well call it quits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Tomorrow

I'll be out for the weekend - sorry. Count me in on Monday. I meant to log off an hour ago. KD Tries Again 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Abusive Language

Your abusive language does not lend you much respect on the philosophy talk page. Seems to me you would be better to go and edit the page on Boxing or something like that. You will be reported for abuse. If you have been drinking that is no excuse either.

--Lucas 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see this page

Talk:Philosophy/Workshop. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter King

If you wish to let him know that I'm trying to sort out some basic areas of consensus in a limited and direct fashion, and if tyou feel he would be interested, feel free to point him to the workshop page. I'm hoping that page will contain a lot less "dispute" and actually reach some conclusions. Leave that to you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

No, there is no support for the view that some sort of priority be given to experts; indeed, quite the opposite is part of the "Core" of the project. Even as an admin I can't protect pages from obvious idiocy. That's not going to change. For some reason I keep coming back {this is the start of my fifth year as an editor}, as do you. Why have you been here as long as you have? Banno 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Yes, there is an election process. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship & Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. "Block the f--rs" would probably be a show-stopper. Maybe in a few months?

You can see FT@'s vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FT2 2, my results at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Banno. Banno 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Copied to: Richiar, Ludvikus, Banno, DBuckner, Lucaas, Quiddity

Hiya,

This is a short summary, and request for help on the Workshop. Talk:Philosophy/Workshop

I'm now starting to check my understanding of philosophy, and seeking the input of other editors. This has several important benefits:

1. Current discussion has gone round in circles a bit. But if it is broken down point by point for consideration, then (although a bit slower) we actually do make progress, by seeing what we agree on, and what we disagree on.

    

2. If those who understand philosophy can clarify to me what it should cover, and correct my misunderstandings, then they will 'de facto' have worked out how to clarify it to others, including readers of the article.

    

3. Specific statements are much easier to resolve disputes on, and to see where people agree and differ.

    

4. The editors can very rapidly narrow down where a layperson (ie, me) is visibly mistaken, and whether they agree or disagree on what I do need to know and what's useful to know. So it's efficient.

    

5. Although slower than individual editors saying "that's what I think the article should look like", this approach has a tremendous advantage in that it tends to bring consensus very rapidly with nobody feeling their voice was ignored or overridden in the discussion. You tend to end up with many bullet points, of which the majority are all agreed or refined, and a minority lack agreement and can be investigated. (ArbCom uses a similar approach in its discussion pages for what it's worth.) This helps a lot in disputes.

I have put a list of 14 impressions on the workshop page, as well as some questions in previous sections. I'm looking for a wide range of thoughtful views on them.

Bear in mind the purpose is not to say "this is my thoughts on the article".

It's to say "this is where I'm starting from, and if you all explain to me where you think I'm right and wrong, then we'll actually have quite a productive debate that can be translated to the article as a whole very easily".

It's also to say for each point, "On this single specific question, what range of views do we have amongst editors of the article?"

When we ultimately cannot agree on a point, or there is a minority dissenting view on a specific question, then that tells us we need to look at sources to clarify our communal thinking. Where we do in the end all agree on a point, we know that is a place we need to find a citation to support the point we all broadly agree on. Thus we use cites intelligently, rather than as "weapons" in an edit war.

I hope that this is agreeable. Please do take an active part and give what answers you feel (bullet/short!!) on each point raised. It's an efficient technique to get problem articles like this on the way to recovery.

All the best,

FT2

Thanks!

Excellently clear answers! Thank you -- it helps a lot. Now, if the others in the article also do likewise, we might well solve this problem quickly!

I've added a couple of comments and questions, which reading yours have helped me to understand:

• Clarification questions to double-check, on q's 4, 5, 10, 14
• Explanation of the one I didn't explain clearly, q 12
• Extra questions 4a, 14a sparked by your reply, to clarify something that might be important in getting the history right.

Thanks - and now let's see what others add. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Email communication

I received your comment regarding the use of email for certain commucications. I agree to that, and would have done so had I known how to use it. If you are inclined to do so, you may want to activate your email account under preferences, and that will allow email communications. Regards. Richiar 04:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On Your Advice to me

How come you're so kind to me, all of a sudden? --Ludvikus 08:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - 2 philosophy questions

Two philosophy questions to clarify. These are perhaps, two area's Im confused on and need to learn about in order not to bring my own confusion into discussion. Or perhaps there are valid points there but I'm not explaining them clearly or appropriately:

In (12), what's on my mind is this:

If you look at ancient Greek early philosophy, I get a sense of categorization and hierachy of concepts in the thinking. For example this web page summarizing Aristotle on rhetoric - very clear almost black and white lines. From what I (informally) gather, for many centuries Western teachings based upon such traditions were based upon learning the rules defining each category, what are the types of rhetoric, what are the various means of persuasion, and so on. Essentially, if you were fluent in knowledge of the various categories and subcategories and rules defining each, then you "knew" rhetoric.

By contrast, if you look at zen, buddhist or taoistic thinking, there seems to be a profound impression it's strongly nondual, there is a strong impression and thread (both implicit and explicit) running through many such traditions that to categorize things is the error, and misses the central point that categorization is inherently misleading about reality.

This seeming strong contrast in approach is what I'm after comments on. I know it's referenced by popular writers, but they aren't serious philosophical reliable sources. So I'm trying to find out if this is a significant (as in notable) difference between some traditions.

In (14a) you ask what I mean by axiomatic propositional thinking.

If you look at Elements, it's described by commentators as "axiomatic" [2] [3] ("Euclid's axiomatic system for geometry has become the paradigm of modern mathematics"). In other words, it attempts to reduce the assumptions to a few minimal axioms, and propositions, and from these logically derives a body of knowledge, by adding new propositions one at a time, each one logically founded based upon those previously listed.

Although the subtlety and rigor have improved in almost 2300 years, the essentially same approach is still the foundation of modern axiomatic propositional logic, whereby a few basic notions are held as axioms, and a body of knowledge constructed based upon them.

That approach (significantly refined) seems very similar to modern approaches used by some philosophers (eg Tractus by Wittgenstein) and some mathematicians (Principia by Russell). In each case one attempts to start with some basic minimal axioms, and derive what can be derived from them step at a time, building a body of knowledge on the way.

So my question (based on seeing that this thinking goes back to around 300 BC) is, was this style of thinking (or approach to knowledge):

1. Originally the invention of geometrists, and later applied within philosophy to other big questions?
2. Originally used to explore the big questions, and later adopted into geometry by others?
3. Originally developed as a rhetorical devise (or codification) for "good speech", and later adopted into both? or
4. Something else?

Hope that explains those two a bit? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

There's an article on nondual you might like. Summarizing key parts of it here for you, and hope this will help position "nondual" in philosophical terms:

Nondualism may be viewed as the belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Examples of dualisms include self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, dualism/nondualism and many others. It is accessible as a belief, theory, condition, as part of a tradition, as a practice, or as the quality of union with reality. A nondual philosophical or religious perspective or theory maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between mind and matter, or that the entire phenomenological world is an illusion (with reality being described variously as the Void, the Is, Emptiness, the mind of God...) Nondualism can refer to one of two types of quality. One is the quality of union with reality, God, the Absolute. This quality is knowable and can be gained spontaneously and via practice of inquiry. A second quality is absolute by nature, or to put it in words, "conceptual absence of 'neither Yes nor No'", beyond the quality of union. The Western philosophical concept monism is similar to nondualism. But monism holds that all phenomena are actually of the same substance. Nondualism proper, on the other hand, holds rather that different phenomena are inseparable or that there is no hard line between them, but that they are not the same. The distinction between these two types of views is considered critical in Zen, Madhyamika, and Dzogchen, all of which are nondualisms proper. Western writers who have at times described a non-dual view of reality include: Plotinus -- Parmenides -- Hildegard of Bingen -- Mechthild of Magdeburg -- Meister Eckhart -- John of the Cross -- Teresa of Avila -- Baruch Spinoza -- Friedrich Schelling -- Georg Hegel -- Ralph Waldo Emerson -- F. H. Bradley -- Ken Wilber -- David R Hawkins -- Bob Adamson.

It seems to me this might be a major contrast of worldview and approach, to the alternative concept of category and categorization, and that's what I have tried (probably poorly) to express in words and ask how philosophers see this, and if it is important.

On logic - did Euclid get the concept of axiomatic thinking and propositioal statements from Aristotle then, and apply it to geometry? or was it pre-dating both and applied by both in their respective fields?

Hope you don't mind this question bouncing back to you! Thanks!! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for that reply. I am going to take a deep breath and try to capture my impressions here. If I'm completely and grossly in error please correct and don't bite! Thank you :)

First, it's important to remember that I don't know much more than just to ask the question, and as a facilitator rather than a contributor, I'm completely in the wrong place to opine what is or isn't philosophy. It's for that reason I'm checking my amateurish impressions as best I can, to ensure I don't drag idiocy along me :)

The impression I get is that the place of nondual approaches in understanding "the big picture" is roughly this:

I get the impression from your comment that the Western view has often/mostly tended to be that categories exist as absolutes or are essential analytic tools to understanding. The Eastern view has tended by contrast to be wary of undue reliance on/belief in categorization. The reason being, they see categorization as ultimately a construct rather than reality, and therefore prone to mislead and entrap (if believed in as reality) more than assist understanding. Eastern approaches to understanding "existance" also tend to be supportive of "neither or both" type answers, as opposed to "either this or that". Thus I get the impression that in those traditions, categorization appears to be seen as a useful guide to knowledge, but also deceptive and inappropriate to fully "believe in".

The reason this issue seems interesting, is it's a core difference in other traditions' attempts to answer the "big questions", and the different basis which their answers are often founded upon. It might therefore be a notable factoid to mention in two ways in the article:

• It's a notable feature when characterizing other (non western) countries traditions
• It's a one-sentence example of an "opposing view" from another culture, when we note that categorization is used as a principle tool of understanding in many western schools. So we can then comment briefly that not all traditions known as "philosophy" consider categorization methods as absolutely valid.

This probably isn't a notable matter on its own, compared to philosophy as an entire field. Its relevance is probably limited to perhaps the above two areas. But I want to check it "in case".

Does any of that sound like (with development) it could be useful? Or is it mostly garbage? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Second-order

Sure, user talk pages are fine. Let's stick to one page only, though, so we don't have to go back and forth from one page to the other. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, since this is just the internet. If it were real life I'd likely be in fetal position, but that's because I'm a sissy.

I can track down some quotes. The Searle and Williams quotes (I posted them somewhere or other) are germane. As to the real name of the "first-order" sort of thing, I was told it was a kind of "naturalism" in "metaphilosophy", but I think it has also been referred to as a "pragmatic" outlook (i.e., at Columbia's home page).

My impression about the history of it, is that Quine's collapse of the analytic/synthetic distinction forced us to re-evaluate the empirical status of concepts and conceptual analysis, which made the 'higher-order', disembodied view of philosophy less useful. If the analytic is continuous with the synthetic, then the wall between first-order and higher-order analysis breaks down; our concepts become more responsive to the world. Present-day debates on this still continue, of course. For example, Josh Knobe, an "Experimental philosopher", has shifted the emphasis from analysis of an individual's concepts, to the analysis of popular understanding of those concepts; and that demands work using surveys, etc. He was recently challenged (in blog) by someone who maintained the "conceptual analysis" view. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Continental philosophy and Marx (a bit long - sorry)

One difficulty with this issue is that, although the terms "analytic" and "continental" go together like horse and cart, they are not really describing in each case the same kind of phenomenon. The analytic school may not be capable of absolutely precise definition, but - as your experience doubtless tells you - it designates an internationally-based community of philosophers who, though they might disagree violently about their conclusions - are committed to going about philosophy in much the same way, attempting to solve or dissolve (there's a dispute) philosophical problems through the analysis and clarification of the terms in which they are couched. This might mean logical analysis or analysis of ordinary language, but the procedure shares the same atmosphere. The community has a common heritage in the work of Russell (Moore is always cited too, but surely less important), Frege, the early Wittgenstein, and also has strong bonds of loyalty with the British empiricists. The main current (or at least recent) technical split in the analytic community of which I am aware, is between those who hold that the main object of analysis is language, since philosophical problems are only expressed in language, and others (Gareth Evans), who hold that the proper object of analysis is thought. But arguably both strands are unravelled from Frege anyway.

Continental philosophy, by contrast, is a term which captures an enormously broad variety of philosophical schools, many of which are at least as opposed to each other as they are to analytic philosophy. (I have also contended, in dialogue with Lucas, that while analytic philosophers call themselves just that, continental philosophers tend to be called "continental" by analytic philosophers; but I am prepared to accept that continental philosophers have now got into the habit of using the term about themselves).

Anyway, a random list of "continentals" might give you some idea of the variety here: Kierkegaard (religious existentialist); Husserl (phenomenologist who started out from much the same problems as Frege); Marx; Debord, Sanguinetti, etc (post-Marxist Situationists); Marcel, Unamuno, Buber (two Catholic and one Jewish religious philosophers); Sartre and Camus (existentialist atheists); Freud (some say! - if not a philosopher, massively influential) and Saussure (a linguist, but ditto); Lacan (surrealist and psychoanalyst); Derrida (whatever he was, not a Marxist); Foucault (somewhere to the left of Marx!); Aron (Conservative political philosopher); Bataille (renegade leftist, suspected by some of fascism); Heidegger (far right existentialist, one time Nazi); Nietzsche. And so on.

So, two points from that long list. The philosophical methods of, say Hegel and Unamuno, or Husserl and Nietzsche, or Aron and Derrida (to take three pairs) are as dramatically distinct as you can imagine. These characters do not form a school. Kierkegaard spent his life attacking Hegel, and would have thought Marx the devil incarnate. Now, to Ludvikus' claim: yes, there is a strong Marxist element in the thought of a number of continental philosophers - specifically, apart from the out-and-out Marxists, Sartre and the German thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Marcuse, etc). The post-structuralists (Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard) do deal with Marx, but primarily to settle accounts. None of them are Marxists (or neo-Marxists, or whatever). And perhaps most importantly, Ludvikus overlooks the conservative, anti-Marxist strain in continental thought - and the right-wing Heidegger may be the single most important and influential philosopher on that list. It also arguably includes the (certainly non-Marxist) religious existentialists like Unamuno and Marcel.

In short, then, Marx - like Freud and Saussure - is an essential figure for some continental thinkers. But to argue he is important to all of them is, in addition to being anachronistic (Hegel?), misleading.

As for thesis 2., it's too vaguely stated to be right or wrong. McCarthyism, I'd say, though menacing, was less of a threat to Marxist theory than fascism. And as far as I can see, Marxist academics taught in American universities (and Marx was studied) from the 1940s through to the present. But I am sure Marxism is a bigger influence in Europe than the States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Today's editing

I am happy to leave the two Ls to get on with it for the time being. It's free entertainment. There is a Continental page, which is not too bad: not least because it's very, very short. KD Tries Again 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD

How are you?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The current situation: what is to be done?

Thanks for your note at my page, Dbuckner. I have a keen appreciation of the difficulties you have been brave enough to confront so energetically, and of course I understand your backing off for a time. My first advice to you is to extend that withdrawal for longer than you may have been inclined to. The article does not need, and cannot now effectively receive, daily maintenance and remediation. Leave it for a while, and let a thousand flowers bloom (as Mao is reputed to have put it). It will always be possible to revert large tracts of material, with support from others. Time is not of the essence, in this case. And I am not at this stage prepared to join any action against any individual. I am still watching, fascinated, and biding my time. I will edit and speak out more effectively for doing so only a little. Good luck! Practise the art of detachment, for now. – Noetica 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

O yes, don't worry: I understand! There are inevitable and "natural" limits to Wikipedia's progress, especially in the big general articles. But those limits have to be tested, and sometimes raged against. Take it easy, if you like. You've done a sufficient share of raging! We'll talk again about this, I think. Later. – Noetica 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

I've passed this up to someone more appropriate, for review, as whatever my view, either way I don't have access for what you ask.

I hope to have a reply "fairly soon", I'll ask again in a while (someone else) if I don't hear back. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with it

I understand. I happen to find partially-informed but eternal persistence more annoying than clownishness, but that's just my burden. KD Tries Again 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD

My main response is to KD's Talk page, but I'll just reassure you that I didn't mean to get at him — just to try to persuade him to add his weight to our concerns. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Continental article

I withdraw my moderately positive reference to that page. Lucas visited recently and inserted nonsense. KD Tries Again 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Its ok

If I can handle other stuff, I'm sure I can deal with a case of shredded nerves without over reacting to the bites. Don't worry bout it, but thanks for the message :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ye gods. I have just looked at the fiasco currently unravelling around the philosophy article. I was recently jumped upon for 'transgressing consensus' or something for moving the article on exclusive disjunction back from 'exclusive or', which is frankly an idiotic name for the article. The original move (to 'or') had been proposed by someone who, up until last year at least, had not heard the term 'exclusive disjunction', and insisted that 'in real life', the connective was called 'exclusive or'.[4] That is obviously the calibre of person who edits technical articles on Wikipedia. They don't know the subject, but they think they know the subject, and then make fools not only of themselves but of the entire encyclopaedia [5] while simultaneously enraging the few competent people who are prepared to lend a hand. How the Devil do you handle these clowns? Don't let them grind you down... Rosenkreuz 14:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe...I am amused to see that part of my report-back on my adventures in lala-land has made it into your travelogue for the merriment of further wayfarers. I've just nominated the eminent Ludvikus' latest maunderings for AfD, should you be interested. Rosenkreuz 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any continental equivalent of the analytic obsession with predicate calculus?

That's easy. No.

Let me work on the first five questions. You are onto some very valid points there. KD Tries Again 16:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Your other questions

Of course, you could write a book with those questions as five chapter headings. I'll try to be succinct:

1. The consensus (in reference-book world) seems to be that the distinction arose after WWI. In particular, with the rejection by Russell, Moore and others of the 'Oxford logistics' circle and of the English Hegelian school. Is that correct?

In Britain, I believe Russell's application of formal logical techniques to philosophical problems - influenced by Frege - was the start of it all (I thought pre-WW1, but that's easily checked). Moore is always paired with him, but I am less sure what Moore did to get the credit (again, I have a bio. of Moore, so I can check). On the continent, the divergence of continental from analytic philosophy is traceable to Husserl's break with Frege. Some good books on this, especially Dummett's Origius of Analytic Philosophy. Frege, for me, is the root of it all, through his direct influence on Russell and Wittgenstein.

2. Or was there some sort of distinction before? Was the English Hegelian school a blip, and thus the post-WWI state simply a return to the normal state of affairs before Bradley and co? E.g. there's a strong anti-metaphysical, and also anti-German tendency in the writings of Mill, & one could see Russell as the natural heir of Mill (indeed, wasn't he Mill's godson?).

There aren't many experts on English Hegelianism around. It started with T.H. Green, so we'd need to look at what was being taught at Oxford/Cambridge before that (quaint villages, I know, but not much point looking anywhere else). Where you are dead right is that the analytical philosophers reached straight back to Hume. In effect, Russell et al dismissed Kant as well as Hegel, and paired thorough-going empiricism with techniques of logical analysis (which later branch off into logical analysis ordinary language). The Vienna Circle (and the Tractatus, for that matter) did the same, and it's all neatly summed up in Ayer's LTL: empirical truths, truths of logic/maths - that's it. I am struck by the closeness of English and German philosophy, from the Hegelian school, right through Russell, and into Gilbert Ryle teaching Husserl, Brentano etc (cite: Dummett), and then Dummett himself reading Frege, Brouwer, etc. And of course these guys were all working with the original German texts.

3. Was there any reaction among the 'continentals' similar to the one in the English analytic school? I.e. was the reaction against the English Hegelians a reaction against 'continental' style philosophy, or was it simply a reaction against the past? And if the latter, was there also a reaction against the past on the continental side (hope that makes sense).

I might not quite understand you, but Hegel was out of fashion in France too, until Kojeve's 1930s lectures reinvented him as an existentialist-Marxist. Everyone in Paris was at those lectures - and it brought Hegel back from the dead. In France, between 1900 and the 1930s - Bergsonism, a bit of Comtean positivism I guess, plenty of continental-style Phil of Science, and I am sure mainstream Cartesian rationalism. In Germany, several schools of neo-Kantianism. Then Husserlian phenomenology. Very broad strokes.

4. Does the real distinction go back to Hegel? He is impenetrable to me in the same way I find much continental philosophy impenetrable. Also, there is no real equivalent of Hegel in Anglo philosophy, is there?

I think no and no. Hegel tends to be considered a "continental" because, unlike Kant, he's not very relevant to the analytic project. But that's a very anachronistic POV (and much favored by some editors here). Really, Kant to Schelling and Fichte to Hegel to the young Hegelians was a straight line in German philosophy. Distinction came later.

5. Are there any subject areas that distinguish one school from the other? Sartre and Heidegger seem to have an obsession with consciousness, but then so does Wittgenstein, and so does a lot of modern analytic.

A bigger question requiring more reflection. My first stab is that any list of topics would find analytic and continental treatments - but just in different styles, from a different perspective. Huge stylistic differences, and certainly a greater continental focus on historical/social/political (ideological) context of theories.

Maybe some of this material will be useful some day. KD Tries Again 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Yes, it would be possible to put together a draft account of the beginnings of analytic philosophy, using in addition to Dummett, the Moore bio and maybe Russell's autobio - which I haven't looked at in years. And a few other sources. Covering continental would be slightly different, as my contention is that it's never been a mirror image of analytic. "Continental" didn't start at some point in time - it was what people started calling a bunch of schools which were not analytic. KD Tries Again 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Jan Cox (philosopher) [sic]

One for your collection[[6]]. I could do no more than raise a minor query on the Talk page. KD Tries Again 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Want to make a difference?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/1/desired.htm

Email for editors: http://www.iep.utm.edu/1/editors.htm

Editors' lists: Language: http://uh.edu/~psaka/IEPlist.htm

Logic: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/IEP/desired_logic_articles.txt

History of Analytic: http://www.malone.edu/2909

Epistemology: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/DesiredIEP.htm

Zeusnoos 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here as well as where you replied on KD's page. Supposing that IEP editors are aware of the limitation of their current structure and want to change it, and unlike Stanford they have no budget for keeping the encyclopedia online (volunteer basis only), what improvements would you suggest? I think a collaborative effort would be opposed by some subject experts, but perhaps some would be open to feedback for improvement in a conversational wikitalk style. If some behind the scenes wiki technology were employed in which authors, editors, and invited philosophers could participate in article improvement or collaboration, would you participate? Do you think it would lead to unproductive personal conflicts between subject experts? Would it make authors or area editors who choose not to participate appear uncooperative? Zeusnoos 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-American philosophy needs to be updated. Support is unclear. If you wouldn't mind changing it to Keep or Delete that would help clarify your position. Thank you! -- Kesh 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy as continuous

It's a mixture of sensibleness and loopiness I think. That philosophy consists in a certain process (and so there are no philosophical beliefs or theories, as it's how one gets there that counts) is a fairly standard view. That philosophical thinking doesn't start from a certain foundation (such as metaphysics, or epistemology) is also a reasonably common view. Quine's denial of the analytic-synthetic distinction isn't widely accepted, but is sensible enough; the problem is seeing what it has to do with the rest what's said, as no-one (so far as I'm aware) thinks that philosophy's distinctness from science rests upon that distinction. I agree that "sui generis" is too vague as it stands (a friend of mine showed me an undergraduate essay that she was marking the other day, in which was the phrase: "...and he sui generously held that...").

I suppose that sense can be made of the claim that philosophy is continuous with the sciences, just as one could claim that all human endeavours are continuous — it's clear, however, that even on this view there's a spectrum which divides up reasonably naturally, and just as there's no clear line between two colours of the rainbow, yet there are clearly two distinct colours, so there is clearly an activity that we call philosophy, and that is distinct from physics, biology, etc.

I think, in sum, that it's much too much of a fringe view to go into the lead, but it might find a place in the main body of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you can keep it out of the lead, though, is another matter... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...eavesdropping here, since the page's on my watchlist. I am aware that Quine's denial of the analytic-synthetic distinction isn't widely accepted, but I have not really seen a rippingly good criticism of it. It just seems to be conveniently ignored, for the most part. Could you point me in the right direction, should you know of something? Rosenkreuz 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of what Mel has said is simply against the facts. I've given three mainstream citations for the mainstream prominence of metaphilosophical naturalism: Searle, Williams, Blackburn. The analytic-synthetic point was mine, and was speculative, but it is also upheld by Searle: "At this point it is important to state that if there is no well-defined class of analytic propositions, then the philosopher's propositions cannot themselves be clearly identified as analytic. The results of philosophical analysis cannot be sharply distinguished from the results of scientific investigation." (In the Blackwell companion.) I suppose I should have provided better quotes earlier, but I do have a life outside of all this. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • What about Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - anyone notice said distinction there?
  • Has anyone read Decartes's Geometry? It's available in Dover Publications, Inc.!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic/continental contd.

Hey, your Heidegger's not so bad! Yes, he argues that point in many texts - simply that the question about the world's existence can only be posed by a worldly (or world-based) being. And if that sounds like Wittgenstein in On Certainty - absolutely. Witters just puts language upfront in his argument - Heidegger is more focussed on practical everyday capacities.

Which leads me to pick up a comment you made before with which I disagreed: Heidegger is not focussed on consciousness. His rebellion against Husserl really was a rejection of the Cartesian/Husserlian approach of trying to do fundamental philosophy by starting with the ego (or "pure" consciousness). For Heidegger, the ego/self/conscious self, is a theoretical abstraction which always presupposes a self engaged with a world or environment. And equally, the notion of an "external" world is an abstraction from that same set-up. Self and world always come to the party together.

Er... where was I? I think I like the view that European philosophy, including the Brits, was not split before the analytic school came along. Kant is responding to Hume. I am pretty sure the 18th C empiricists knew their Descartes and Malebranche. One side-issue is that it seems every intellectual in those days was quite capable of reading original phil. in English, French or German as required - maybe another reason why there's such a divide in recent decades! I am open to persuasion that I have this wrong, though.

Lucas and I had an endless argument on the talk page for his deleted Anglophone/Continental article: I failed to convince him that, while "continental philosophy" is clearly a term in use, and has even been adopted by some continental philosophers to talk about what they do, it's not a unified school. You just have to throw Marx, Kierkegaard, Husserl and Nietzsche together to realise that.

Much confusion about the levels (if that's the word) of these terms: analytic, existentialist, phenomenological, Marxist, structuralist, pragmatist, ordinary language, behaviorist - these are all schools (with fuzzy boundaries and overlaps). "Anglo-American" and "continental" are broader terms which each capture some of those schools. For example, I'd say pragmatism was Anglo-American. Is it analytic? Big question. And then there are your "post-modernism" and "post-structuralism", which are not - to me - schools, but very fuzzy terms with wide variety of usage. Well, I out-rambled you. KD Tries Again 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Just to put in my agreement that no-one that I know of dates the Anglo-American/Continental divide before about Hegel (which is when it began to appear, but only slowly developed). The so-called "Rationalism"/"Empiriucism" distinction is artifical, misleading, and ahistorical, of course. Husserl is often seen as a figure very near the dividing line — almost a decent Anglo-American philosopher, but just unable to discard the obfuscatory style; few would place Marx clearly on either side, though (probably more Anglo-American than Continental, I'd have thought though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)