Talk:Philosophy

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

Additional archived pages:

• Talk:Philosophy/Rationality (useful reference on previous discussion, Feb 2006) Dbuckner 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Philosophy/Dec06definitions Some pretty awful definitions of philosophy that someone wanted to keep to discuss. Dbuckner 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On Unlocking the article.

The debate appears interminable, the disputants irreconcilable. I'm tempted to ban all present editors from the site for a month or two (joke!).

But instead, I'm going to unlock the page for a bit, and see what happens.

I'm going to do this partially because of my naive conviction that there is no problem that men of good will can't sort out when given the opportunity. (Men - I'm not being sexist here, since no women have taken an interest in this dispute. It might profit us to consider why.)

So have at it. But remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"

If you really think that the other guy is being a dick, talking about it on this talk page won't help. Instead, launch a RfC on the user. If they are a dick, they will have been a dick on other pages, and this gives others a chance to comment on their misbehaviour. It will also provide the admins and others with the information they may need to decide if they are worth having on the Wiki. Be aware that folk may also comment on your behaviour.

If the dispute cannot be settled, consider mediation.

If the discussion degenerates into a revert war, the page will be locked again.

Best wishes, Banno 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly setting a positive and mature tone for the rest of us. Perhaps you can provide us with additional information on how not to be dicks? After all, I could be right about an issue and still be acting like one, no? JJL 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow the golden rule. —Quiddity 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interlude

I can't resist, this talkpage is hilarious. Prospective philosophy undergrads should be forced to collaborate on an article like this. I have the urge to replace the intro's 'rational inquiry' with 'rhetorical inquiry' or 'subjective inquiry'.

It seems to need more levity (Meaning of life). More Einstein. More cowbell. ;) —Quiddity 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing there chucklepants. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you need something. Maybe take a tip from simple:Philosophy. Because this article's intro currently screams "we can't agree on anything, so cut out everything!" And this talkpage is almost as much fun as that over at Template:Philosophy navigation (which is also locked due to lack of consensus! Randianism! oh boy.)

I was a philosophy/psych undergrad 8 years ago, so I only mean to tease lightheartedly (and potentially to inspire?) —Quiddity 05:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody finally got something out of my uncyclopedia article! { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links to some semi-randomly selected past diffs. Possible inspiration. June 2004, July 2004, Oct 2004, Feb 2005, Aug 2005, Dec 2005 #1, Dec 2005 #2, Feb 2006, Apr 2006, June 2006, Sep 2006, Nov 2006, Dec 2006 #1, Dec 2006 #2.

See also simple:Philosophy

and the google translations of the FAs Arabic - Philosophy and German - Philosophy. Hope that helps someone. —Quiddity 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Might it be worthwhile to distinguish academic philosophy and popular philosophy, from amateur philosophy? Questioning the meaning of life isn't restricted to just experts and philosophasters.

See also this interesting rewrite/draft at User:KSchutte/Philosophy, which I just stumbled upon. --Quiddity 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For it is, it is, a glorious thing, to be a philosopher king

Thousands of words have been expended on the page repeating endlessly one of the following:

1) All philosophy is rational. 2) Not all philosophy is rational.

More thousands of words have been expended repeating endlessly one of the following:

1) All philosophy is Western. 2) Not all philosophy is Western.

Now that the page is unlocked, how about the following compromise. Those in favor of the proposition that all philosophy is Western rationalism choose one -- whichever is most important to you. In other words, choose that all philosophy is rational, but admit rational non-Westerners such as Confucius. Or choose that all philosophy is Western, and admit non-rational Western philosophers such as Kant. Your choice. Rick Norwood 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kant is "non-rational"? I'm confused as to what meaning you are giving to the word "rational" here. I think those who want to include something like "rational" in the introduction mean that philosophy involves a process of giving reasons and arguments for ones positions. Kant is clearly rational in this sense. VoluntarySlave 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kant's main point is a sort of pre-Godel assertion that there are philosophical questions that cannot be answered by rational debate, but must be answered by some higher method. He asserts, for example, that the proposition "God exists" is a true proposition in philosophy, even though it cannot be arrived at by reasoned argument. Rick Norwood 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I too wondered what you meant. I don't think you have Kant quite right (and the case is quite different from Godel). I can't expound on the antinomies here, but it's worth taking another look. Kant, in fact, claims to refute arguments for God's existence. God is retained in his system, not as an entity whose existence can be known, but as a regulative principle. Kant does not advocate establishing God's existence by irrational or non-rational means (a leap of faith, for example). KD Tries Again 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

KD

Definitions of Philosohy, Chonologically

Please note that I've provided ample space where much can be written regarding Rationality as it pertains to philosophy. However, notice that I've also provided sources in which Great philosophers struggled to provide an account if it. We therefore cannot be presumptuous in announcing to the world that Rationality is its distinguishing characteristic when this is merely our own opinion.

Best regards, and assuming good faith. --Ludvikus 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that section, at the moment, is that, apart from Wittgenstein and Moore, you give most of the space to second-order philosophers and lexicographers from the 20th century.

Remember philosophy as a separate subject is 25 centuries old in both the west and the east. And though the sections is well referenced, a reference doesn't excuse such biases. No doubt the rationalists will have lots to add to the 18th century. --Lucas 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes. But you give no opinion but your own. Why don't paste here an opinion you like and I'll abstract it for us all, and write it. This kind of criticism of your is not constructive. We do not need you to sit there and give us mere critics. Be constructive by giving something from a philosopher you like. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me correct without too much commentary on the standard of the section:

1. "According to W. Windelband[5], who published his second German edition in 1893 in the German language, when the word became a techical term, it meant exactly what science means in German." "Philosophy" didn;t become a technical term in 1893. Hegel, for one, used it many years earlier (Cite: http://www.hegel.de/werke_frei/startfree.html). A good dictionary might give the earliest use. Secondly, this is tricky to follow in English. Did Windelband say that "philosophie" meant the same as "Wissenschaft"? I don't have the orig. German to hand, as it happens.

2. Wittgenstein: Not a definition, more a rhetorical question.

3. Flew's sex joke is inappropriate in this context, and it's a waste of space to give a definition the author himself rejects (if that's what "side-steps") means.

4. "A varient view holds that it is its method of enquiry (inquiry) is subject to the condition of rationality." I corrected the spelling; "enquiry" and "inquiry" - is there a Wikipedia policy on whether American or British English is preferred?: anyway, the sentence doesn't make sense as written; and I am not clear how it varies from "an essential characteristic is its rationality". Furthermore, the latter is not a "contemporary" view. It is how the subject has been viewed historically. KD Tries Again 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 17 07

Stepping down for a bit

The dispute was not about whether philosophy is this or that. It was about whether we follows WP:OR or not. I see it was hopeless. And I see the floodgates have opened. I don't really have the time or energy to engage this particular editor, so I am going to sit back and watch for a bit. Dbuckner 08:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Watering down of proposed opening without Citations

    Most definitions of Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom),
    are fairly controversial,[1]
    In the West it is an important subject of its intellectual tradition,[2]
    In general, it is concerned with enquiries and,
    sometimes, action, related to ethics, knowledge, and being.[3]

The editor modified the opening to suit his own taste, and with conforming to any of the cited sources.

• No citation for "most";
• No reason to skip over etymology;
• Word, "important", is like telling a woman she is "nice" - it says nothing;
• Same for "In general";
• Mel Etetis version stays.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I would stay away and I will, but I just want it noted for the record that Mel had no hand in this horror. The diff says that he only slapped on a deserved cleanup notice. I'm watching this, slackjawed. Dbuckner 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. Read the History page. And he does not need you as his mouth piece. He made his modifications and left.

Your summary opinion that it's a "horror" is counterproductive.

Instead, give a cite you like, instead of your profound opinion. --Ludvikus 13:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis version stays

Unless Lucaas can cite authorities for "important", "general", etc. changes, his modifications are mere personal wims that cannot be supported. Therefore I've reverted to Mel Etitis version - again. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Mel wrote none of this. It is all your own doing (except when Lucas reverts it to his version). Check the edit history. Dbuckner 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes I made were mainly to the flow of the piece. I removed awkward words like "etymology", enough to say "from"; I replaced "conduct" with "ethics", when is the last time you heard a philosopher talk of conduct!

I also left the thing about Western but just clarified it with "In the West, it is xxx". There was no mention of rational there when I edited it so it was not I that removed it. So I followed banno's advice and didnt revert, you however, have not!

--Lucas 13:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your professor Mel Etitis can speak for himself. You give no explanation why you choose to speak for him! He came, he saw, he left his footprints, and he departed. I reverted to his version as he left it. And he is free to say whatever pleases him. Why do you feel a need to tell us what he wrote or didn't write? Isn't it enough that he did not revert to your version?

I think that you rely to much on your personal, emotional, relationship with him/her. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You are perfectly free to have a Guiness with him/her.

Please believe me, I do not in any way wish to insult, or humiliate anyone, not that there's anything wrong with that either, among consenting adults. But you and he give tremendous weight to the professorship status of your friend "Mel". To show you the point, I therefore direct your attention to his pseudo-Greek name, and feminine proclivities (by which I merely mean that he's taken to be a woman by his writings) which he unimbarrassingly announces on his User page. For me that's not at all relevant. But I do not think that to be true of you, or your othe friend(s). I think the issue of his gender concerns is bound to have you take offense. You should not, therefore, participate in credentialism - it violates Wikipedia policy.

Regarding your friend Mel, in my opinion his philosophical views are the most informed of anyone of you others - less than one can count on one hand. However, he makes his views known "privately," on the talk pages of you guys. And Banno respects him - so what he says, asside from his "nausea", is valuable - but he must "come out of the closet", so to speak, regarding his philosophical views. Also, he should cite from his own book, if any, that he has published. But if he hasn't published, than his views are just that - his views. If you wish to give them a high value - that's your privilege. But it is inappropriate for you to shove him down our throats as an authority merely because you believe that he's a professor at the University of Oxford. Ad hominums, and appeals to authority are related fallacies. As you may find the gender issue inappropriate, I totally agree. But you fail to see that the unverified "professorship" status you employ by reference to him is of the same irrational type of argumentation. My apology to Mel Etitis for any unitentional embarassment the misunderstanding of what I say might possibly cause among philosophers.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Dbuckner's "Mel" I mean nothing more that what he says on his User page (and we only know his, or our, gender, by what we say on Wikipedia):

  Secondly, the character in the dialogues is female;
  I'm male. Not important, but some people get needlessly embarrassed
  if they find that someone they've been referring to as "she" turns out to be a he.

So Mel also says he has this published work about which we know nothing but the issue of gender. And so, by his own words, I know that Mel would not take offense by a reference to him as a her.

Yours truly, She, I mean me, --Ludvikus 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The weakness of the current introduction is twofold: (1) Philosophy is described as a "subject" (odd choice of term - a subject taught in school?) which is concerned with various enquiries. Surely it just is those enquiries, i.e. Philosophy enquires about (or into)...etc. I mean, I don't think it's Wikipedia style to say "Biology is a subject which...", "History is a subject which..." etc. (2) Failing to use a term like "rational" (and it doesn't have to be that specific term) leaves the explanation utterly vague and general. Many novels and poems, and indeed casual conversations, constitute enquiries into knowledge, conduct etc. But they are not philosophical enquiries: there is something distinctive about philosophical enquiries, which the introduction needs to nail.* Less importantly, "(What is?)" needs to be re-phrased as something like ("What is existence?"), otherwise a literal reading suggests that philosophers are trying to find out what things in fact exist - which generally they aren't.

• Here's a suggestion: "What is distinctive about philosophical enquiries is that they proceed by argument, using logical inference, examples and other reasoning tools, in addition to rhetoric, to establish their conclusions." If you need a cite, The Philosopher's Tool-kit would do. KD Tries Again 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 17 07

Lucaas on Conduct

   Please Ludvikus do not try and tell me what conduct means,
   I have been speaking the language for some time as have most of my ancestors.
   Conduct is a strange word on this page it is not a word that appears much in philosophy,
   usually we talk of ethics or morals etc. Lucaas

Regarding conduct, that's an uninformed opinion regarding philosophical usage.

This was copied fmro your user page, you should not post it here without my permission.--Lucas 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conduct Citation

    Conduct. In ethics, any voluntary behavior, or intentional disposition to act,
    for which a person may be held responsible relative to standards of right and wrong.
    --Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 44

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Trilogy of Philosophy

The following is by Anthony Quinton as said in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy:

         A more detailed, but still uncontroversial comprehensive, definition
  is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind
  about the [1] general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence),
  [2] the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and
  [3] and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of these three elements...
  [numbering and emphasis added; page 666.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Lucaas uninformed, and personal opinions which are clearly mistaken, as shown above, make his editing unacceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. He should also justify his changes by citations, references, quotes. But he has not done so at all. --Ludvikus 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

stodgy intro, and Ludvites' Ad Hominem and intro

The glut of lexicographic quotes and definitions by non-entities, now in the intro and first section show the reader a secondary education standard, which, perhaps is inevitable on the web since it is a new medium. I think is is rubbish, dull, and practically unreadable (all those brackets and tautologies in quote marks).

It takes many years in philosophy to get to grips with it; that is experience, something you seem to compensate for bby having a dictionary under your arm. I proposed the section you now began (the second section of the new page). I also insisted on etymology, while no one else was, I also insisted that the intro should declare the difficulty of defining philosophy. I now try to insist that it not be taken up as some kind of religious contemplation, ivory tower philosophy, which the pseudo academic style of some current editors seems to imply and which inevitably becomse secondarly level standard.

--Lucas 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The very nature of philosophy is only one small part of its subject matter. Perhaps better to say that defining philosophy is controversial because one of the subject's own projects is to enquire critically into its own nature. Not great phrasing - maybe someone can do better. KD Tries Again 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 16 07

The current intro. is absolutely absurd. Surely we can make a positive statement about what philosophy is? I am reminded of the quote favored by scientists, "Anyone who can't explain what he does to a 12 year old is a fraud." JJL 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Too simplistic. Sure each of us could tell a 12 year old in context what it is the problem is not that but that there are too many ways to describe it. A scientist almost has the same problem unless he is naive. --Lucas 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, (NOTE - I was agreeing with JLL before Lucas interposed a message here) but it's probably not worth actually editing the page until various Users stop deleting/reverting. Something like the following could easily be supported with citations:

"Philosophy in the Western tradition, originating in Greece, is a series of related critical inquiries into the nature of reality (metaphysics), the nature of our knowledge of reality (epistemology), and the nature of ethical and aesthetic judgments. These inquiries have many sub-fields, some of which are considered below. What distinguishes Western philosophy is that these inquiries primarily proceed by argument rather than rhetoric alone, using logical inference, examples, thought experiments and other reasoning tools to establish conclusions. There are alternative traditions in Philosophy, such as (and someone else who knows the other traditions can finish that sentence...)" But it can't be that easy - can it?

KD Jan 17 07

That looks pretty good, except that it strikes me as problematic to start the article with "Western Philosophy is X, Eastern Philosophy is Y, Whatever Philosophy is Z." If we can't say anything about philosophy unqualified, presumably we shouldn't have a philosophy article at all, and this page should just point people to the pages about the separate types of philosophy. Actually, I think everything you say about Western Philosophy (except for the "originating in Greece" part) applies to non-Western philosophy too, and the references people have provided (e.g. the Quinton) don't limit their claims just to Western philosophy. I don't think anyone has given a source saying that non-Western philosophy doesn't proceed by logical argument, etc; until or unless they do, there's no reason to limit the article's claims to Western Philosophy. VoluntarySlave 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot to like in the "Philosophy in the Western tradition, originating in Greece, is a series of related critical inquiries..." definition. The repeated assertions that one can't stabilize (or whatever) a definition aren't helpful. A Principle of Impotence will only keep this article from getting improved. JJL 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't stabilizze a definition of philosophy, all you can hope to is describe what other well known philosophers have said about it. --Lucas 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. (NOTE addressed to Voluntary Slave before Lucas interposed a message). I'd like to see something about the type of inquiry it is, at any rate. I am agnostic on what Eastern philosophy is and isn't. KD Jan 17 07

I would like to stabilise on the Slave's version - not that it might not need improvement, but experience suggests if a bunch of users agree to defend one version, it is less likely to revert. That said, our friend is a really prolific editor. 6,000 edits since he joined late last year. He seems to work all night and day. It will almost certainly end up being locked again, but Banno seems to be away at the moment. Best Dbuckner 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to sleep occasionally, and keep odd hours. Banno 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This liberalism to be all inclusive is misplaced. Philosophy is a Greek word in its origin, 99% of the sources studied are in the Western Intellectual Tradition. And you don't go to a butcher when you need brain surgery. Again, we need more than mere opinions regarding the East/West. A sense of being democratic, of fair, about history, or facts, is misplace. The East/West distinction exists, whether it suits your taste, VoluntarySlave is not here relevant. Give us a published authority.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

For Lucaas:

Whatever you want, is fine with me, Lucaas, but your generalizations, which only involve your personal opinions, and tastes, are useless, and counterproductive. You did not acknowledge your mistake regarding conduct as the subject of ethics, and therefore I question your good faith. You are only interested in teaching us your personal philosophical views. I am yet waiting to see you make one small change supported by a citation. Although I have demonstrated that all published philosophers have not been able to overcome the controversy obsticle, you insist that you can do it. Get over your need to be profound and Don't be a cunt (I love women - but I protest against the sexism of Don't be a dick). --Ludvikus 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For Loudikrus:

You generalise about generalizations, surely that is even worse! I do not want to see the word "conduct" in the intro, it is a word a parent uses to a child. Dictionaries, dictinoaries everywhere, just because you go around with random opinions out of dictionaries does not give your opinons any more value. You are even worse than the dictionary since at least the dictionary has some order, the alphabet! Above I gave umpteen philosophers definitions of philosophy. You forget also that it was I who backed you on rationality. I never insited I could oversome it, in fact it was my intro that began "Philosophy is that which has almost as many definitions as there have been philosophers. However, less disputed is the etymology." Nor did it go on to give a trite definition but immediatelt oriented the reader to the area, and the main groups etc. I wish I could get over my need for the profound, but you should be able to give me the name of a doctor Ludikrus?

--Lucas 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas, it is at least possible to stabilize a web-page so that all Users have a chance to comment on the same text. It is a waste of time to review and suggest improvements to a text if it chanbges with this rapidity. I am not suggesting any one User is guilty of constantly changing it. KD Tries Again 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

And there it goes again. Another version, complete with ungrammatical sentences and misspelled words. The Russell quote is nice, but: "[Philosophy] attempts to unify and systemitize the methods of all areas of knowledge". Er, no it doesn't. Is it really not possible to put together an improved version in the talk page rather than making inaccurate and rash rewrites immediately public? KD Tries Again 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Philosophy as "Rationally Critical Thinking"

I've supplied that phrase by giving the 2nd part of Anthony Quinton's definition.

Best regards, particularly to those who are so passionately moved by these 3 words.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) forget Quinton another non-entity --Lucas 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Sampling, and Profound Generalizations

Lucas & Lucidish are taking over again, against consensus. --Ludvikus 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Russell quote in intro

Who agreed to put Russell's quote in the intro critical answer and results etc. Who even reads Russell? I say we choose THE two ancients and go with them, that way there will be less controversy. --Lucas 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, the practice all day has been to change the Intro without discussion or agreement. The result each time is usually a mispelled and ungrammatical mess, which I guess is amusing. Currently it says that philosophy is its own subject - which of course is as silly as the preceding version. The reason the page was previously locked is now obvious, and it should be locked again until an agreed intro is drafted. KD Tries Again 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I quite like the Russell quote - it seems like an elegant way of saying what various editors have tried to get at by including "rational," "critical," "systematic" etc, and is in line with the descriptions of philosophy's distinctive method at Definition of philosophy. Indeed I like Rick Norwood's recent version in general, except for the bit about philosophy attempting to unify all forms of knowledge, which seems wrong (and is uncited). I'd propose trying to amalgamate the characterization's of philosophy's subject matter from Definition of philosophy; on that page we find "The most general and abstract features of the world and the categories with which we think" (which appears to be a paraphrase of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy), which I think is pretty good. VoluntarySlave 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think saying it is systematic etc. presumes that these things have not already gone through the mill of philosophy and come out looking very different. The great system builders of the 19th century, did they succeed? No, Analytic wiped the board with them, and Continental turned to the man with the hammer. Can we please not get stuck in the 18th or 19th century.

Right now the problem I agree is with "philosophy is its own subject", I know what it means but can't find a decent wording for it. --Lucas 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A recent intro for discussion

For discussion, I've arbitrarily chosen a recent version of the intro that I like; can people say what they like/dislike about it, so that we can all get a sense of what each other's current concerns are? VoluntarySlave 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

“ Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom) is the study which attempts to unify and systemitize the methods of all areas of knowledge through "a critical examination of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs." Philosophy attempts to answer such questions as how should we live (ethics), what do we know and how do we know it (epistemology), and what is the nature of existence (metaphysics).

Defining philosophy is controversial because it also is its own subject. Because of this, many important philosophers have proposed new definitions of philosophy as part of their work.

”

I don't think "the study which attempts to unify and systemitize the methods of all areas of knowledge" is accurate. I propose replacing it with "Philosphy is the investigation of the most general and abstract features of the world and the categories with which we think, through " and then the Russell quote (we can source this to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy). The bit about philosophy being its own subject is also hard to understand. We could probably just delete this paragraph and include the reference to wikiquote in "See Also" or something. VoluntarySlave 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Other than grammatical concerns, I agree. That philosophy defines itself is interesting, but hardly essential - the same is surely true of other disciplines. Yes, I'd lose that paragraph. I'd repeat that it's very important to say something about the way philosophy answers those questions, because novels, poems, churches, politicians and exotic cults also address them. My own attempt was: "What distinguishes philosophy is that these inquiries primarily proceed by argument rather than rhetoric alone, using logical inference, examples, thought experiments and other reasoning tools to establish conclusions." Argument is surely central, unless someone can cite a notable philosopher who doesn't use it. KD Tries Again 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

The 2nd Q is easy: What is Philosophy is itself a philosophical question.

But the 1st is not good because of all those adjectives. Categories have always been among the most important subjects of philosophy among the recognized Greatest Philosophers. So them to qualify what philosophy is is inappropriate and controversial. Ludvikus 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 2 - it follows that to define it, you have to be a philosopher (not merely an encyclopedist, for example). Ludvikus 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It means (2), that you have to rely on what philosophers say it is.

It's like saying only a brain surgeon should operate on your brain (not a butcher). Ludvikus 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

This attempted definition suffers from all the problems of the many definitions above. It uses words we cannot agree upon. It is too English and too academic. As an example, your fundamental word, "argument", yes it is important, but how many synonyms are there for this? does it occur often in the history of phil? Dialectic might be more common. Be done with trying to define it. And you think the authority of Oxford can save you, it is a quaint town in England, why leave it to some bod there to define it, this is the world wide web ! --Lucas 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now on that sentiment I couldn't agree with you more; thank you Lucas.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As an after-thought, I do have a reservation: All none-trivial philosophy has almost always (in the West at least) been done at some Ivory Tower within some Academy most likely located in a quaint college community. --Ludvikus 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, let's take the citations and facts seriously. Defining philosophy is controversial, especially regarding a profound definition. There are many definitions of philosophy, according to several authorities. Aristotle and Kant gave us the Categories. I cannot now argue the point, but it would be improper, to say the least, to use a Category to define Philosophy, a category which may, or may not be, subjected to philosophical scrutiny and found wanting. But a better argument is that most qualifications, when they are not controversial, may likely be trivial, and that's at least very poor literary style. Ludvikus 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know who "you" means in the following from Lucas: "As an example, your fundamental word, "argument", yes it is important, but how many synonyms are there for this? does it occur often in the history of phil? Dialectic might be more common. Be done with trying to define it. And you think the authority of Oxford can save you" If it's me, as I emphasized argument, then I don't know what Oxford has got to do with it. Argument is universal in philosophy (cite a philosophical work containing none); dialectic is a sub-division which is not universal. Do you have an improvement to suggest, as I don't think an intro which fails to offer any definition is going to achieve consensus? KD Tries Again 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I was referring to the proposed intro above and hence the name of this section. In that intro it refers to The Oxford Accomplice to philosophy or something like that. So it is universal, why don't you say that instead, maybe you don't cos you know it is not. As to Ludikrus in his ivory tower, you should get out more or at least read more philosophy. Academics have done an amount of philosophy, but so have many who have not been entowered, Socrates was not, Christ was not, Galileo neither. --Lucas 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ben S. Nelson

• Now we have a single person who has completely ignored all our compromises.
• Just as everyone came to a consensus, he given us his philosophical view that we must swallow.
• This is Lucidish .
• Whatever anyone thinks, only what he thinks counts.
• It is extreme bad faith on his part!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's what he's imposing on us:

    Some describe philosophy as an intellectual endeavor which uses critical analysis and reasoning,
    as well as dialogue or introspection, to solve seemingly intractible problems.
     Others claim that philosophy
    examines the process of examination itself. Still others argue that philosophy is continuous
    with the best practices in every intellectual field.
    
    
    Although the word "philosophy" originates in the Western tradition,
    seminal figures in the history of the East have addressed similar topics in similar ways.
    This has led to their being called "Eastern philosophers".
    
    Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Citation does not mean just naming a source. Chinese philosophy does not equal Eastern philosophy which you seem to conflate. Your sweeping generalizations are unsourced. As much as I disagree with my opponents I've always posted my sources - you just paraphrase, without page numbers, and we have no way of checking on your sweepingb generalization over the nature of World philosophy which you seem to have created single-handedly. Congratulations, you've out done all of us, as well as every great philosopher who ever lived - you have told us what philosophy is. Ludvikus 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus View

Here's what we have so far (before Ben's single-handed editing):

    Philosophy (from the Greek,
    philos, love + sophia, wisdom) concerns itself with how to live one's life
    (ethics), what one knows, can know, and how one knows it (epistemology),
    and what can be said to exist (metaphysics). 
    
    Defining philosophy is controversial in part because it is also its own subject;
    accordingly, there are diverse  definitions of philosophy.

Anyone who wishes to improve on this, please discuss it first here, please!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So Philosophy has nothing to do with inquiry? -Zhang Guo Lao 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry was supposed to be an unphilosophical term; it is covered her by concerns.

I like subject better, as "the subject we study is philosophy" - but it somehow vanished in the editing. --Ludvikus 01:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So improve on it without forcing your unsourced minority view { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

structure

I have no problem with the current intro, and won't mess with the intro unless it gets awful again.

Moving to the next topic, structure. I think everyone agrees that the current structure is a hodge podge. I propose changing from

1. 1 Branches of philosophy
2. 2 History of philosophy
3. 3 Western philosophy
4. 4 Eastern philosophy
5. 5 African philosophy
6. 6 Philosophical topics
7. 7 Metaphysics and epistemology
8. 8 Ethics and political philosophy
9. 9 Applied philosophy
10. 10 Confines of Philosophy
11. 11 Philosophers on Philosophy
12. 12 References
13. 13 Further reading
14. 14 See also
15. 15 External links

to

1. 1 Western Philosophy
2. 2 Non-Western Philosophy
3. 3 Philosophical Questions
4. 4 Applied philosophy
5. 5 Philosophers on Philosophy
6. 6 References
7. 7 Further reading
8. 8 See also
9. 9 External links

Feel free to modify this list. If there is anything like a consensus (if even two people agree) I'll follow the consensus. Rick Norwood 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm happy to see you move on.

I have a couple reservations. But I think we should first iron-out the East/West issue. I think if we can solve this - then the rest will fall in place. I think that itself may be controversial. But I think it's better for me to wait a bit. Thank you, Rick Norwood. Ludvikus 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

East vs. West Issue

Can we now discuss this issue, please. Are we going to write about philosophy next as if the distinction does not exist? Let's first come to an understanding as to nature of the distinction - but always relying on specific sources. I've pointed out the following:

  1. Chinese philosophy is cited in reference books
  2. Hindu philosophy is cited in reference books 
  3. African philosophy is cited in reference books 
  4. Hungarian philosophy is cited in reference books
  5. Eskimoe philosophy I don't know anything about it
  6. Eastern philosophy is a category in Barnes and Noble

Can we write about philosophy in this article as if these distinctions did not exist? And if not, do we start with the East or West? Yours truly, Ludvikus 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Reference is on the page { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

What are you talking about? --Ludvikus 03:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cua { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish

As discussed earlier, Western Philosophy is a tradition with continuity. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any continuous tradition of Eastern Philosophical, but rather various non-Western philosophers who worked largely in isolation, or only with reference to other Philosophers who spoke the same language. The pervasive influence of Buddhism is best covered under that article. A subhead here on non-Western philosophy can provide links to Chinese Philosophy, etc. Rick Norwood 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy vs. Mythology, Religion and Faith

In the Western world philosophy is universally distinguished as emerging in ancient Greece by marginalizing mythology, and as it spreads with the Roman empire through the Middle Ages in Europe it distinguishes itself from Religion, meaning primarily Christianity and the subject of faith.

We need to include this very important fact. And also account for the Philosophy of Religion.

Not that there is no idea of God, but it's God who is not subject to Faith

--Ludvikus 02:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the following:

    it marginalizes the supernatural; meaning mythology, religion, and faith

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Marginalization of mythology" is sort of true, the rest is false { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So philosophy has a "religious nature" and requires "faith" also, according to you { Ben S. Nelson }, right? --Ludvikus 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell as something about your view that philosophy is somewhat mythological, but very strongly religious in nature, and that philosophy requires faith?

And could you do this before reverting unilaterally? --Ludvikus 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell us your views regarding the role of mythology, religion, and faith as these pertain to philosophy and determine philosophy? Is that one of your Eastern philosophy sources/references which you cite? --Ludvikus 03:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From the start mythology has been contrasted with philosophy, and so that it is sort of true. One of the ancients talked about Homer as being totally unphilosophical. I say "sort of" because the postmoderns rail against grand narratives, and that can go up to and include philosophy at large

Faith plays obvious role in philosophy of medievals, philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, etc. This isn't the time/place for my views on role of faith in internalistic epistemology { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that Western Philosophy rejected or marginalized religion is to (deliberately?) misread the story of Western Philosophy. My own reading suggests that the first Western Philosopher to try to separate the methods (but not the subject matter) of philosophy and religion was Roger Bacon. Even Xenophanes acknowledged the existance of God, though "like mortals in neither body nor mind." I cannot think of any philosopher who rejected religion before the Enlightenment. Rick Norwood 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the issue. The scholarship is that the ancient Greeks were unique among their closes neighbors in making Philosophy distinct from their Mythology - think of it as a kind of separation of church and state, if you will. And in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church acknowledged the distinction between Matters of Faith and Matters of Reason. So God belongs to Faith, which is given in Scriptures - the rest is given to the Scholastic philosophers to bicker about, etc. This, of course may be the heart of the problem regarding our having to deal with Eastern philosophy - in the 19th century, among European scholars, the view was held that nothing of the kind was known to existed outside of the Western world. --Ludvikus 14:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not helpful to change topics in the middle of conversation from a false general claim to a specific true one { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

I've made a wholesale revert to a version by 'voluntary slave' yesterday. Given the serious difficulties from one problem user (there is a second, but he is less aggressive and persistent) can we at least agree to defend this one (tactically) for the time being. I don't altogether like it, but if we don't defend a single version, there is no defence against what is going on here. I suspect the page will get locked down shortly (indeed I have asked Banno to do this). Best Dbuckner 08:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To forestall the inevitable confusion, this is the version I am talking about. Dbuckner 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making large reverts, put up with a little poor quality while we try to work together on this. And above all follow the advice above by banno, no reverts it is too lazy, and too wasteful to just revert other peoples work. --Lucas 13:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We are in a special situation. I am reverting to a stabe version that some editors have agreed on. All further progress happens on the talk page, so long as relevant. We can consider any significant changes you want to make after this crisis is over. Thanks. Dbuckner 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "special situation", or is that just cos you are president or something? I and others cetainly did not agree to this "stable" version, so how can you tell me it is stable. Though I did note there was some development before your wholessale revert. You were the very one who wrote that dreadful version locked on there for so long, now just put up with the noise for a while and see where it settles and stop crying out for exceptions, special situations, locks and all that stuff

Nor did anyone elect you censor for the talk page.

--Lucas 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On both points you are incorrect. I was author of neither. I chose that version because it was written by other editors and I have asked for their support. With every kind wish. Dbuckner 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of irrelevant comments

I am now going to start deleting all comments from this talk page that are irrelevant, contain personal attacks, which are general discussion about the article's subject and not specifically devoted to improvements to this article. This and this (the last being a particularly offensive and obscene comment about another user) are perfect examples of what I mean. There have been a lot of complaints about a small number of users (mostly one person, to be frank) hijacking this discussion page, and making reasonable discussion impossible. This is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy and the objectives of this page as stated above. Thanks. Dbuckner 10:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On Banno I am in continuous communication with him. Repeat, there is a crisis going on here, I am trying to manage the situation. If you want to make any significant changes in draft, make them underneath the article, thus Philosophy/Mydraft or similar. Thanks again. Dbuckner 13:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note also the Wikipedia Blocking policy. "A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." I have received several complaints about this. Dbuckner 10:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I support the reversion to a stable version, which has now been done. Yours truly, Ludvikus 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some other editors involved - I would like their comments when they are available. Thank you again for being helpful. Dbuckner 13:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Debuckner, nobody elected you God of the talk page. Do not delete comments by others, however objectionable they may be. Rick Norwood 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is perfectly consistent with WP policy. I will continue deleting irrelevant, objectionable and personal comments. Thanks Dbuckner 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy states that deletion of talk material should only be re: irrelevant content, libel, and broadcasting personal (real life) info. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

KD's points

I especially like KD's comment that "It's very important to say something about the way philosophy answers those questions, because novels, poems, churches, politicians and exotic cults also address them. What distinguishes philosophy is that these inquiries primarily proceed by argument rather than rhetoric alone, using logical inference, examples, thought experiments and other reasoning tools to establish conclusions."

It's exactly the same as Quinton's point that philosophical method replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in our conception of reality, knowledge, ethics &c, which beliefs which are articulated in systematic and well-argued way. But it can't be said often enough. And it is close enough to King's point that the dualist belief of a Christian (e.g.) isn't a philosophical belief, for example, in so far as it is rooted in faith: the philosophy would lie in how one reached the dualist belief (i.e. in an argued, critical, organised and more or less systematic way).

I'd like to get all these points into the introduction or in sections underneath. But we are in a very special situation at the moment. Dbuckner 13:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[Personal comment deleted - please keep these off the talk page - this is for the improvement of the philosophy article. Many thanks. Dbuckner 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]

Most, fairly, general, critical, systematic, fundamental, elements, & nature

I think all these (above) terms should be dropped from the opening.

• They do not really contribute anything to enlighten us.
• They themselves are subjects of philosophy.
• They impact on at least the Categories of Aristotle and Kant, and subordinate these.
• They are presumptuous, and pretentious, in relation to philosophy.
• They are inconsistent with the fact that defining philosophy is controversial.
• They reflect an attitude that all philosophers were not competent in failing to define philosophy because Wikipedia's editors are able to define philosophy.
• Etc.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please!

This morning we have seen more than a dozen reverts and re-reverts. I've put things back to the most recent version that was not obviously posted by somebody who did not even read over what he was posting. A hasty rewrite is a bad rewrite. It would be nice if you discussed changes in talk but, lacking that, you could at least proofread what you have written. Rick Norwood 14:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I reverted. It is not mine, I chose it because most likely to get consensus from two editors who are not here. Thanks Dbuckner 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what is wrong with the version you reverted to.

Most definitions of Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom), are fairly controversial. In general, philosophy is concerned with critical or systematic enquiries related to what should be done, (ethics), what we can know (epistemology), and the fundamental elements and general nature of existence (metaphysics and ontology).[1]

The definition of philosophy is controversial because one of the subject's own projects is to enquire critically into its own nature. Because of this, many important philosophers have proposed new definitions of philosophy as part of their work.

Note that it reads "Most definitions...are fairly controversial...the defintion is controversial." That sucks. If a student handed it in, you would take off at least ten points. Rick Norwood 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there are worse things in the one you have reverted. I don't see the other two (VS and KD) liking it. And now the other two (the 2 KL's) see a chink in the armour, we have had it. Rick, I say 'we'. I'll leave it for now and see what happens. Dbuckner 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please dont assume things of other editors to excuse a revert, lets those editors make comments when they want. --Lucas 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Rick Norwood's reversion is the most stable, and had the most consensus. So I ask that we stay with his reversion. Yours truly, Ludvikus 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas gives good advice, above. Also, note that my revert was to the most recent version that was not badly written. The existence of worse writing does not excuse bad writing. If there are matters of substance you object to in the well written version, then take the time to write well in an alternate version, or ask for help. Rick Norwood 14:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ground Rules

Let me remind editors who have been reverting of the comments made by the guy who unlocked this page, Banno (if you want an exception, go ask him if you can revert before doing it) :

remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"

If the dispute cannot be settled, consider mediation.

If the discussion degenerates into a revert war, the page will be locked again.

If you really think that the other guy is being a dick, talking about it on this talk page won't help. Instead, launch a RfC on the user.

Let me put it a little clearer

1. No reverts

2. Improve what is there

3. Avoid personal attacks

4. Being right can be wrong

Now if you wish to excuse yourself from 1-4, to be an exception, then go to the doctor and get a note, and dont just declare youself king of the infinite space of this little nutshell.

--Lucas 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One quibble, one addition, to Lucas's excellent rules. The quibble is that of course you can revert obvious vandalism. The addition: 5. Don't be hasty. Rick Norwood 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

6. Try not to be too personally involved, even if you have worked at it for 2 years, and your "child" does not get accepted. --Ludvikus 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for more rules I was just giving you those given by the editor who unlocked the page. As to vandalism, I dont think that is something to mention because then you will find Dbucker accusing Ludvikus of being a vandal and reverting. Obviously is someone clears the page and puts "Bush rules" that is different. So let me assume we all agree, none involved in the debate here are vandals.

Of course. Good point. I had in mind something like "I r in Hi Skul an I r bored." Rick Norwood 15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've made a reference to me, by using my name above, I can do the same, no? But I won't. I just ask that you acknowledge the fact that the person who has been subjected to the most personal attacks is that person above that you refer to, "Ludvikus". Now I'm quite certain you've heard of the Marxist distinction between Theory and Practice. So I ask you, since you support the theory that Philosophy is some sort of Rational, or Critical, Inquiry; but the Practice herein, as exhibited by the inquiries regarding Ludvikus and his theories, cannot be construed as Rational or Critical; wouldn't it be correct and propper for you to drop Rational, Critical, and its cognates from the description of Philosophy? Unless, of course, you are blind to the fact that the Practice of Philosophy has in fact been Irrationasl, and Uncritical, to the Philosophical views expounded herein by Ludvikus? Yours truly, Ludvikus 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I got asked if I can help take a look at the article, and maybe help if there are any ways in which it's getting stuck. I've managed to be a decent influence in a number of articles that were in dispute.

I understand that might not be easy, especially as philosophers themselves have been arguing over it for millennia. But in writing an encyclopedia, it's best to get something that is factual, cleanly organized, and helps newcomers to the field to get their bearings without inadvertent bias.

Luckily nobody here has to decide for ourselves all these questions; we only have to characterize the various philosophers' debates, and neutrally summarize what others have stated and the relevant and reliable information that's out there in large quantities in other reliable sources.

Would anyone mind me offering, or take it wrongly, joining the discussion to try and clarify what's what in the article? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We need, to put it mildly, all the help we can get. Rick Norwood 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion, and motion. --Ludvikus 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

All sounds very innocent, why not, give it a go, you don't really need permission.

Innocent as it is, rarely do people come here without some even unconsious philosophical position. So what kind of philosophical position do you have, are you a rationalist? Analytic, Continental? Do you think science is the bee-knees? Do you see youself in the mould of the great 18th Century encylopedists or are you more of a postmodern? What do you think of non-Western philosophy? Religion? Do you put facts above values? --Lucas 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Good and fair questions. Quick answers: I probably have views and if examined, they would probably put me in a fair old hotch-potch of places, like most people - somewhere in the top-middle-left-upper-side-right-middle quadrant of philosophy, so to speak. My stance when editing for wiki though, is more like this:

If policies are followed, we'll get a good and well written article, and then I'll learn from it, and from others who contributed to it. For example, we don't have to say (or decide, or argue) over whether philosophy is split into "Western" and "non-Western", or "Regional" (african, eastern, etc). We can simply note (as recommended by WP:NPOV) that: Traditionally, it has been split this way by some writers on philosophy,^[CITE] that way by other writers,^[CITE] and according to yet others such splits are inappropriate and/or misleading.^[CITE] That is factual, verifiable, and takes about 20 seconds to state. In the next 20 seconds we can note how comes it has split that way, and how such splits are seen, again citing from sources.

Likewise we don't have to agree what philosophy covers or define it ourselves. We note what others say it covers, which topics seem to be widely agreed as included or are only stated as included by a minority, and which schools or individuals espouse them.

Like this, we can comment on it, and document the field, rather than argue over it.

Personal views should not be at issue, there are enough sources to determine which views are notable and expounded by whom, and which schools present which perspectives on the subject. That's the specialism of philosophers. Knowing where to look for this information, how to check what's notable and verifiable, and trying to achieve fair reasonable presentation of this material when we've done so, is our specialism as editors to this article. My own specialism is to assist the necessary debate, and that's a different specialism of mine, as philosophy is a specialism of others. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid in philosophy here personal views appear, that is, if you think being a ratinalist or an Analytic, is a personal stance, etc. You say they are "good & fair questions", but you decline to answer them. Ok, which editor here asked you to tidy up the page, that might at least give us some idea.

As far as I can see your opinions would be close to an administrative approach. One that would accumulate all dissenting views in some order. The order would be questioned. You seem to think that it is easy to just get rid of the problem by citations. Problems is we have 1000s of citations to call upon, which do we choose? We argued above if we should cite only great philosophers or secondary soources such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, or both. One suggested it was preferable to go for primary sources and not dictionaries. I agree, what do you think? --Lucas 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this and have been arguing for a similar approach for months. However, as the man says, there is the slight problem that philosophy has been around for more than 2,000 years and there are a few definitions to choose from, thus selective reading of primary sources is a problem. My understanding of WP:OR is that secondary sources are preferable for that reason. Thus I have tried to locate encyclopedias or general guides where the author is a named individual (e.g. Sir Anthony Quinton is one, Warburton another). Some encyclopedias recycle other encyclopedias - I tried to avoid those. Best Dbuckner 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR says "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources". Dbuckner 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see this preference for secondary souces in the wiki OR policy. It talks of "eye witness" accounts as a primary source. I think in philosophy we have to take care not to give secondary source preference since, apart from often being dull, they are even more numerous than primary and all have their own slant. Also, is Plato a secondary or primary source? --Lucas 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then let me quote it in full. "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." The reason is, obviously, to avoid the situation where people selectively quote primary sources, or make analytic or interpretative claims of various kinds. It is a carefully written, very strong policy. With every kind wish. Dbuckner 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To take your last paragraph first, there is no such thing as an "administrative" approach. A key aspect of Wikipedia is that all editors are - editorially - completely equal. There are no 'sacred cows' or 'higher status' editors: not you, not me, not some administrator, not jimmy wales. We work together, and try to pool as best we can, in accordance with a commonly agreed editorial approach that usually works pretty well.

There is a historically possible problem with "just demanding cites alone", and that is, in some disputes you get "cite wars", where people end up fighting for their personal agendas on the basis "I found a citation to support my view, so you're wrong, I'm right". This is typically followed by cites, counter-cites, claims that "my cite is okay [or written by a real expert] and your cite isn't", and lots of WP:OR and personal attack stuff. That's often a pattern in 'bad faith' disputes, and I've seen it elsewhere before.

What I'd go for is what is stated above. When you come to an area which is divisive, represent the various main views fairly. That should not be too hard, since philosophy is a very well documented subject. As I understand it, there will be two kinds of sources that are helpful: notable philosophers who gave their own opinions, and notable comentators, academics and researchers (writers on philosophy etc) who summarized what the main threads in various debates were, and also often added their own views and interpretations as specialists/experts of various standings. Both are potentially useful sources. Has anyone suggested a good reason to completely exclude either? Then use both. Just be aware what exactly they are saying, and what the cite really means - its value, its limits, its significance. Would Kant's definition of philosophy be more or less notable than some academic's 1990 dissertation? I don't know, but likely they might both be useful, and if so, we could cite both to give an sense of the range of notions that exist. It's two different perspectives, and a fair representation of the answer should give the impression there are different perspectives - and some indication why that's ended up that way.

Returning to your first question, I'd distinguish two kinds of personal view. One, where a person is of the view that X is notable, or adequately confirmed, or stated fairly. The other, where a person has a view within philosophy, that this is the right definition, or this is the definition of Ethics. Both have value, the latter are more easily made personal though and inadvertantly create disputes where it would in fact be better to look at what reliable sources have said, and discuss if we are summarizing them fairly and in a balanced representative manner.

Your other question is answered on my talk page. It's an editor I have never spoken to before so I had no preconceptions. As far as I'm concerned its a direct "article in dispute, you look like you help disputes, can you help here" note. There isn't much more I know.

Hope that helps. As background, I think it's enough. The rest will show itself over time, like things usually do. My main view is, if we try to keep the wiki approach in focus, and work with respect for the entire field and for each others goodwill (and not with narrow minds) we should be able to sort a decent article out. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is fairly inclusive and I agree we take the citations as they come. One misunderstanding from DBucker is about primary and secondary. Now in academia primary means the philosopher (who is often commenting on previous philosophers and so is seondary too). In wiki the OR policy talks of primary sources and gives the following examples:

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material not merely analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations; written or recorded records of field observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs

Now it is clear that primary is very different to an academic philosophy primary. My point about secondary was that it is likely to be more diverse and less easy to agree upon, since most agree on some basic canon of primary philosophers. Also use of other encyclopedias is considered as tertiary by the wiki policy, and, unlike primary and secondary, the policy does not advice the use of tertiary sources.

--Lucas 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... In a way, I guess it's really all about seeing the wood for the trees. That and like you imply, commonsense might not have all the answers, but ignore it and one'll never be sure to find any of them. What'd help is, can you summarize somehow, in maybe one paragraph, from a dispassionate viewpoint, what the heart of the issues in the article are, that have caused problems? It'll give me some idea what I'm supposed to read and what to look for in it? As a starter I mean, sort of an initial pointer? Thanks :) (And same goes for anyone else who wants to; I dont really want disputes over it, just more like, summaries how its seen, what's worrying people about it, or what's of concern in the article contents, stopping the debate from running more easily) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't claim to be an expert on the history of this page. In my opinion the great difficulty (and perhaps opportunity) here, is that there are many editors and all have very different levels of experience, age etc. Already in philosophy there is a major division, if one editor is trained in one side they think of philosophy only in that way. More specifically you can see the haggling over the intro. Some want it defined in the intro, others say no. For me it is naive to try define it in a sentence. This has quietened down but now it moves on to this Schism subsection, here we are now getting a long discussion of US politics and British Analytic (I moved this to a subsequent subsection called "Historical notes"), really it should cover the schism itself philosophically and avoid giving heaps of political detail. But at least the issue is a live one and helps the page become relevant

The overall problem with the page is that it is quite dull and at times long winded with just a pro forma list in the contents index. I'd like better more interesting/provoking photos, snappier text and more daring in the table of contents.

--Lucas 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some samples of definitions from intro

I think we're getting somewhere. Here's the 2nd paragraph:

• One describe(s) philosophy as a "form of intellectual enquiry which uses critical analysis and reasoning, as well as dialogue or introspection, to solve seemingly intractible problems."

• Others claim that philosophy examines the process of examination itself.

• One argue(s) that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field.{{cite book|title="Philosophy", The Oxford

I do not like it, but isn't this more accurate? User:Ludvikus --Lucas 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I ask, why this arbitrary selection? --Lucas 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the curent intro is going to make a long endless snake of various dictionary's dull claims. I say avoid lexicographers in the intro. And stop forcing one definition or a string of them in the intro.

I think the intro should be to the point, have a nice photo, and quickly orient the reader to areas of interest or "live issues" in philosophy. A snappy quote from one or two of the greats would server much better than quotes from these dusty old encylopedias of 1904 that were written by second-rate philosophers.

It should not bias people into thinking philosophy is just all those dull things mentioned by the lexicographers (who, by the way, hate philosophers and want to make it sound as dull as possible).

--Lucas 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept on the 3 definitions being dropped. Why not drop the random, arbitrary, sample of three sources, invoving "Some"? What you call lexicographers is a mystery to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Ludvikus 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That 2nd paragraph, whose center is dialogue, is that not your, Lucas, unilateral contribution? Do you wish to delete it? Ludvikus 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the first of those three definitions is just dandy, and I believe does universally cover every (Western) philosopher when he or she is doing philosophy. If anyone is uncomfortable with that dogmatism, let's hear an example of an exception (note: I know nothing about Eastern philosophy). The two following definitions strike me as unnecessary. Philosophy 'examines' itself - sure, but it's not an overwhelmingly important point, and isn't it true of any other discipline. Literary criticism examines itself to hell and back, and the hard sciences must do so too - who else is going to examine their foundations and precepts? Er, apart from philosophers. As to the third, (1) I honestly don't really understand it, (2) taken literally it's probably false, (3) and I don't recognize the cite(oh yes I do, it's Blackburn. Nice guy. What the heck does he mean??? Is there a context in the original?.

I am glad to see some positive efforts here this morning. Pick up any faculty guide to philosophy from any university - including on "the Continent" - and it will tell you in a few words what the subject is. And these definitions, albeit different, will not be as starkly inconsistent as some editors seem to think. It shouldn't be hard. KD Tries Again 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Blackburn. Okay, I checked the reference and the current intro text only has the second half of his thought. He says that whereas philosophy once considered itself to be the primary and founding intellectual discipline which could provide foundation and direction to other disciplines/sciences, contemporary phil. is now hostile to that idea and regards itself as no more than continuous with the best practices in other disciplines. You can't figure that out from the fragment we have, and no I don't think it needs to be in the intro. As to the last sentence splitting Westerm phil into analytic/continental, if we have to say it we should qualify it - "generally", "for the most part", because here there are exceptions. KD Tries Again 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Another voice is an improvement, among optimists, as I am. But remember, there's no such thing as truth by majority vote. Please try to go beyond your oinion as to what philosophy is, since we've already agreed that defining philosophy is controversial. And may I suggest taking things a word at a time. I think no one here will accept your sweeping generalization about philosophy. That's the reality here - as it is among philosophers. You may have also exposed an Acheles heal by announcing your lack of knowledge regarding Eastern philosophy. That issue, I think, ultimately turns on one's views as to what role one claims religious concepts play within philosophy itself. But I think this issue should be considered later.

You seem to assert that the two (later) qualifications regarding Philosophy's nature are inaccurate. I agree with that. But notice that no one has taken the bite. Do you not see that the choice here is really more of a political one? Accordingly, we have no right to call philosophy rational, or critical (though some keeping thinking that it follows, logically, or otherwise, that it's irrational). I think I'm prepared to compromise towards a consensus - because that's the only way out of our stalemate. However, consider also that there are here only a half dozen truly dedicate editors - but they are mostly all dedicated to having their own opinions prevail. This must be acknowledge, while recognizing that Wiki policy imposes sanctions against extreme views, in which an editor is personally attacked. So we have a kind of dillema here. We must tolerate one another - while believing the other is completely off the wall (because only "I" am "Rational"). I can only hope you are less likely of falling into that category. Best of luck to you, User:KD.

Yours truly, Ludvikus 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the boot is on the other foot. Those remarks are my work, to the extent I typed them, but (1) Blackburn says what he says - which is misrepresented in the article; (2) I'd like to know if there's anything distinctive about philosophy (as opposed to say, lit crit) in defining itself - that's an invitation to contribute, not a dogmatic view; and (3) I have invited any editor to cite an exception to the first definition - again, that's an invitation, not a dogmatic view. If you are asking me to cite exceptions to the analytic/continental split, I'll do so, but I am surprised you need that. Let me know if you do. So, not 'my' opinions after all. KD Tries Again 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Now I understand your position. Let me direct your attention to the fact that we already have in the first sentence what appears like a definition - the problem is that some wish to put more in. I think the most critical focus has been on the words Rational, or Critical, and their cognates. And when references had been made to Postmodernism, and Marxism on ideologies and Class interest - that's just ignored. My main concern is dropping this qualification if only we would thereby gratify communists and certain Continentals. For me that was the primary issue here. It appears that there's a very strong block that whose members passionately believe that that word(s) must be associated with any kind of definition of philosophy of any significance. On the other hand, I've also recommended a sort of historical approach, tracing Philosophy through its travels, in history, through the West, beginning with the formation of the concept in ancient Greece. But that gets knocked down because it somehow violates the suggested sactity of Eastern philosophy. And when I point out that it is a Category of Barnes and Noble, but our major desk references do not even have such an entry - this too is simply ignored. Remember, it is much harder to prove a negative. The more notable encyclopedias have Chinese philosophy, Hindu philosophy, but not Eastern. I also tried to direct the editors attention to the extremely well known marginalization of mythology, religion, and faith, as concepts, or notions, distinct from philosophy, a characterization that has been with us for 2,500 years in the Western world - it seems that in that I'm merely talking to a wall. I suspect that by this distinction we might be viewed as somehow trivializing the rest of the world. Certainly, in the 19th century, it was held that philosophy was uniquely a part of the Western Intellectual tradition. This, however, is apparently taken as an abhorent distinction. It's as if there is an effort to cover up the fact of imperialism by covering up historical events. I'm almost affraid (just kidding) to say that the airplane was invented in the West. I suggested that we get to Eastern philosophy in relation to its discovery in the West in the 1960's or 1950's. I've emphasized that this is the English Wikipedia, so its "reasonable" to begin with the West. But here to I found myself confronting an impenetrable philosophical wall which, mind you, claims to be Rational. So these are the two pressing issues here, as I see them. Yours truly, Ludvikus 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time to give the intro a rest. We should all take about a month off, and let the professional philosophers do the hard work of writing the subsections. Rick Norwood 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(To KD) No, you can read the entirety of Blackburn's intent from exactly what has been written. He has a lot to say, but that last part was the most unique. Yes, we do need to include that material if we're to talk in the article about the relationship between science and philosophy. We also need mention differences between traditions for the same reason { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not. I had to go to the original, and was surprised to discover that he is making a contrast between philosophy's historical self-image as the founding intellectual discipline, and its modern self-image as a discipline which comments on other disciplines in a manner continuous with their best practices. If I couldn't figure it out, the general reader, I contend would be lost. Anyone else have a view? I don't care if we include the point, but it needs to be intelligible. KD Tries Again 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I don't dispute your interpretation of the context. I do dispute its relevance. The comment about contemporary philosophy can just as well stand alone. But this isn't a really serious point, it only suggests that we add something about foundationalism into the intro { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

material from history of schism

This is highly objectionable. Lucas added, with no discussion here, a stack of factually inaccurate material from an article Wikipedia just decided to delete [[1]], despite his attempts to defend it. I know Lucas can revert and re-insert it, but if so I am going to raise this as a case of deliberate disruption. If any of that material should be a candidate for inclusion in this article, it should be discussed here first. KD Tries Again 19:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

This is incorrect. The section that was there only gave a short description of it and mainly just tried to talk separately of each one. The only part I added was a modified and much re-edited (not only by me) detail of the story of the division.

There is nothing inaccurate about it. The details I include are referenced unlike you additions. If you have particular comments to make about some details well raise the issue, add to it or remove it. But if it stands for primary source reference then it should stay. --Lucas 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I will add comments inline (replies) if you don't mind since you make alot.Lucas 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the deletion of this material, there must be a strong presumption that it's problematic. As you know, I did - in the discussion on the deleted page - give you a bunch of corrections, which for whatever reason you didn't accept. I also gave references which were lost when you deleted. I'll give it all again, and save it this time. From memory:

1. The discussion between Searle and Derrida was not about a "book". Derrida read a paper on J.L. Austin, Searle replied - both these papers were published in Glyph. Derrida then replied to Searle, and his first paper and reply were published in "Limited Inc", together with a summary of the first Searle response. If the consensus is that these facts need to get a high profile in the article - and I can't see why - I'll supply full biblio detail.

reply:This is perfectly fine. Just change the wording to paper or whatever.

2. Cassirer and Heidegger did have a famous debate about Kantianism, but since neither of them is an analytic philosopher, and the debate did not discuss analytic philosophy, it has no place in a history of the so-called "schism", regardless of whether Carnap was in the audience of not.

reply:This is debatable, anyhow, just remove this from the section, it is called editing! I think that two major philosophers, one a major Analytic one Carnap and the other Continental Levinas both coming down on completely opposite sides is very interesting for tracing the history of this schism.

3. The comments by Rorty do not constitute any kind of event or moment in the schism. He was just talking about it.

reply:He was talking of 40s and 50s, it is just called a history, 40s and 50s are historical times. Dont know what you mean by Rorty's writing as an event, he was referring to an event.

4. Foucault/Chomsky debate - again, no analytic philosopher is involved there.

reply:Chomsky represented a certain stream of Analytic philosophy of language, he is well known for a theory of language in Analytic.

5. You had the Carnap/Heidegger dispute wrong too, I think, but I can't remember the detail.

reply:No, I think this is docuemted and referenced.

If you think any of this material helps the article, please post drafts here so that we can comment. I think that's a reasonable request in view of the fact that Wikipedia has already deleted it once. KD Tries Again 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

reply:Overall I think you only have negative criticism. What parts of this history might you add to? Or is it only a case of removing things or denying there is any history.? I also note that a completely re-written section on this was removed. How do you think this divide should be handled in philosophy.

--Lucas 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope other editors can follow my points, with the interposed comments. (note by Lucas, I cannot see inline comments from you above, I made the inline comments on your initial points) Here are some more:

6. Ryle's review of Being and Time is generally considered surprisingly sympathetic. Ryle mentions the "unflagging energy with which he [Heidegger] tries to think beyond the stock categories of orthodox psychology and philosophy".

reply:The mention of Ryle's reaction to Being and Time comes from a verified source and is a quote from page 9 of that book.Lucas

7. J.S. Mill is not a major influence on analytic philosophers, except narrowly in discussion of utilitarianism. The main conjunctions between Mill and the analytic school were Frege's rejection of his psychologism and Russell's attack on his theory of meaning. Let me know if you need more on these.

reply:Mill is read mainly in Analytic (as you admit) and not much in Continental, hence his attack from Russell, but you will find others after Russell attack him in his turn. The whole idea of denotation and connotation comes from mill and is similar to the ideas of sense and reference from Frege and Russell, but argued in the detail different. Who else from the 19th century is on the Analytic reading list?

8. Scandinavia is not well known for its Anglophone phil. departments.

reply:Anyone trying to do Analytic must be able to read English and the Swedes are very good at it, by the way. Anyhow, where is there mention of Anglophone? It says mainly English speaking, is does not say entirely English-speaking. Anyhow why not add this caveat.

Comment: I do not have only negative criticism. I have left the comment about Derrida's doctorate untouched, because it seems to me accurate. I have mostly negative criticism for the reasons I've given. Bottom line - how I would handle this is to post suggestions here and let editors comment, especially since the previous draft of this material was deleted by Wikipedia consensus because it had problems beyond clean-up. KD Tries Again 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Comment: Ok, you left something there, well that is amazing, really contributing alot! This material is mostly new except for some undisputed parts. There were lots of events in this history, maybe be contructive and add a few! --Lucas 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made changes and put in correct references (whether or not I put them in correctly...). Chomsky is, of course, known to analytic philosophers, but his emphasis on treating language in terms of cognitive psychology is rejected by many (e.g. Dummett), sympathetically regarded by some (Fodor) on the analytic side. But Chomsky himself is not a philosopher, not an analytic philosopher, and the debate with Foucault did not address issues in the so-called "schism". I deleted that part therefore, and accepted your invitation to delete the Cassirer entry. I sincerely ask you not to just revert again, but to comment here or make improvements on the page. KD Tries Again 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Yes but think you could add something instead of just being negative and deleting!

I added further comments above (see "reply:"). You seem to think that because Chomsky is not an Analytic philosopher yet is debated and rejected/accepted by Analytic philosophers means nothing to the schism. I think the debate with Foucault showed an English-speaking intellectual (ok not Analytic phil) and a very Continental one it is interesting and there were also link to a video if the debate.

The Cassirer debate I will leave omitted but just add in the outcome which shows the difference between Levinas and Carnap. The quote from Heidegger I think is relevant to the issue of a schism. --Lucas 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding something assumes I think the section and general treatment is a good idea, which I don't. I am just trying to take out errors right now. Chomsky's linguistics is discussed by analytic philosophers. Right. He is discussed by continental philosophers too (Deleuze & Guattari, Mille Plateaux). He was NOT debating those issues with Foucault - it was a discussion of leftist politics. (Okay, that's an overstatement, but it's barely on point.) Great video. It's irrelevant. KD Tries Again 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Balance. If we are going to have the Babich comment setting the tone of that section, it will have to be balanced by reference to philosopher who have put bridges across the divide: Follesdal, Woodruff Smith, Mohanty, Davey, Dummett, Dews, Rorty, Dreyfus, and so on. I will wait to see what reaction other editors have to the section, especially given its history.

KD Tries Again 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Yes but this is just air, you make not references or even arguments why you think this should not be here. Do you think that the gap does not exist! If Chomsky was not talking of humanism and debating it why do you think Chomsky said after that he was a most amoral person. I can quote the issues if you like but that was the centre of the debate, Chomsky believed in some basic humanism, Foucault did not, he saw the definition of a universal "human", as another scientific definition of man that would again lead to more prisons, stricy schools etc.

Balance. If we are going to have the Babich comment setting the tone of that section, it will have to be balanced by reference to philosopher who have put bridges across the divide: Follesdal, Woodruff Smith, Mohanty, Davey, Dummett, Dews, Rorty, Dreyfus, and so on. I will wait to see what reaction other editors have to the section, especially given its history.

KD Tries Again 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Do want balance where there is none? Why is the gap getting ever wider? Giving balance where there is none, is what TV stations pretend to do by bringing in two sides of every story. Anyhow I cannot find sources that deny the gap. Just because there is the odd bridge here and there only shows how large the gap is. There would be no need for these ineffectual bridges if there was not the schism in the first place.

By the way the change you made about the 19th century did not fit, the question was which philosophers from 19th C are read in Analytic philosophy. Now I left Mill out, but he is one that is read. And of course there are U.S. philosophers who study continental that is not contested.--Lucas 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion despite correction: Lucas, you reverted to your previous description of Ryle's BT review as "negative and dismissive" despite my quoting Ryle's praise of Heidegger above. Check Wiki's Heidegger page: " moderately favourable review in Mind by a young Gilbert Ryle of Being and Time". Please don't just revert without giving a reason or a citation. I can't figure out why you would do that. Also, could you tell me which 19th century philosophers the analytic school refers to - I suggested Frege, which you took out. Who else? I'd ask you again to discuss such edits here before publishing them. KD Tries Again 23:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I did not revert anymore than you! I left most of the stuff you put there. I made comments above which explain all. Frege is not 19th Century he is turn of the century. --Lucas 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryle's review Unlike you I have no opinion of Ryle's review of Being and Time. I take the review as interpreted by a secondary source and add that reference to the article. --Lucas 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryle's review - please support your position. I do have an opinion because I have read the piece. I don't have a complete copy available to quote from. But in this case I am not relying on my opinion - I cited actual words from the review praise Heidegger's unflagging energy. I can also point to the indisputable fact that Ryle was a young philosopher in his twenties when he published the lengthy review in Mind, and that he worked through Heidegger's text (and other phenomenological texts) in the original German. It is also a matter of record that Ryle lectured on Husserl and Brentano and took great interest in contemporary German philosophy (Dummett, Origins of Analytic philosophy, ix). So either Prado's position, which you rely on, is controversial, or you might not have read it right - no offence, it happens. I don't have a copy of Prado - could you please post here the comment on which you rely? KD Tries Again 15:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

My problems with this section: Perhaps my response seems like "just air" because I was summarizing criticisms made at considerable length on the original Analytic/Continental Talk Page and the Deletion discussion for that page, which I assumed you'd read. There IS a distinction, and it needs to be discussed. There is no compelling reason not to discuss it in a balanced way, which include mentioning philosophers who attempt to bridge the divide - starting, perhaps, with Gilbert Ryle. I can't help it if you're not familiar with the authors I listed - I am prepared to give cites, but I am awaiting views of other editors on the section generally. As for Babich, yes she's a secondary source but - usual problem - she is one among hundreds and thousands. Her view is strongly expressed, but it doesn't mean it can monopolize or guide a section on Wikipedia. You quote Rorty's brief remark about the split; why not cite his long list of publications which make theoretical mediations between analytic/pragmatic/continental positions (cites - his two volumes of philosophy papers, Phil & the Mirror of Nature)? It's a divide which some have tried to bridge and many have not. The "large" gap, the "ineffectual bridges" - pure POV. KD Tries Again 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Stabilizing the Intro

These two seem to be the ones people keep reverting between. One I cal the snake version, it contorts itself into putting 2,500 years and millions of leafs of written and spoken material into a few clauses:

snake version

Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom) concerns itself with how to live one's life (ethics), what one knows, can know, and how one knows it (epistemology), and what can be said to exist (metaphysics).

Defining philosophy is controversial in part because it is also its own subject; accordingly, there are diverse definitions of philosophy. Some describe philosophy as a form of intellectual enquiry which uses critical analysis and reasoning, as well as dialogue or introspection, to solve seemingly intractable problems. Others claim that philosophy examines the process of examination itself. Still others argue that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field.

Although the word "philosophy" originates in the Western tradition, seminal figures in the history of the East have addressed similar topics in similar ways. Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions.

---

The above version uses tertiary sources the Oxford and Penguin (!) dictionary. WP:OR recommends not using tertiary sources.

Neat version

Most definitions of Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom), are fairly controversial. In general, philosophy is concerned with critical or systematic enquiries related to what should be done, (ethics), what we can know (epistemology), and the fundamental elements and general nature of existence (metaphysics and ontology).

The definition of philosophy is controversial because one of the subject's own projects is to enquire critically into its own nature. Because of this, many important philosophers have proposed new definitions of philosophy as part of their work.

---

The neat version admits the difficulty and in so doing manages to sum up not only philosophy but all the bits on this talk page. --Lucas 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Snake, because it attempts with some success to say what philosophy does - but lose the comments with cites 9 and 10 for reasons above. KD Tries Again 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

My vote goes for the neat version, as well as my appreciate of the work done by User:KD Tries Again, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it is time to give the intro a rest. If we all take about a month off, we will return refreshed and with clearer heads. Meanwhile, the professional philosophers can work on the subsections. See you in March. Rick Norwood 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The "neat version" completely fails to give even the most tentative of descriptions over what philosophy means, which is why I reject it { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

W. Windelband - History Ancient Philosophy

       . . . Greek philosophy, . . . in the development of
  the intellectual life of Europe.
       The emphasis falls primarily upon the lifting of mere knowing to the plane of systematic
  knowledge, or science. Not content with his storing of practical facts,
  and with his fantastic speculations born of his religious needs,
  the Greek sought knowledge for its own sake. Knowledge, like art,
  was developed as an independent function from its involvement
  in the other activities of civilization. . . .
       It is, . . . the birth of the separate sciences. For the process of differentiation,
  which begins with distinguishing thought from conduct and mythology,
  was continued within the domain of science itself. With the accumulation and organic
  arrangement of its facts, the early, simple, and unitary science to which the Greeks
  gave the name φιλοσοφία, divided into the special sciences, the single φιλοσοφίαι,
  and these then continued to develop on more or less independent lines.
  [Links added]] - History of Ancient Philosophy (1900) (Dover: 1956), pp. 1-2

I shall supply the 2 omitted Greek words shortly. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ludvikus 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy as Logic under Frege and Russell and England

Dear Wiki colleagues, I thought I'd give you guys and/or gals a gift or brake by filling in the body of the article, regarding Analytic and Continental philosophy - something we're pondering besides the opening. I'll work on it later - unless someone beats me to it and improves my work.

Now I know some of you have your doubts, but I do have a life, and need to eat, if not to sleep and dream . . . philosophia . . .

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Snake vs neat

I don't like the neat. But I don't like the snake either. Some reasons:

1. Metaphysics is about "what can be said to exist"? False, without further qualification. Usually said to be about what 'ultimately' or 'really' exists, or something similar.

2. "Defining philosophy is controversial in part because it is also its own subject" is clumsy – what does it mean? If it means that the subject of philosophy is philosophy, then as KD pointed out, the subject of literature is literature.

3. The claim that there are 'diverse definitions of philosophy' is not true. Definition of philosophy shows that there is remarkable agreement among philosophers about what philosophy is. Or rather, as Quinton says, there are interesting definitions, which do tend to be controversial, and there are dull ones, which are not so. As KD says, look on the prospectus of any reputable university, and see how it describes itself to prospective students. There you see remarkable agreement.

4. But the most misleading bit is the whole thread of 'some .. others … still others'. This, coupled with the earlier insistence on the diversity and disagreement between definitions, suggests quite inaccurately that these 3 groups disagree with each other. Not at all. Nearly all philosophers would say that philosophy uses critical analysis and reasoning, i.e. that is its method. And nearly all would also agree that philosophy, unlike many other disciplines which are defined by their subject matter. "It is by its methods rather than its subject matter that philosophy is to be distinguished from other arts or sciences" (who said that?). Correct. The subject matter can be pretty much anything (though usually limited to the usual suspects). The method, by contrast, is its defining characteristic. KD said "I'd repeat that it's very important to say something about the way philosophy answers those questions, because novels, poems, churches, politicians and exotic cults also address them." Asolutely. We seem to have lost that. Anyway. The first group (the 'some') are in fact the majority of philosophers. The second group are the ones who 'claim that philosophy examines the process of examination itself', i.e. think of philosophy as somehow second-order. This forms a sub-group of the first. The third group think that 'philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field' – still not sure what this means (and it will certainly be unintelligible to the average reader of the article), but I know from Ben it was intended to be a group that disagreed with the assessment of philosophy as second-order.

5. I don’t like 'seminal figures in the history of the East', but that's a point of style. Seminal figures of what? Why 'seminal'.

6. Don't like 'Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions' because it introduces an idea without definition and explanation. If I know no mathematics, and I am reading an article to understand it, it does not help in the slightest to know that it is divided into pure and applied mathematics. Whats that?

This comment displays a mis-understanding of contemporary philosophy. If I wanted to study the politics of the world during the latter half of the 20th century, the essential thing was to know the major two political divisions, and which were used as excuses for many international affairs, wars, coups etc. If was easy to define/explain it would not be what it is. --Lucas 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also not touched upon in this, though it could be, is that the extent of disagreement depends on whether we are talking about the method, the subject matter or the goal of philosophy. Pretty much anyone with any philosophical training agrees that the defining mark of philosophy is its method (see above). Regarding the subject matter, there is deep disagreement between anti-metaphysicians who think philosophy has no subject matter at all, and is really about clarifying our thought, and the metaphysicians who think e.g. that there really is something there that is the special subject of philosophy. But that is really a division into two, not a diversity. Then about the goal of philosophy, almost complete disagreement everywhere. Is it curative? Is it to discover the fundamental nature of reality? Is it to reconcile faith and reason? Everyone will give a different answer.

Could I congratulate all participants on generally being to the point, not using double-spacing, avoiding gratuitous capitalisation and generally not ranting. It's looking a lot more house-trained. Best. Dbuckner 09:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of that, and especially the bits which quote me. Well done. Lucas is right that the split matters and must be dealt with; but it must be dealt with accurately and must not become the fulcrum of the whole article. KD Tries Again 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

No consensus on Snake Vs Neat

Seems like the same divisions appear again here on the talk page that seem to reflect the argument over rationalism.

Those who want the "snake" version of the intro: KD Tries Again, Lucidish and Dbuckner

Those who want the "neat" version: Lucas, Ludvikus, Rick Norwood.

The difference being, I suppose some want some kind of definition of what philsophy does in the intro, others think it is not possible to do it. This article is old enough and has millions of different 'pet' definitions in the intro.

If you want to have any possibility of a stable version that can be developed in future, then we should put a note on the talk page "Warning: no defintions of philosophy in the intro". --Lucas 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We should work with the neat version - and build it up! Step by step!

It is to be noted that KD Tries Again is a newcomer to the debate - one day.

Lucas has been on the page since 2004.

Accordingly, my (reasonable) tally of the vote is 3 for "neat"; 2 + 1 newcomer "against."

Yehhhh. "neat" wins - so much for "rationality"!

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing protocols

I suppose that I should start by saying that, if I had to choose one or the other, the so-called "snake" version is clearly preferable, though I'm not completely happy with it (why is there a link for "from"? It looks very odd, and when I checked other articles it doesn't seem to be the standard approach).

My main concern, though, is for information. OK, there is one editor who seems to operate by writing large amounts of rather disconnected and often insulting stream-of-consciousness stuff in broken English, and whose edits to the article are generally peculiar. But even part from him, I can't see any real structure. Are we supposed to discuss things here, and when agreement or compromise is reached change the article (which was how I started), or are we supposed to just jump in, change the article to our own preferences, watch someone else change it back, then change it back again, with an occasional bit of argument here (which is what actually seems to be most people's way)? It doesn't seem that there's much point my doing either, as - on the evidence of the above "discussions" - rational argument is mainly ignored or not understood by some of the more prolific contributors, and those same contributors won't allow anything to stay with which they disagree.

In other words, what I suppose I'm asking is this: is there any point my hanging around here? --Peter J King 15:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I should add that the recent discussion has been better, and I shall join in when I've thought more about it -- but it does seem to be a blip in the normal course of things. --Peter J King

Another devolpment is that we have managed to convince one or two of the "snake" editors that philosophy is not just Western and not just rationality or a way to rationalise things in the world.

Now we move on to issues, such as can it be called "intellectual enquiry" and "critical analysis" or "solving problems". Many philosophers debate these things and so it is hard to say without be biased. Until we can agree them I think they should be removed from the intro.

Good to hear you might help us, as you sound quite experienced in these matter. One problem on here has been the appropriation of words like "rational" it is often just a way of saying "I'm right you are wrong". Though I'm sure you don't do that. Rational is really an outcome in my opinion, when enough agree on a way forward.

--Lucas 15:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse the idea that material for a section which has become controversial is discussed here first, rather than posted, changed, changed back, and eventually left in a mess. I am worried that any phrase which attempts to characterize philosophical method will be unacceptable to one or two editors here because they can cite methodological disagreements among philosophers. But for an encyclopaedia article, a general characterization of what philosophy is and does is unavoidable, whatever specific qualifications one might make, either in the body of the article, or in articles about individual philosophers to which it links. My invitation remains to give me an example of any philosopher who does not proceed, one way or another, and at least much of the time, by advancing arguments. KD Tries Again 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Lucas: to clarify, I never claimed that "rationality" and "western-hood" were necessary / sufficient conditions for philosophy { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No but others have, sorry to lump you with them. The issue now is about "intellectual enquiry", "critical analysis" reasoning etc.

Dbuckner why do you insist defining philosophy is unavoidable in the intro. Is this need to capture in one sentence the meaning of philosophy (or as you say its "general character") a false one. Can you not let the rest of the page do it and avoid such false security. --Lucas 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what Lucas means about "rational". I've looked at some of what has been said about it here, and it seems that some people are using it in very odd ways. I get the feeling that there's some confusion between "rational" and seventeenth-century Rationalism (very different notions), but often I just can't work out what is meant. Perhaps, given that it is a bone of contention, editors who disagree over its inclusion could say here what they mean by the term. I'll kick off:

A belief, process of thought, argument, action, etc., is rational if it is consistent with logic, is consonant with a relevant goal. Rationality isn't isolated, though; in order for something to be rational, its starting points (premises, goals, background beliefs, etc.) must also be rational.

That's not perfect, and is just off the top of my head, but it's a start, and is roughly right I think.

About the question of defining philosophy in the introduction, I don't really see how anything else could count as an introduction. --Peter J King 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

eg

I really intended to leave the introduction alone for at least a month, but I hate to let "eg" with no periods stand. Also, there is a problem that schools of philosophy are given as examples of "seminal figures".

I would like to change the sentence that now reads:

"Although the word "philosophy" originates in the Western tradition, seminal figures in the history of the East have addressed similar topics in similar ways (eg Jnana or Gyan). [4]"

To:

"Although the word "philosophy" originates in the Western tradition, other cultures have addressed similar topics in similar ways, for example in Jnana or Gyan. [4]"

I will refrain from doing so if there is even one objection. Rick Norwood 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. --Peter J King 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you should make this change, so go ahead whether you agree with the below or not itis better.

However, I don't think you need the "Although the word philosophy". Since 99% of the words in English originate in the West or at least as Indo-European. Better just to say Philosophy is not localizable and includes philosophers from all over the world, from China (Confucious Lao Tzu etc) to India, Europe and the U.S. Historically it is probably localizable to the last 3000 years or so. --Lucas 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Snake (ugly) version - cleaned

Look at it's cleanup version:

  Defining philosophy is controversial in part because
  it is also its own subject;
  accordingly, there are diverse  definitions of philosophy.
  For example: one describes philosophy as a form of intellectual enquiry
  which uses critical analysis and reasoning,
  as well as dialogue or introspection,
  to solve seemingly intractable problems.
  ;
  another claims that philosophy examines the process of examination itself;
  still another argues that philosophy is continuous with the best practices
  in every intellectual field. 
  Emphasis/boldface added

It's an arbitrary sampling, with the most uninformed choice of vocabulary.

It is a-historical in the extreme. It is a prime example of what happens when a horse is designed by an arbitrary committe of shoemakers - you get a camel?

We should look at things as follows:

1st: West: Philosophy Thought - Mythology = Science.

2nd: East: Chinese philosophy, Hindue philosophy.

The Only way to go is start with West, and do it from a historical point of view;

then come back and do it in all the other place - and you cannot omit African philosophy or you will be labeled a Racist; acknowledge the Unity of European civilization - it is the civilization which is now associated with Abrahamism; or Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with their intellectual traditions intermingling, especially when it comes to Philosophy; there would be no philosophy in the West as we know it, if it had not passed through the hands of the believers in Muhammed. And the role of Mathematics and Logic must be accounted for.

But lets take things one at a time.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is on philosophy, not the history of philosophy { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is missed, though you might like it, there is no clear line between the history of philosophy and philosophy.

The point is, do we give a definition or characterization of philosophy as is thought in 2007 somewhere in the U.S., or in Analytic, or do we go for a broader definition, and include postmodernism, and historically, include perhaps what Hume or Kant or a Modernist like Russell might have believed it was. --Lucas 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt that if and when someone misses the point, it may be because the point is invisible. You're not talking about "the point", as in Lud's point, which had nothing to do with what you attribute to him in this section, and everything to do with what he really said: 'start with the West', a 'historical point of view'. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other -- it depends on how it is executed. But my first reaction is "we already have a historical narrative in the body of the article". My second reaction is "we need to be economical if this proposal is supposed to be in the intro". Third: history should not replace descriptions (note, descriptions not definitions) of philosophy. The very fact that these two things (description of philosophy vs. history of philosophy) are not coextensive, and interchangeable, shows that there is a line between the two disciplines, no matter how blurry one would like to imagine that line is { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism

Initial comments (and my POV is that the dose of 1066 and all that cold war history is way too large for a section in an encyc article on philosophy):

1. " well known commentator of that time" - an odd description of Marx, but in any case he was writing in 1847, not the time under discussion. Next sentence has us in the 1950s.

2. It's not the case that communist literature and ideas could not be read or studied in the United States at any time because of the 'red scare'. In the 1950s, for example, some of the leading intellectuals in the country were the Marxist and Trotskyist writers associated with the Partisan Review and openly discussing leftist politics (cite Barrett, The Truants; cf Wiki article on Sidney Hook). It was membership of the party that was problematic - quite a different thing.

3. "no such intense stigma" in Britain and Europe? Cites, please. Britain may have been less hostile than the States, but stigma there was. And it is wildly simplistic to include Germany, Italy, Spain without qualification - countries where being a communist could get you killed during large chunks of the vaguely defined period we're in.

4. I like the idea of Bertie Russell "coming along", but he was around before 1911 - see Wiki biblio, and discussed Frege way before that (ibid). PM was "seminal"? Cite please. The math summary is unintelligible.

5. "Hegel had already show Kant's a priori necessary to be more complex issue. But for Russell, the last remaining subject which remained a priori necessary was arithmetic." Well Hegel rejected Kant's position - if that's relevant here. The second sentence is not true - the truths of logic and mathematics were necessary truths for Russell (analytic a priori - he differed from Kant, who thought them synthetic a priori). But in this context - so what? It's a development of Hume, nothing more.

6. And then there's the last bit.

KD Tries Again 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Well I would agree considering what you say above that we should fix up this "Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism" section and include your comments above.

By the way Hegel did not "reject Kant" out of hand, he included him from a higher level. It was Kant that showed Hegel the way to his own philosophy, as he clearly admits. Though the idea of universal and eternal 'a priori' insofar as it characterises Kant and his, de jure, "best explanation" I agree was changed, he dropped the eternal bit, but the synthetic idea was kept. On the eternal, Hegel did not deny it, he has lots to say about it, but I do not find them well translated. --Lucas 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading. Hegel rejected the specific position of Kant's under discussion. The problem with "fixing up" this section, and the introductory material on the schism, is that you have to look at the main points being put across. To the extent I understand Ludvikus, his main point in the first three paragraphs is that reading Marxist theory was hindered in the U.S. for political reasons, but less so in Europe. Since this isn't really true, I don't much want to "fix up" those paragraphs, but would like to get a consensus for deleting them. The discussion of Russell and Frege is pertinent, but needs to be written by someone with expertise - it's highly technical. KD Tries Again 16:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

The misreading is yours I'm afraid. Hegel would be nothing without Kant. Hegel didnt really "reject" any historical philosophy they remained "live" moments of his greater scheme. What he did I suppose was expand Kant, the a priori is returned to mean "previous" as in historical, rather than eternal.

On the subsection though, I do not think it is a good idea to delete all of Ludvikus' work. I think the issue, though it is not entirely correct, does have some truth. That you do not wish to do that work and prefer to make long discussions here is censorious. Do you not think that the "red scare" was more virulent in the U.S.? People lost their jobs all over the place and were banned from the media. On the other hand in France and Germany there were well respected and highly acclaimed, intellectuals, who appeared on TV and were openly Marxist. I'm thinking of people like Sartre. It may also be relevant to why the Frankfurters returned to Germany.

--Lucas 16:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hegel did not accept Kant's account of the analytic and synthetic a prioris; check the Logic. I think you know that, but still wish to contradict me. No matter. I do not wish to delete all Ludvikus work, but rather to achieve a consensus on whether the main point is both true and worth inclusion - if not, it is a waste of everyone's time to revise it. Your history is inaccurate. First, Ludvikus is unclear throughout on which period he is discussing. In the 1930s and 1940s, being a communist in fascist Europe put you at risk of death, which is arguably worse than being blacklisted. This is why so many Marxist theorists came to the United States and taught there (many were Jewish also, of course). Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer - you'll find hundreds of names in J-M Palmier, Weimar in Exile. So, in fact, the cutting edge of European Marxist thought relocated to the States in the post-war era - fewer figures ultimately ending up in Eastern Europe - Lukacs, Bloch and Brecht after first living in the States. Yes, members of the Frankfurt school returned to Germany, for a number of reasons - but NOT because they were barred from reading or teaching Marxist theory. If you need cites to lectures given by Adorno in the States, let me know - I have them. So it's a nuanced history, and the assumption from which Ludvikus launches, that Marxism couldn't be read or taught in the States, not supported by the evidence. Furthermore - you really want this history of post-war philosophical Marxism contained within the Analytic/Continental section of the article??? KD Tries Again 17:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Also - please see my further citations in support of Ryle's engagement with German phenomenology above. If you wish to retain the entry as written, you do need to give a reason. KD Tries Again 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Anyhow let us, like good Analytics, move off Hegel. You make good points and I know many people moved around during the war years to the USSR, to Britain and the US. Many returned others took up their home abroad.

I think that the point Ludvikus tries to make is that perhaps the Cold War which lasted until 1989 had an effect on the open appearance of Marxism in the U.S. more than it might have had in post-war Europe. There were many powerful communist parties in Europe at that time, in the U.S., well really it remained(s) locked in civil war political division of Dems and Reps. I think the effect on the teaeching of Marxism in the US is not easily explained. I suppose now that the cold war is behind us all undergrad philosophy students learn about Marx in the U.S.?

How relevant is this to the section on the analytic side of the schism? Is it something better covered in the Analytic page because it does not directly relate to the schism? I think it is worth keeping, how much though, I'm not sure, so I would say leave it there or edit it even if that means only one line is left in the end. (note, I can't find the citation about Ryle you mention) --Lucas 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But the cold war did not block the teaching of Marxist and leftist philosophy in universities, or the reading and writing of such philosophy. Do you need list of left-wing academic thinkers active in United States between 1945 and 1989? I would rather not provide it, because it is not going to help the Philosophy article get written. You discussed the Ryle cite on my User Talk page. I quoted his praise of Heidegger from the original article, cited Dummett's account of Ryle teaching Husserl, Brentano and other German philosophers at Oxford in the 1920s, offered circumstantial evidence that a young British philosopher in his twenties would hardly do such teaching, including reading those works in the original German, and write a long review for Mind if his attitude could accurately be summarized as "dismissive" - and I asked, and ask again, for the actual comment from Prado which is your only cite. KD Tries Again 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

This is a counterfactual, the cold war of course had an effect on the academic climate. Not only that but because there was only a tiny communist part in the US compared with some of the majority or close majority parties in Europe the social and monetary support was less. Of all the Analytic philosophers you can think of how many give any space to Marxism? In Analytic Marxism is divided into a sub department called "Political Philosophy", a number of whom Rawls and Nozick come out with very different ideas than Marx. Its effect on the rest of Analytic, that is the bulk of English-speaking philosophy is invisible.

Again I note your reluctance to provide material. Be daring!

You quote Ryle out of context the bulk of the review was "negative and dismissive" as the referenced appraisal of the entire review says in the article (as opposed to your own surmising) The point is that hardly any other other Analytic philosopher took up Heidegger, and in contrast on the Continent he was seen as a new Descartes or something. They were falling over themselves to ge out their own version of Heideggers work. That Ryle spent time on Husserl and Brentano is a private affair in some sense since it had little knock on effect. Do you see him reference much in he main work?

--Lucas 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979)

Lucas is right! I'm afraid,You have to try again. And by the way, have you heard of Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979). I love my country, the United States. But to have you come along and deny the effect of McCarthism suggests you must be a very well sheltered younster living on Park Avenue.

Russell and Wittgenstein dominate post-WWI America, with Quine in tow. --Ludvikus 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way - I'm only pointing out that such a dismissive view of yours can only mean that Marxists are right - that we can only expect you to express the views of Capitalism. You do not demonstrate objectivity by unilaterally offering to delete. If you delete me, I'll delete you.

Do you follow my argument above?

Please do not take it personally - it's not intended to be so.

However, you have expressed yourself as an authority on Truth above.

Regards, --Ludvikus 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The significance of McCarthyism to the rise of analytic philosophy is clearly controversial. John McCumber, probably the most significant proponent of the thesis, writes the he "will argue these points in turn and as strongly as the written record enables me to do. That will not be strongly enough, I think, to establish definitively that the McCarthy Era decisively shaped subsequent American philosophy. What the record does show, and amply, is that the possibility should not continue to be passed over in silence."[2] That is, even he does not think the issue is cut and dried. So it's clearly inappropriate for the Wikipedia article to make a strong claim that the analytic/continental division is due to McCarthyism, although it's quite right to mention it, sourced to McCumber. Aside from that, it strikes me as clearly wrong, and bizarre, to clutter up the article with a detailed explanation of Marxism and McCarthyism - we can explain their relevance in a sentence or two, and refer readers to the articles on the topic for more detail. VoluntarySlave 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't be responding to the personal abuse, Ludvikus, so you might save your fingers. That Marcuse lived and taught Marxist critical theory in the United States until he died at a grand age in California seems to support my position rather than yours.

VS, I'm not familiar with McCumber's position, but I think we can readily agree that the article cannot both trace the analytic/continental division to the late 19th Century and to McCarthyism. If there is a point worth making, it needs to be made differently. I do query whether it's notable enough for this very general article. KD Tries Again 20:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

---

I do not like the word "Schism", but otherwise Lucas is correct about the Gulf between the Continent of Europe and Anglo-America. So I side with him.

The brake, I think is tracable to the Rationalists/Empiricist split. And we must trace its history, step by step; so it's better if you take an issue at a time. --Ludvikus 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

You must try again on dismissing Noam - just because he's an Anarchist, and your views are reflective of Capitalism, is insufficient.

Noam also revolutionized Philosophy by almost single-handly converting it into Linguistics for you to come along and label him as not being a Philosopher is uninformed in the extreme. Transformational grammar has had the effect of converting Philosophy into Linguistics. Now you and I may not subscribe to such a view - but at least I acknowledge its existence. --Ludvikus 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That Chomsky had an influence on philosophy is one thing, that he is a philosopher is another. Besides, the question is whether the Chomsky/Foucault debate is significant in reference to the analytic/continental distinction; I don't see that it is, as their disagreements concerned human nature and the consequences for radical politics, which is not, AFAIK, an area of disagreement between analytic and continental philosophy. VoluntarySlave 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive science

In Philosophy, historically, that's another moment we'll have to get to. --Ludvikus 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VS on the debate, of course. Whatever Chomsky's influence, he's not responsible for converting philosophy into "linguistics". The so-called "linguistic turn" is attributable to Frege, and Russell following Frege (see http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cogn/CognRoy.htm; and/or Russell and Moore, see http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/analytic.htm; also see Dummet, Origins of Analytic Philosophy and Frege: Philosophy of Language; beginning of 20th century before Chomsky was born, see http://p2.www.britannica.com/eb/topic-342416/linguistic-turn... Come on, Ludvikus, let's have more cites, less POV. KD Tries Again 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

What is going on. Someone please stop this

This has gone too far. Ludvikus continues with a hyperactive series of illiterate, incomprehensible, unfactual and downright peculiar edits. Can something be done about this. It has gone completely out of control. For example:

• Great Britain, until the 1940s, continued its Idealist and Hegelian traditions. (1066)
• In 1911 Betrand Russell came along. (1066)
• in his seminal work, written with Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, in imitation of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. (grammar, fact)
• The work was founded upon Frege's logician. (gobbledegook)
• Russell had mathematical interests, and had published his thesis as his second published book entitled the Foundations of Mathematics around the turn of the century. (date, name of book, fact)
• The mathematicians, and philosophers had done, that the nature of geometry, whether it had this or that set of axioms, was an empirical question to be answered by scientists. (gibberish)

An earlier version of this sentence reads:

• Great Britain, on the other hand, essentially merely continued its and Empiricist and Hegelian traditions until Betrand Russell came along. Russell's seminal work is Principia Mathematica, titled not accidently, to invoke the memory of Sir Isaac Newton, namely Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

This amounts to vandalism. I have deleted the lot. Dbuckner 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Wow, wow. You have 2 Philosopher Kings and now a VoluntarySlave working for you? Or is it rather that you're totally are incapable of quoting, or paraphrasing, someone? It looks to me like it's more your work, than mine. Maybe you are sincere, but you have this amazingly incredible ability of distorting someone's written views. May that's the problem - what you have done to me - you must do to all the philosophers you read. So the problem is that you actually extremely irratiuonal.

But perhaps I'm mistaken. You are innocent - it was done by your VoluntarySlave?

Is that really my writing style? It sure looks more like yours to me! Ludvikus 20:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucaas is responsible for much of that. Worth mentioning, just in case he wants to defend it { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbuckner on Rubbish and Rationality

Please stop writing rubbish on the Philosophy page

Stop now. I am reverting anything whatever that you do here. Dbuckner 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, garbage man. At what hours do you take out the trash? --Ludvikus 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this rubbish too? Sanitation man?

The Newton - Liebniz rivalry

  The Calculus, as as new brance of mathematics, had been invented independently
  by Newton and Liebniz. It enabled Newton to revolutionize Physics,
  which at his time was thought of as being a branch of natural philosophy.
  The calculus enabled natural philosophers to offer an account for the physics of motion
  and the mathematics of the infinite.
  
  Newton, an Englishman, subsequently accused Liebniz, a German, of having stolen from him
  the fundamental ideas of the new calculus, and Newton, vindictively,
  used his position as President of the Royal Society
  to marginalize Liebniz's independent accomplishments.
  The result was a schism between England and the Continent in accordance
  with national feelings and corresponding loyalties to Newton or Liebniz accordingly.

I find it incredible - the extent of your irrational conduct at undermining me because you do not agree with me on my philosophical work here. What you are doing is a personal attack upon me. You now full we that it's a substantial distortion on your part - and constitutes a personal attack. And you keep saying that philosophy is rational?

Newton would do that to Liebniz, what you do to me here.

But Newton was a genius. How do you see yourself? Ludvikus 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does the weird stuff in the box come from? Is it supposed to be an authority? Pity about the spelling. KD Tries Again 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Is the Newton-Liebniz rivalry really significant enough to include on this page? It didn't (AFAIK) have much of an impact on philosophy. If we want to include philosophical grudge matches, Descartes vs. Hobbes strikes me as a better one, as it leads into a discussion of the rationalist/empiricist split. VoluntarySlave 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Leibniz; the debate is mainly found in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. It's relevant, mainly to Kant, at a very abstruse level. I have written about it. It's tedious. We don't need it. Let's get the bare bones right. KD Tries Again 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Shortening the analytic/continental divide

Ludvikus: I'm sorry our edits crossed over, meaning that I removed a lot of your text just after you'ld added it. However, I do think we should try and be concise, and that my version included the key points from what you had added. Over and above that, what I was trying to do with my version was make the section more coherent and easier for the reader to follow, explaining first the history and then moving onto the matter of the division between analytic and continental philosophy, rather than simply listing differences with little or no structure. So, if you do want to add some of the detail from your version back in (and I'd encourage you to think whether it's really necessary before you do so), please try and integrate it with what I've written, rather than reverting wholesale. VoluntarySlave 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not right, you appear on here, work had been done by Ludvikus, DBuckner and myself. You revert it all. This section in my opinion is not at the standard to be set in revising the article as a whole. You seem to want small blocky sections with long continuus paragraphs and blocks of dense text. Is it not strange that the only contribution you have to make just happens to be in an area of the page that other people have been working on. Try another section. I will try and restore the work done by the three editors. Your changes were essentially a revert and block any move to redo the article. --Lucas 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Ludvikus, for reasons best known to himself, copied this over from his talk page - that's why I was specifically addressing him) I don't see how you can characterize my changes as a revert: I specifically attempted to include the information that had been added about Russell and about McCarthyism. Could you say specifically what's wrong with the changes I made? VoluntarySlave 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion above in section "Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism" this covers the changes needed to the material, dont just reowrd it all without taking on the comments by DBucker and other editors who have made much discussion of it.--Lucas 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting each other

We have been doing well until now with not reverting.

Can I ask you both to stop doing complete reverts, the page will just get locked.

If someone is going to add anything major (ie, a new paragraph) to the page might you also put the text in here. We can then comment on it and reach a consensus or suggest improvements. I ask this because with all the reverts of reverts it is hard to know what is being contested. --Lucas 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Another user Voluntary Slave is making major changes to the page, would you please discuss it here before making those changes. Again I remind you of the ground rules I took from Banno's post when he unlocked the page and to prevent another lock:

1. No reverts

2. Improve what is there

3. Avoid personal attacks

4. Being right can be wrong

--Lucas 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas, I've been asking you repeatedly to post major text here rather than just add it to the page - notably the material from your deleted article on the schism. Please take your own advice. KD Tries Again 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Lucas, please stop reverting to the discredited material in the Schism section - you or Ludvikus or anyone interested needs to deal with the critiques on this page by myself, DBruckner and Voluntary Slave. The material is unacceptably inaccurate. I only just noticed the comment that Russell was "somewhat successful" with Principia Mathematica, whereas in fact a difficulty in logic of sets he was unable to solve drove him almost to suicide. See a biography. KD Tries Again 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Lucas just reverted again. The page can only be written by consensus. KD Tries Again 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Exactly agree here first. This removal of basically the last 24 hours edits was not agreed here at all.

I have not reverted anything, I have added back the work that you and I and Ludvikus were doing, see section "Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism", are we to assume that talk here is pointless, if you just go and in the middle of a discussion just decide to remove everything!

By the way "somewhat unsucessful" is typical British understatement and not to be taken literally. I agree there are lots of problems with the "Analytic side of the schism" but we talk here about it and then decide. I would make the edits you suggest to that section which was added by Ludvikus but have not time. --Lucas 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat "successful", not "unsuccessful" - it's not a quote from Russell, and it's wrong.

The record is clear. Ludvikus posted his history with no discussion here. Several editors pointed out the horde of errors on this Talk page, and quite rightly removed it. Rather than the errors being addressed, it keeps getting re-posted. Similarly, the material from your deleted article was published without any discussion here first. The Voluntary Slave version (if that's where the credit goes) is at least better. Your principle seems to be that if you post something, then it can't be deleted without discussion. The principle ought to be not to post something without discussing it first. The page needs to be locked down, with the spontaneous and undiscussed contributions removed. KD Tries Again 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I'm sorry Lucas, but it's very misleading of you to say that you "have not reverted anything." Reverting is precisely what you've done - you haven't just added deleted material, integrating it with other changes; you've undone re-organization and re-phrasing of the section. If you think these changes made are iredeemably bad, and so there's no point trying to work with them, fine; but don't claim that that isn't a reversion. VoluntarySlave 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. And the changes were an improvement. KD Tries Again 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Several editors? who? I agree that section that Ludvikus added has problems but I thought we were discussing them here (see above section). I claim it is not a reversion because what I was doing was restoring work done by a number of editors over the past day or so that you just removed en bulk.

I suppose I have a positive view to this, otherwise we just get stuck, and I suppose it is like this, if someone spends time adding referenced material etc. then it should largely stay unless we discuss it here and agree it is wrong, what I find happening is that some are not contributing at all and just following other editors and removing their stuff, perhaps they like conflict or something but they seem to have no expertise themselves to go and edit one of the other 28 subsection sin the article. --Lucas 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Several editors: myself, Buckner, Voluntary Slave, but you can easily look and see. Buckner removed the Ludvikus section, I removed it again after it was restored. I haven't knowingly removed your work - VS improved it considerably in the light of the conversation here, but you reverted. As for commenting on expertise, please respond to the criticisms here - mine are as thoroughly backed by citations as I can make them on the run. The Ryle point, for example. It will not go away. We cannot proceed with editors posting material which citations cannot possibly support and then defending it to the death by reversion. KD Tries Again 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I do not think you are accurate anout what Lucaas has done. For Lucas is correct. What you say he has done is simply not true. He is dedicated - and keeps telling that he's willing to discuss. It is Dbuckner who is reverting - how come you do not see that? And You seem not to be able to tell the work of VoluntarySlave to which Dbrucker has state is trash which will revert. He thinks its my work - but it is not. Perhaps you should slow down a bit and see whose doing what? Ludvikus 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic/continental schism

What ought we to say about this? It seems to me there are a few things we could include:

• The philosophical genealogy of the split: Russell and Moore's rejection of Hegelianism and move to analysis, the Vienna Circle's rejection of metaphysics and move to formalization. Probably something about contemporary alternatives that resisted the analytic approach on the continent (i.e., Russell/Moore and the Vienna Circle tells us why analytic philosophy is as it is; it would be good to explain something about why continental is as it is).
• The institutional changes: the rise to dominance of analytic philosophy in English-speaking countries in the '50s and '60s (if that time period is indeed the correct one - it's the one claimed by Rorty). We could attempt to explain this by reference to McCumber's book on McCarthyism, or we could leave the issue of explanation out altogether.
• A brief statement contrasting the subject matter and methods of the two approaches (I'm not sure of a good source for this).
• Something about the contemporary status of the divide - a broadly recognized division, with some people working across the divide (e.g. analytic work on Nietzsche and others; Derrida translating Quine? I don't know).
• Possibly examples of interactions between the two traditions. I don't know if this is really worth including, except to give examples of the hostility and misunderstanding that has often characterized the relation between the two.

VoluntarySlave 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay:

1. To the Russell and Moore and Vienna Circle stories, add the divergence of Husserl from Frege - who initially were very close. I can do that from Dummett, Mohanty, etc.

2. Why continental is as it is. I need to think. They didn't stick with Hegel - there was a Hegel revival led by Koyre in - what - the '30s? What happened mean-time? Phenomenology - what else? Other than, of course, the analytic work being done on the continent. I will try to refresh my memory over the weekend.

3. Subject matter/ methods. This is tough. There is actually something decent on the Continental Phil page - skepticism about abstraction - but it needs fleshing out.

4. I can provide references on crossing the divide.

5. A few interactions - fine, if we can find good ones. There plenty of bust-ups involving Derrida, but we need more for it to be worthwhile.

Oh yes, and let's not forget structuralism. Everybody wants to talk about post-modernism, but structuralism comes first.

KD Tries Again 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I made a comment on Ryle above, I also note that inone of his bibliographies he notes UT Place, Wittgenstein, Tolman and Sherrington, no Heidegger, no Husserl. In fact he considered phenomenology as a fallacy.

I remind you both that where you areas of interest are there are 28 other sections here and you dont have to just do what I do, though it is flattering. As to the importance of this section. I think it is probably needs a good bit of space many of the other areas have their own pages. And this is perhaps the best place for a contentious issue that affect philosophy in a general way.

On 1-5 above: 1. The discussion needs to balance both Analytic and Continental. So a long discussion of how Analytic formed is not suitable. This is better put on the Analytic page (especially if you want a smaller section, though I'd prefer to see it grow and then take it back).

2. The 40s 50s institutional dominance is already well covered with the quote from Rorty. If you want to expand this part. How will you do it?

3. Giving examples of hostility is essential. The other way is to do as Babich notes, to underestimate the difference and make for not only a dull article but also deceive people into thinking it is just a technical point.

4. A small amount on the "bridges" between the two since again as the referenced material states the schism has been ever-widening over the past few decades and it would be misleading to pretend it was easily overcome. (also note Rorty notes only about 10% of philosophers read both sides of the schism.

5. Overall the need is to avoid long descriptions of Analytic on its own or Continental on its own there are already long pages on these and their history.

6. A good discussion of how the two differ is needed also some commonality.

--Lucas 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

=Big Insulter, bad editor, user to be blocked from use

Look, would you please just f--- off. OK Dbuckner 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

what to do

I've given up editing on the article. KD and VS have done sterling work but it seems pointless to do this when it will either get reverted or overwritten by two dyslexic morons. Are you two guys keeping your work? What you can do when this happens is work in a separate space in a collegiate way (i.e. discuss changes, have meaningful dialogue &c. It is absolutely pointless doing anything here. Dbuckner 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Dbuckner 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, back again. Ludicrous has just reverted to the version that has Russell writing the Foundations of Mathematics at 'the turn of the century'. Here we go ... Dbuckner 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not find this comment helpful, "two dyslexic morons" well he scores again last time he insulted me it was far worse. If you have a problem with when Russel wrote something go and edit it. And stop complaining here, neither I nor the other editors should be subjected to your complaints, go and tell them to your family. --Lucas 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in any editor making corrections, because you just revert. You did it to me, you did it to VS. You won't respond to the corrections and criticisms here, however well sourced. KD Tries Again 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I don't care about reverts. It's the monstrosities he reverts that are the real crime against humanity. Dbuckner 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxism

In the likely event we get a revert, perhaps I can preserve this splendid effort by Ludvikus. How many errors can we spot? Dbuckner 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain, until the 1940s, continued its Idealist and Hegelian traditions. In 1911 Betrand Russell came along. in his seminal work, written with Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, in imitation of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The work was founded upon Frege's logician. Russell had mathematical interests, and had published his thesis as his second published book entitled the Foundations of Mathematics around the turn of the century. He was much moved, as others of his time had been, by revolution caused by the discovery of Non-Euclidean geometry whereby Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not an axiom. His thesis was that Projective geometry was a priori. Five years later, when Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, a theory of physics, in which space was non-Euclidean, Russell's work proved philosophically worthless, as he himself asserted. Russel now bowed to science and accepted that the physists were right, and that he had not been doing philosophy at all but physics. The mathematicians, and philosophers had done, that the nature of geometry, whether it had this or that set of axioms, was an empirical question to be answered by scientists.

This is almost as good:

The story of Marxism and Revolution goes all the way back to the French Revolution, where many of the fighters who were more left-wing had lost and the Bourgeois took control. Later in the 19th Century there had been sporadic revolutionary activity throughout Europe. Such was the promise of Marxism to the vast majority of working people that it terrified the politicians and company owners. Along with the French Revolution came major escalations in the activities of secret police. In Russia the Tzar began imprisoning leftists. Many similar actions were taken throughout Europe to quote a well known commentator of that time, "A spectre is haunting Europe".

Marxism goes back to the French Revolution. :grin: And just who was Frege's logician? We need to know. KD Tries Again 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Ah yes I did notice that one, but I was on sure ground with Russell. Let's start a museum. The trouble is that most people soon realise they are making fools of themselves. I am a clown and just impervious. Anyway, time for bed .... Dbuckner 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue of Marxism and the schism is I think important. The way the issue has been dealt with however, both in the article and mainly by carping here, has been very poor. The way to look at this is to see how Marxism is relevant on both sides of the schism. The mix of Marx/Hegel, as philosophy, and not just a few lines in a book on political philosophy or the history of ideas, is largely ignored by the Analytic tradition.

The politics of this is difficult to disentangle, however, if ever there was a place on the philosophy page to give some political background this may be it. No one, I presume, would deny that the appointment of a Head of Philosophy is a political matter whether the university is funded by private industry or by government. If in the 40s and 50s suddenly most of the Heads were Analytic then this too is political.

Also relevant here is how Analytic philsophers though often sympathetic if not to Marx but to some form of egalitarianism, compartmentalise their political activities. This is true to some extent for both Russell and Chomsky. This compartmentalising means something for philosophy, it means perhaps that it has become spcialised and does not have the breath of older philosophy. I do not intend putting this detail in the article but I just try to draw your attention to this issue. Especially for those specialists without ears, yours,

--Lucas 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Foudations of Mathematics, Philosophy of Mathematics, Logic

As I'm still new to the topic, I have a couple of questions about some of todays edits:

1. Ludvikus - you posted a large number of edits in a row DIFF. Reading it, this seems to be closer to a history of analytic mathematics, much more than a focussed summary of the divergence in history of philosophy. Thoughts? I'm thinking that the divergence of the two schools of philosophy could be described more briefly, without replaying in such extensive depth how schools of mathematics thought developed as an part of that. What do you reckon?
2. VoluntarySlave then made a number of edits, reverted in toto by Ludvikus [3]. A while later, Ludvikus reverts Dbuckner [4], Lucaas reverts VoluntarySlave [5], VoluntarySlave re-reverts Lucaas [6], Lucaas reverts ("restores") a number of edits I can't quite figure out [7], and everyone seems to get into the revert party.

I think we could do better than this. What would help is, could those who edited these things, just drop a note, a few lines or something, what they felt they were trying to add to the article, or what they were trying to remove that was (in their view) poor quality content, and why it was so judged? Just briefly and simply, without debating it, so I can start to get a sense what's gone on in these and similar edits and what kind of editorial approaches are driving this article's actual edits today? It'd help :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, think you left out major reverts by KD Tries again and DBucker, or does your "revert party" refer to them? [Reply: Yes, I couldn't figure out who was reverting which edits, it was pretty clear other edits were reverts of edits too but I couldn't figure out which and what of -- FT2]

Ok sounds fair to me: First edit, to update the section on Analytic and the schism, some errors pointed out above, no major deletion or addition. Unfinished though. I left stuff on Mathematics but dont know how it is meant to have a relation to the schism. Lucas 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a confusian here. Russell's opus magnum is Principia Mathematica. If I need say more, than I'm probably talking to a wall. Nevertheless, I mention his Principles of Mathematics, and his Foundations of Geometry. So Russell is a mathematician. Right? Ludvikus 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And I might as well mention Frege's Foundations of Arithmetc. Another mathematician, right?--Ludvikus 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Bertrand Russel and Principia, I'm aware of. But more from the mathematical/logic perspective. Is this really a chunk of text more about "philosophy of mathematics and logic" then? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the relevance is that one of Russell's reason's for rejecting British Idealism was his rejection of Kant's idea of the synthetic a priori, and this rejection was motivated by his belief that all mathematical truths were truths of logic (the article in its current state sort of suggests this with the discussion of the a priori status of geometry). I think Russell gives an account of his motivation during this period in the first volume of his autobiography, but I don't have my copy to hand to check. VoluntarySlave 01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think philosophy is all about - at that time and place? It seems you're trivializing the issue here by that marginalization. You also omit Philosophy of Language. I think there is the failure to appreciate that these are not separate. And Carnap - Where do you put him? --Ludvikus 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VoluntarySlave - now maybe I'm not talking to myself afterv all. --Ludvikus 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Many 19th century thinkers, philosophers, scientists were Kantians. What does this mean?

Two forms of intuition: Outer& Inter. What are they? Space & Time. What are their corresponding sciences? Arithmetic & Geometry. What is the relation between them (at the moment in history). After the discovery of Non-Euclidean Geometry, there remains only Arithmetic (Geometry becomes Physics). So What is Arithmetic. Frege says he proves that it's Logic. Russell sows he's mistake. Russell then shouws Arithmetic is Logic.

So was Kant merely a Mathematician?

Have I been succinct enough - yet preserving understanding? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

---

I don't like Lucas's word "schism", I think "divergence" is better. But I'm open to any other word that occurs in published literature. The issue is the split between the Rationalists, on the Continent, and the Empiricists in Great Britain. And this division continues into the 20th century. So-called W. philosophy should be recounted along those lines - in that I'm in agreement with Lucaas, who has been on it since 2004 - he is dedicated. Ludvikus 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Another thing - I find it absolutely shocking, is the conclusionary, & unconditional, denial that McCarthyism made the study of Marx impossible in the United States after World War II, and that quite the opposite occured in Europe; in Europe - in Western Europe mind you - Philosophy after WWII can be looked upon as a series of footnotes to Karl Marx. But I'm not prepared to engage in quntification on the matter here. Ludvikus 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why PhilOfRel is scarcely touched?

Especially troubling to me is including all three of Ethics, Aesthetics, and Politcal Philosophy as "Branches" in the table near the end of the article, but not including "Philsoophy of Religion", too. Multiple major historical philosophers have been largely silent on at least one of Ethics, Aesthetics or Political Philosophy, but not one has overlooked Phil of Rel. PhilOfRel is routinely one of the must-have areas of every academic dept. of Phil. and no PhD program could possibly pass muster without one specialist in it. Tmusgrove 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello metaphysics { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

West, East, & South

As a 2nd parag. I've added the following:

  As a consequence of the collapse of colonialism and imperialism in the twentieth century,
  philosophy now is classified according to three major geographical regions, Western philosophy,
  Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy.

Now we can right logically about each, & in order.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I know of no book, whatsoever, whatsoever, which writes about World philosophy. To my nowledge, there is no such thing. So we should not invent what does not exist. We should write about each separately. That is the Rational, Reasonable, and Logical thing to do. Does everyone agree?

yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I cited one earlier, one of the Blackwell volumes { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the reference. It proves my point of non-existence:

World Philosophies, A Historical Introduction, Second Edition

By: David Cooper Reviews

‘A multicultural feast of ideas and arguments! In language that is expressive, clear and often humorous, David Cooper has written a compelling history of philosophy, covering as it does not only the major figures in Western thought but also the main trends in non-Western philosophy.' Robert L. Arrington, Georgia State University More reviews Description

This popular text has now been revised to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the growing number of people interested in all the main philosophical traditions of the world.

1. Introduces all the main philosophical systems of the world, from ancient times to the present day.
2. Now includes new sections on Indian and Persian thought and on feminist and environmental philosophy.
3. The preface and bibliography have also been updated.
4. Written by a highly successful textbook author.

TopTable of Contents

Preface to second edition. 1. Introduction. Part I: Ancient Philosophies: 2. India. 3. China. 4. Greece. Part II: Middle Period and 'Modern' Philosophies: 5. Medieval Philosophies. 6. Developments in Asian Philosophy. 7. From Renaissance to Enlightenment. Part III: Recent Philosophies: 8. Kant and the Nineteenth Century. 9. Recent Non-Western Philosophies. 10. Twentieth-Century Western Philosophies. Bibliography. Index. Detailed contents TopAbout the Author

David E. Cooper is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Durham and Director of the Durham Institute of Comparative Ethics'. He is the author of a number of books, including Metaphor (1986) and Existentialism (1990, second edition 1999). He is also editor of A Companion to Aesthetics (1992), and four volumes in the series Philosophy: The Classic Readings - Aesthetics (1997), Ethics (1997), Epistemology (1999) and Metaphysics (2000). These titles are all published by Blackwell Publishing.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice the plural: World philosophies, not World philosophy.

And notice the absence of Eastern philosophy.

Notice the distinctions: China, India, etc.

Therefore, No World Philosophy.

QED

Yours truly, Ludvikus 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Risking repetitiveness, but overcoming obscurity thereby: there's no World/Universal Language of Philosophical Discourse. Each Phil. is a product of a particular history/culture/civilization. Accordingly, begin with the Western Intellectual Tradition! Does everyone understand? Aggrement, & eloquence, of course, are separate issues - that may be hopeless. --Ludvikus 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is Wikipedia to interpret the world? Or is the point to change it? I'm only asking? VoluntarySlave, what's your take on that? Ludvikus 05:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity - has anything essential been left out? Ludvikus 05:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any observations from our Philosopher King(s)? Ludvikus 05:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For Quiddity's love of brevity: Mixing Apples and Oranges --Ludvikus 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I almost forgor: Any comments from the peanut gallery? --Ludvikus 05:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus: Wikipedia is trying to document the world. Not interpret OR change it. I already asked on your talkpage that you cease creating nicknames like "Philosopher King". You are being antagonistic, and baiting confrontational replies. I strongly urge you to take a wikibreak for a few days, and to read about Wikiquette and related concepts before coming back here. We are just here, at this talkpage, to write an article; this is not a discussion forum. Thank you. --Quiddity 07:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You both may want to check out (the humorous) m:MPOV before you start taking this all too seriously... RfCs are kinda depressing, and best avoided if at all possible. Remember that The world will not end tomorrow!

You may also get some enjoyment and insight from reading through m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, to better know thy cohorts and territory. Thanks. --Quiddity 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus, to answer your question on my talkpage: Mel's intent behind that statement is to call you "overly-verbose", albeit in a very crude manner. The image in question is a reference to the constructed word he uses - [[logodiarrhoeic] - which is basically a mixture of verbal diarhea and Logorrhoea.

-Quiddity 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On Eastern philosophy

Eastern philosophy is a classification used by book stores. For example: Barnes and Noble. It conotes (1) the philosophy(s) of Chine, (2) the philosophy(s) of India, ...

Question: Is the West unified in a way that the East is not?

Accordingly, is there such a thing as a single/common Eastern Intellectual Tradition?

--Ludvikus 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Laughter is the best medicine

Why Philosophy is a laughing stock in Wikipedia. All contributions welcome. Dbuckner 10:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

File:Bristol Stool Chart.png

Is this what you mean by "Documenting the World on Wikipedia"?