Talk:Philosophy

Medieval Philosophy

I have restored the previous stable text after one attempt to modify recent changes just resulted in a revert. Specifically the issues are:

• removal of reference to rediscovery or "the Philosopher" to quote Acquinas, without any reason being given other that a very bold statement in the edit summary that it was not a defining trait. Given that it was basic to the whole of the Summa that is a very dubious statement
• the statement that scholasticism was "displaced" by modern humanities and sciences is a POV position. "modern humanities" is a dubious phrase anyway. Scholasticism continued into the modern day and managed (McCabe and others) to accomodate marxism to take one example
• It also equates medieval philosophy with scholasticism which is not accurate
• The use of the term "buttress" is a POV term and entirelely inapproproate to the medieval context anyway.

Per WP:BRD please discuss the issue --Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

See note below. I don't have a problem with 'buttress'. Another word sometimes used is 'synthesis'. No problem with 'modern humanities', so long as the understanding of 'modern' is clear. Remember that many readers of Wikipedia think of Harry Potter as 'modern'. Happy (per below) with the idea of 'displacement'. Displacement not the same as destruction - scholasticism was moved off the High Table for some time, that's all. It doesn't equate medieval philosophy with scholasticism, only the end of it (when it was thoroughly scholastic). Most medieval philosophy is scholastic anyway - I can think of very little of it that isn't. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've indented your comment with a colon, per wikipedia guidelines (I realise you are new, so thought the example would help). In respect of the above: (i) you have not addressed the first point; (ii) Scholasticism was not be be all and end all of medieval philosophy and it wasn't universally displaced anyway. (iii) buttressing is not an appropriate phras, there period saw attempts to make belief in god more "rational" but the question of faith was not meaningfully challenged. its a modern gloss that is inappropriate. --Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

<-------- Thanks for the welcome, although you should know who I am! (I can guess but I'm not going to --Snowded ^TALK 20:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

1. I agree 'buttress' is a poor word - it suggests the church was seeking support from science, when actually the church was pretty powerful. And you are right that the project was essentially make belief in god more "rational". Fides quaerens intellectum. Both Aquinas and Ockham rejected the idea of a philosophical proof of the existence of God. The purpose of reason is to inform. 2. 'Displacement' is an accurate word as already mentioned. It doesn't mean 'universal displacement', only that it was dislodged from the powerful position it previously held. The eighteenth century was probably the low point for scholasticism. There's a wonderful saying by Hallam "Few, very few, for a hundred years past, have broken the repose of the immense works of the schoolmen". 3. I have commented below on point one, which is the 'rediscovery'. That should stay. Medieval philosophy is characterised by its backward look it the classical philosophers, above all Aristotle. I didn't understand the reference to Aquinas though. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that my use of "buttress" was implying any elevated status for philosophy vis-a-vis theology. I was trying to avoid the old stand-by "handmaiden". But I have no firm attachment to the sentence. I do think the first sentence is an improvement, especially with multiple sources: I have added "gradual" to emphasize that the displacement was not an abrupt overthrow. "Modern humanities" is not a dubious phrase -- it is the essence of the Italian Renaissance and how they saw themselves as differing from their medieval predecessors. 271828182 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

'Handmaiden' and 'buttress' have different connotations. 'Buttress' connotes support, 'handmaiden', service. The medieval theologians would have been comfortable with the idea that philosophy and science was the servant of theology. But not with the idea that it was required to support. And in any case Aquinas and Ockham (and others) are cautious about philosophical arguments in support of the existence of God. (I will need to go back to my notes here, though). Ockham certainly rejects the idea of looking for support. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

<--- Found it. I was thinking of 'On the Eternity of the World' by Thomas. Thomas seeks to refute those conservative theologians who try to show the self-contradictory nature of an eternal world (the "scientific consensus" in the 13th century tended to support Aristotle's view that the world is eternal, wrongly as it happens, at least according to 21st century consensus). Thomas argues that it is not self-contradictory. Neither the world's eternity nor its finitude can be logically demonstrated and we must invoke faith and revelation as the only means of settling the question. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have Kenny open in front of me (volume 3) and on the first page of chapter one he clearly states that the change is centered around humanism (in the sense of literae humaniores) and the political context of reform. I also checked Copleston and others and I can't see justification for the phrase "modern humanities and science". In fact that phrase is seriously misleading for the ordinary reader. Bruno & Erasmus do not really fit within that. To quote from Kenny "Humanists valued grammar, philology, and rhetoric more highly than the technical philosophical studies that had preoccupied scholars during the middle ages. --Snowded ^TALK 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular and formal

I have restored the long standing text here. However it strikes me that it might be better to amend the disambiguation page and add a hat note. Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that this was reverted without discussion I moved the text to the disambiguation page. If it sticks there fine, otherwise I will restore it here pending a consensus agreement--Snowded ^TALK 08:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re [1] which replaces "Medieval philosophy is defined partly by the rediscovery and further development of classical Greek and Hellenistic philosophy and by the understanding of faith (Christian or Islamic) and its defence" with "Medieval philosophy is defined by the attempt to buttress Christian or Islamic theology with the ideas of philosophy."

I see this has been reverted, but discussing anyway. Happy with the 'buttressing' idea, but not happy with removing all trace of the 'rediscovery of the classical'. It is the essence of medieval philosophy that it it built, almost entirely, on the ideas first of Plato (until about the early thirteenth century) and then (much more methodically) on the system of Aristotle. If you want two words for later medieval philosophy, it is 'Christianised Aristotelianism'.

Another change made (then reverted) was the idea that the end of the period is defined by "the displacement of scholasticism by the modern humanities and sciences." This I think is an improvement. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You may call me 'Ed'. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You sound like someone this page needs. Welcome back. 271828182 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Two sense of philosophy

I strongly agree with the comment on this [2] edit. An article should be about the same subject (see my comment on 'Eastern' philosophy above) throughout, in which case the word used to denote the subject ('philosophy') should be used in the same sense throughout. Any other sense belongs on a disambiguation page. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly appropriate to clarify for readers different senses of a term in the lede paragraph, in general. If it is a very contentious issue, I have recently created Philosophy of life, and perhaps we need a hatnote.Greg Bard (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Its clarified in the disambiguation page and the lede paragraph makes the context of this article very clear--Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What disambiguation page?Greg Bard (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The one referenced in the hatnote: Philosophy_(disambiguation)

Thanks didn't notice that. That is going to work out fine.Greg Bard (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Early modern philosophy

Does anyone know why this links to a (rather poor) article on Modern philosophy? Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I set up the redirect because the early modern philosophy article was even poorer than the modern philosophy article here. This was the state of the article before the redirect: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_modern_philosophy&oldid=200440706. If you can improve modern philosophy or put enough content to recreate the Early modern philosophy article, please feel free to do so! Poor Yorick (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

History of logic

Hi everyone. I have finished this article after many years of work. I intend to put it through FA but welcome any comments first. HistorianofLogic (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand included as a major philosopher of the 20th century???

I think this is highly questionable. Unless there is good cause backing up her addition as a "major figure" in contemporary philosophy, I think it should be removed. Furthermore, it is well-known that she is widely ignored in the academic philosophical community. I don't think it's appropriate to place her on the list with figures like Wittgenstein, Quine, and Kripke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemoore31688 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

She appears to be a recent addition, IIRC by someone making similar Randian additions to other pages on my watchlist. FWIW I wouldn't contest her removal again, but I have no strong objection to it being there either; she is, as you say, widely ignored, but her recognition is slowly growing -- I recall at least one of my philosophy professors my last year at uni mentioning her in a non-disdainful way -- so it's hard to say at what point she has become notable. Maybe just stick to the wikilaw and call for a reliable secondary source calling her notable? --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Its been discussed before, no evidence of notability --Snowded ^TALK 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century -- 94.230.81.182 (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Her novels are widely read in the US, not the same thing.--Snowded ^TALK 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard is also one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century, but that doesn't mean he should be listed in this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard was not a philosopher -- 94.230.81.182 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

His followers would disagree, and many would say the same about Ayn Rand. At the very least, neither is uncontroversially a philosopher. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A point of discourse: Whatever the controversy may be regarding Rand's status as a philosopher, it cannot be based on the above argument. A disagreement is not the same as a controversy. If I say that X is not a philosopher, his or her followers may disagree. That does not make my claim controversial. It is only controversial if my arguments are being contended. The mere existence of an opposing view is not enough. D15724C710N (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The following sources identify Rand as a philosopher:

References

• Den Uyl, Douglas; Rasmussen, Douglas, eds. (1986) [1984]. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (paperback ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
• Sciabarra, Chris Matthew (1995). Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

-- 94.230.81.182 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? There have always been references that say she is a philosopher. There are also loads of places where she would be mentioned if she was considered seriously outside a narrow cultural and political context. That aside, there is nothing there that makes her a figure comparable with Kant or Plato. --Snowded ^TALK 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur that she was a philosopher and a notable one--how many movies (e.g. The Passion of Ayn Rand (film)) have been made about Kant?--but not a "major figure" in that she has influenced businesspeople more than other philosophers. I'm indifferent about her being listed here. JJL (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What is there to compare. Neither Kant nor Plato were philosophers of the 20th century -- 94.230.81.182 (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that to be considered a major philosopher you have to have a substantive reputation outside of business people and Hollywood. You also have to have an international reputation. Rand does not even appear in the bulk of Philosophical Directories. The others on the list satisfy those conditions, and there are many more with a far higher reputation than Rand who would be candidates. --Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe we all want Wikipedia to be a good encyclopedia and not the mean of all other reference material. It may be true that Rand does not appear in most philosophical directories and perhaps their editors had good reasons to exclude her. Without knowing their reasoning, however, we should not draw any conclusions from the popularity of the omission or we might propagate a common error. -- D15724C710N (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well in the case of the Oxford one they didn't even think about her so its not even an exclusion. The point is there is no evidence that outside of a US context she has any substantial recognition as a philosopher. There are no grounds for adding her to this list that I can see. The citations given may establish her as a philosopher (although that has been disputed), but they don't establish her as a major one by any means. --Snowded ^TALK 10:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that Ayn Rand was not one of 20th century's major philosophers. That said, I do not think you can quantify substantial recognition without being subjective, so I cannot see how you can argue there is no evidence for it in any meaningful way. In any case, "substantial recognition" cannot be the only criterion for being named a major philosopher of the 20th century. If it were, one could easily argue that Quine and Kripke, who are most definitely worthy of the title even though they are barely known outside the academic - if not only the philosophic - community, should not be on the same list as Wittgenstein, Russell, Heidegger, and Popper. D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone was a major philosopher, then we would expect to find them in all the reputable directories with a substantial entry. I think that is simple and objective, Agree on Quine we should probably wait a bit on Kripke --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, even though I agree that Rand should not be on the list, looking at other reference materials to justify a choice will only make wikipedia the average of all "reputable" reference sources. Furthermore, I did not claim that either Quine or Kripke should be removed from the list.D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Rand doesn't qualify. None of the sources listed in this discussion describe her as one of the most important or influential philosophers of the 20th century. "Widely read" and "influential among conservatives and libertarians" are well short of the references given for Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Quine. Note also the references for the existing list are from secondary sources (encyclopedias, histories) by professional philosophers writing reference works on philosophy for the most well-known university presses. Rand's entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia, e.g., doesn't come close to declaring her a major philosopher of the century. 271828182 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx included as a major philosopher, and Ayn Rand not??? --94.230.86.232 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Here is what The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says about Karl Marx: "German social philosopher and revolutionary...many scholars have considered Marx a great economic theoretician..." There is no entry for Ayn Rand. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Yes," is not an argument. As for the encyclopedias, and the scholars, obviously many of them are biased. Just see what has happened to socialism, communism and Marxism -- and you'll get the answer. --94.230.86.232 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia works from 3rd party sources, if you think they are biased then that is your personal perspective, but it doesn't determine content. --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

While Rand did write about epistemology, metaphysics and aesthetics, her writing has not received recognition from philosophers and have not gained wide attention from the general public either (not that that would be a reason for inclusion). So she lacks the recognition necessary to be included here. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"The impact of Rand’s ideas is difficult to measure, but it has been great. All of the books she published during her lifetime are still in print, have sold more than twenty million copies, and continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies each year. A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible. Excerpts from Rand’s works are regularly reprinted in college textbooks and anthologies, and several volumes have been published posthumously containing her early writings, journals, and letters. Those inspired by her ideas have published books in many academic fields and founded several institutes. Noteworthy among these are the Cato Institute, based in Washington, D.C., the leading libertarian think tank in the world. Rand, along with Nobel Prize-winners Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, was highly instrumental in attracting generations of individuals to the libertarian movement. Also noteworthy are the Ayn Rand Institute, founded in 1985 by philosopher Leonard Peikoff and based in California, and The Objectivist Center, founded in 1990 by philosopher David Kelley and based in New York."

3. Rand’s Influence, Ayn Alissa Rand (1905—1982), by Stephen R. C. Hicks, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last updated: July 7, 2005 | Originally published: January/28/2002. Retrieved, April 21, 2010.

--94.230.84.196 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So? Noteworthy within Libertarian circles in the US within the last century. Thats not enough I am afraid --Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

While she has had influence on some economists, she has had no influence on philosophy. No one is talking about her influence on epistemology or metaphysics. TFD (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rand was highly critical of most other philosophies, both ancient and modern. Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy. --94.230.84.196 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside of a very narrow context very few philosophers have even heard of her, at best they may have a memory of her as a novelist. They haven't marginalized her, she simply has made no impact. --Snowded ^TALK 09:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think most people have at least heard of Ayn Rand. But being famous doesn't make her a philosopher. The question here is whether Wikipedia uses academic or popular standards. Many people have heard of Norman Vincent Peale, and consider him a great philosopher, but few if any academic philosophers would agree. The best-selling poet of the last forty years is probably Rod McKuen, but he would not be listed as a great poet of the 20th century. Ayn Rand has a popular but simplistic philosophy that people who have never read any major philosophers are impressed by. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US most have, but in Europe few have and Asia less --Snowded ^TALK 12:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not the complexity of a philosophy that makes its excellence, but its verity, correctness, truthfulness, appropriateness, wisdom, logicalness. --94.230.84.196 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Tara Smith, Department of Philosophy, Austin, TX, specializes in virtue ethics and is a Randian. She is constructing a type of virtue ethics based on the ideas of Ayn Rand and has published a number of scholarly articles on the subject in well respected peer-reviewed journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.88.13 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 8 May 2010

Tara Smith writes about Rand's moral theories, but not her metaphysics and theory of knowledge. She accepts that Rand's theory "has not received the attention it warrants". Also, "Ayn Rand did not elaborate her moral philosophy in lengthy treatises. Her views are presented in her fiction... and in relatively brief essays."[3] None of this elevates Rand to a philosopher, since she wrote outside the mainstream and was largely ignored. TFD (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was unquestionably a philosopher, as she used reason (after validating it) to arrive at answers to philosophical questions. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Snowded that Ayn Rand can’t be included in the list of the 20th Century’s major philosophers right now, as she doesn't currently have the level of influence that inclusion implies. If the rather vague term “major” is to mean anything substantive, I think that there are two possible, objective criteria for a philosopher’s inclusion in that category:

1. General recognition within academic philosophy worldwide. Breaking this criterion down into objective constituents, this would mean: mentions in the vast majority of philosophical textbooks (say, 90%) that cover the period in which the philosopher thought, name recognition by a vast majority of respondents (say, 95%) in a large, (say, 500 respondent or greater,) random, inclusive poll of doctoral professors at universities of “significant” size (say, greater than 300 students,) and references to the philosopher’s work in a certain percentage (say, anywhere from 1-10%) of philosophical journal articles published in “journals of note” (i.e. those with subscriber bases larger than a certain number.)

2. General recognition among the public as a major philosopher. This could be judged by similar objective criteria.

If a philosopher satisfies either of these criteria, he/she deserves to be listed as a major philosopher.

Because the concept “major” is an adjective applied to those philosophers having a great degree of qualities that are present in nearly all philosophers in degrees, the exact dividing lines on the lower bounds of the category (numbers and percentages) are a matter of arbitrary convention. The degree to which a philosopher meets the criteria, however, is objectively measurable.

To my knowledge, Ayn Rand does not meet these criteria when reasonable numbers are plugged into them, so she cannot be considered a major philosopher...yet.

However, I believe that Ayn Rand will be a major philosopher in the future. Exactly when this will happen, I cannot say. But her influence is steadily growing, both in popular culture and academia. (Not just in the USA, either.) This is because human beings need philosophy to guide their choices, and because much of her ever-growing readership sees the practical guidance her philosophy provides that academic philosophy fails to.

I would categorize Ayn Rand as an “unrecognized, great” philosopher. I say “great,” (in the sense of magnitude) because she developed an entire philosophical system encompassing all the classical philosophical subjects: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics (see Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff.) She defined her metaphysical axioms, validated them as axioms, and developed a philosophy that was consistent with and dependent upon them. She did not study minutiae in isolation from the rest of philosophy, and she didn’t simply “me too” prior philosophers on the major questions of philosophy. (She used Aristotle's axioms because she was able to validate them as axioms, and she discarded his ethics because she saw that it evaded the point of ethics, as such, and was not properly derived.)

As to why she is unrecognized within academia—here I have to restrain myself, because this is not an appropriate place for a long (though justifiable) tirade against the majority of contemporary academic philosophers. Chemartist (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would include Ayn Rand in a list of marginal or fringe philosophers, not recognized as part of the canon, but having a strong quasi religious following. i would include other figures like Rudolf Steiner, maybe L Ron Hubbard, and a lot of popular but less seriously read thinkers who tried to create whole world views. i agree that academic standing is not the sole criteria here. I think a small section in this article on the influence of outsiders and fringe thinkers could be a balanced addition. Of course, anywhere Ms. Rand is mentioned, we would have to include references to how her libertarian ideas have come close to destroying civilization, through her influence on supply side economics and the growth of unchecked banking. just saying...:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Writers may have great influence without being considered philosophers. In fact most major philosophers are generally unknown to the public. TFD (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that a section on "Minor/Popular Philosophers" on the Contemporary Philosophy page would be an informative addition. This could include Ayn Rand and others. This would be a miscellaneous list of philosophers, who do not fit neatly into the analytic/continental divide, at the end of the page. The list could, perhaps, include a short blurb describing the most prominent ideas of each. If anyone has anything to say on this, please speak up.

Since Mercurywoodrose has gone out of his way to attack Miss Rand and "libertarian ideas" in this talk page: libertarians, while many of them grab ideas at random from Miss Rand, do not actually understand her philosophy as a system of thought. Hence, a large number of libertarians advocate ideas that she would have disagreed with. Ayn Rand was not, and should not be identified as, a libertarian. What has come close to destroying civilization, is not her influence, promoting unchecked banking, but the exact opposite: the tremendous, crushing checks on banking, (in the form of the Federal Reserve system, along with other regulations) and on other industries. I have said that Snowded was right: Ayn rand is NOT a major philosopher, yet. It is not her influence, but the lack of her fundamental influence that is in primary economic evidence, today. Just saying... : ) Chemartist (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chemartist, could you please explain why the Canadian banking system did not fail and neither did other banking systems modelled on it? Anyway, there are lots of popular philosophers: Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, Madame Blavatsky, Hal Lindsey, Friedrich Hayek, David Icke, L. Ron Hubbard, but they fall outside the scope of the article. TFD (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do popular philosophers fall outside the scope of the article? Why can they not have a section at the end? As to banking in Canada and the US, I'll simply say that, on the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, Canada scores higher than the US, overall, right now. Particularly in "financial freedom," Canada scores 80/100, whereas the US scores 70/100. Less regulation = fewer problems. Chemartist (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular philosophers address different topics and are ignored by the academic mainstream. Rand actually did write about real philosophical topics but her views have gained no notice in the academic world and little notice among the public either. Your view on the Canadian banking system incidentally is interesting. I suppose they have less regulation but it is more effective. TFD (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if there was a "popular" section I doubt Rand would qualify, she is only really a US phenomena and a narrow constituency even there. --Snowded ^TALK 23:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis

Lewis needs to be added as a major philosopher of the 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.129.111 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then please do so. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to provide a source for the claim comparable to the ones already there. 271828182 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where's Latin America?

I've been looking around different philosophy links and the pages that serve as a hub on cultures, like the Hispaniola page or the Bahamas page or the Native American page, but I see no references to philosophy in any of these (For instance Black Elk isn't mentioned in native american culture). Am I just not noticing where the links are or was this probably covered before? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.227.199 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed: Moving Eastern Philosophy Section

As has been noted before, it is poor form to conflate "Eastern thought" with "Western philosophy;" they are different things. We don't often talk about Kant and Confucius together, because they are not alike. Their approach, their mindset, and their historical grounding is different. They are no more alike in their approach than an economist and a priest would be in debating capitalism; it may be an intriguing fusion of ideas, but they still represent different disciplines. Philosophy is a Western invention, and the article should be honest about this. If it cannot do so, at least, the article should be re-titled, perhaps "Western Philosophy."Tobit2 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right but you are also wrong. The term philosophy is used in a strict sense by a small number of people, who would say it is only found in the Western traditional, but the word is also used in a broader sense for any deep thoughtfulness as a way of life. Eastern philosophy is a real term. Try googling it. I do not believe we can avoid this article having an Eastern Philosophy sub-section because that is the real term people use, and there are similarities between the two types of Philosophy which is why people use the same term. This is a typical problem on WP (for lots of words you can argue forever, if you want, about which is the "real" meaning) but there are solutions as long as no one tries to force their vision as the only one. The best approach is just to explain in the article that the word can be used different ways. Coming to the separate question of whether "Eastern Philosophy" can be given a better name, for example for a separate article on the subject should there be one, I do not agree that "Eastern thought" is a recognizable or clear term?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is something different and already has its own article, Eastern Philosophy. So I would just delete it. It is true that some people use the term "philosophy" in a broad sense and therefore the lead must be better written to explain what this article is about. TFD (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If we do that then we have to make sure we link clearly to that other article, because there will be people who come here looking for both. Personally I think it makes sense to leave more than just a link here though. Indeed, an explanation of the point raised above about what the difference is would in fact be helpful in describing philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this change in the lede...(changes in bold and Wikilinked)

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems- such as religion, New Ageism, and Eastern philosophy - by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom", and was originally a word referring to the special way of life of early Greek philosophers.[4][5][6]

These three links should cover the water-front. Without much change to the lede it clarifies what philosophy is. Additionally, it clears up the contradiction in the article now as to why Eastern philosophy is a major section, yet the points in the Main theories of philosophy section have little if anything to do with the Eastern traditions.Tobit2 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. TFD (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this approach is going about things the wrong way. We can't say "philosophy" simpliciter is one thing and is distinguished from "Eastern philosophy"; if we want to make that distinction, we have to say "Western philosophy" is one thing and is distinguished from "Eastern philosophy". If the focus of this article is to be philosophy as practiced in the West (as the bulk of it currently is), then the majority of content here should be merged into Western philosophy and this made into a disambiguation page. However, as the distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy is itself philosophically contentious, that could be seen as a rather biased move to make.

Instead, I think the lede should, if it does not already, define philosophy in a way that encompasses all the things variously called "philosophy", including the 'footnotes to Plato' which constitute the Western corpus and the large variety of other traditions lumped together as "Eastern philosophy". I don't really think the lede as it is now excludes Eastern philosophy any more than it does pre-Modern Western philosophy. Honestly, can you say that the Presocratics pronouncing "all is water", "all is air", "all is fire", etc, are any more philosophical than Laozi pronouncing "the Way that can be spoken is not the true Way"? Or that Thomism is more philosophical than Advaita? All of these are (to greater or lesser degree) really quite different from what is practiced in modern western academia; but then, what is practiced in contemporary English-speaking academia is really quite different from what's practiced in the rest of contemporary Western academia, too. What defines philosophy is itself a philosophical question; the various things called "philosophy" differ from each other quite broadly.

More to the point, perhaps we could take an organizational cue from Template:Philosophy_topics (at the bottom of this very page), and roll the various non-European traditions in with the time periods contemporary with them. However, I'm not sure how unbiased that organizational scheme is either: most of the "Eastern" schools get rolled in as part of the Ancient or Medieval history, and the Modern and Contemporary schools are at least major parts of the Western corpus, if not solely the product and domain of Western philosophy. I am, to be honest, not entirely familiar with the current state of non-Western philosophy, so I'm not sure if there are contemporary developments of what we would still call philosophy descended from Laozi, Confucius, etc (the way that, e.g. Hilary Putnam, or any other contemporary western philosopher's academic heritage could be traced back to Plato); or if instead there are just people still adhering to the same ideas those ancient philosophers came up with (just as there are still modern Aristotelians and Thomists).

It strikes me now, though, that that uncertainty is not really an obstacle to using such an organizational scheme. We can simply include the ancient and medieval Eastern philosophers in those respective sections of History, and if there are modern or contemporary Eastern philosophers that just aren't noted on Wikipedia yet, they can be included in those sections when they are noted. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Being "generally systematic" and "rational" applies not only to Eastern Philosophy, but also many religions. (Or at least it would be controversial to argue otherwise.) I think the proposal shows the problem involved when you consider whether it's definition of philosophy really excludes all Eastern Philosophy. I think the current wording does not exclude it. The arguments that philosophy is only western are not frequently cited and also very subtle and still quite controversial. They involve saying that real philosophy always involves the concept of nature, and that this is unique to Western philosophy. See Nature (philosophy). Both these premises can be disputed, but in your above attempt to distinguish eastern and western philosophy you do not even attempt to make such an assertion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking at Talk:Western philosophy just now, it appears that that article exists because of a complaint such as the one that started this discussion topic. The article which was once here at Philosophy was deemed too Western-centric and moved to Western philosophy in 2004, then this was rebuilt more neutrally and parts of the old article were reintegrated into this article in a less Western-centric fashion. We should be mindful of things like that in making any decisions here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are already articles for both western philosophy and eastern philosophy then with WP:CFORK in mind, perhaps this article here should explain the differences better than it currently does. Just to make the basic point clear though:-

• I am not really comfortable with trying to remove eastern philosophy from this article.
• I could imagine being ok with attempts to try to explain in this article why eastern philosophy is not always seen as philosophy in one strict sense of the word, but I think the above proposed paragraph does not succeed in making that distinction.
• I see no problem in principle with redistributing the level of detail between the three articles being mentioned (Philosophy, Eastern Philosophy and Western Philosophy).

Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Break

No matter one's POV on whether the Eastern traditions represent a kind of philosophy, the article has two inconsistencies.

• 1.Western and Eastern philosophy are both major sections, yet when we get to the Main theories of philosophy section, everything is Western.
• 2. Persian philosophy is a direct descendent of Greek philosophy, having more to do with the West than East. Additionally, Mesopotamia, is usually regarded as the cradle for Western thought.

Suggested improvements:

• 1) Create a new Islamic philosophy section and use Mesopotamia to show some of its historical lineage (Greece being the other ancestor).
• 2) Explain how the European & Islamic approaches differ from the movements in Asia proper. Moreover, the main theories of philosophy section should incorporate Eastern ideas. The extent of the coverage in the main theories section should determine the extent of the coverage in the entire article.Tobit2 (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful here, all the various traditions in Philosophy address similar issues and all to a degree with reason (although we need to be careful not to take a post 17C overlay on that word). Islamic philosophy is not divorced from Western Philosophy until the late middle ages and even then there is cross over. Modern Philosophy of Mind, linked to Cognitive Science has strong links to aspects of Taoism. I could go on, but basically I am agreeing that we should keep one article, but it should be balanced out to go beyond a bias towards Western Philosophy. I am concerned at talk of Eastern Philosophy not being seen as philosophy in a strict sense of the world, that smacks a bit of new age thinking. --Snowded ^TALK 13:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Eastern and Western philosophy have equal validity is not an issue that we need to address. They are separate subjects and there is no reason to combine them into one article. Western philosophy should be merged into this article. While one could argue that the pre-Socratics were not really philosophers, it is unimportant, because they are merely precursors of Socrates. TFD (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else we end up doing, I believe Western philosophy should definitely not end up being merged here, unless Eastern philosophy is as well. If we want to portray them as completely different fields (an approach I am not in favor of, for reasons others in this thread have already pointed out), then this article (Philosophy) should be either a simple disambiguation page, or it should cover whatever it is that the two have in common (if there is anything, which I believe there is for reasons others in this thread have already pointed out).

But given that there clearly are sources which include "Eastern philosophy" within "Philosophy", it would be biased to have this article conflate "philosophy" with "Western philosophy", effectively calling Eastern philosophy "not really philosophy". --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

To suggest that non-Westerners are not capable of a "critical, generally systematic approach and ... reliance on rational argument." might have been acceptable in Queen Victoria's day, but it is not acceptable now. The philosophy of Confucius has at least as "critical, generally systematic approach and ... (reliant) on rational argument," as the philosophy of Plato. Nor are Eastern and Western philosophy separate subjects. Avacina and Averos were imiportant in the transmission and devopment of Greek philosophy. The philosophy of Schopenhauer was strongly influenced by the Upanishads and by Buddhism. There are countless other examples. References abound. This from page 5 of Kenneth Rexroth's "More Classics Revisited" on the Tao Te Ching, "Fr. Leo Weiger, S.J., called the Tao Te Ching a restatement of the philosophy of the Upanishads in Chinese terms." Huston Smith's introduction to The Bhagavad-Gita says, "...it is not a lyric but a philosophical poem." Samuel B. Griffith's introduction to Sun Tzu's The Art of War, says, "Confucius, the first and ultimately the most influential of China's philosphers..." Note that I did not have to dig or google to find these three references. I just pulled some books off the shelf, and three out of four used the word "philosophy" to describe Eastern thought. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That was not the suggestion. See above for suggested improvements to articleTobit2 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Avicenna and Averroes were clearly philosophers and are included in the article Medieval philosophy. During the Dark Ages the Islamic world became the center of learning, but they were following in the tradition of Greek philosophy. But Lao Tse and Confucius bear more similarity to Western religious figures than to philosophers - they did not develop theories of knowledge and metaphysics, they did not begin with Socrates' premise "I know that I know nothing". Certainly Western philosophers have been influenced by religion, although it has mostly been, since Plotinus, Christianity. But that does not mean that religion is philosophy. Even if we include Eastern philosophers in the history section, they cannot be included under the topics sections, because they did not address those issues. Could you please point to mainstream textbooks that include them? TFD (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, may I suggest that the distinction you want to emphasize between Western philosophy and "like philosophy" always requires a concept of (to use a term I've seen Leo Strauss use) a "Greater West" which includes the islamic lands, and indeed all lands whose civilization is a development from the twin influences sometimes referred to as Jerusalem and Athens? It is tricky, what you are proposing. I would emphasize that there is a meaning of the word philosophy which is broad enough to cover Eastern Philosophy and there is a narrow meaning. Both of those have their own articles, so THIS ARTICLE should surely try to cover the common ground and explain the differences?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Western philosophy developed from Athens not Jerusalem. But it is not our role to decide whether scholars are right or wrong. We have separate articles btw for Western and Eastern medicine. TFD (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your first sentence, but of course this still puts the Islamic world in the West. So the fact remains that West and East need to be delineated.
• I agree with your second sentence. That's why I am pointing out what it is that some authors say. Most authors do not specify that philosophy is western. Those authors who do are using a restricted definition of philosophy which would include the Islamic world, but in the case of Leo Strauss for example he actually raises doubts as to whether nearly any modern western philosophy is philosophy in this strict sense. I do not say WP can not cover ideas like this. I am saying if it be done then it needs to be done carefully.
• Concerning your third sentence I am not sure what you point is but we also have separate articles for Western and Eastern philosophy as it currently stands. Whatever solution we come up with needs to keep WP:CFORK in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of half a dozen textbooks suggests that TFD is correct. Some of these textbooks are explicitly titled "Western Philosophy", but all six were exclusively about Western Philosophy. And yet, the quotations I gave above apparently use the word differently from the way the textbooks use the word. Eastern Philsophers certainly addressed theories of knowledge. "The word that can be spoken is not the true word." is a statement about the theory of knowledge, and not far from Socrates "I know that I know nothing." As for metaphysics, much of Eastern Philosophy is about little else. If we consider philosophy to be the study of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, and logic, not only did Eastern Philosophers consider all of these, but Western Philosophers have often made use of Eastern ideas. So for textbooks to omit non-Western philosophy seems very strange to me -- but then, there is much about philosophy that seems strange to a mathematician.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Systemic bias

I'd like to point out WP:WORLDVIEW for a detailed look at the inherent bias we need to be mindful of, being English-speakers on the English Wikipedia and thereby Westerners ourselves (as are the majority of sources we would appeal to, those being most likely in English and thus Western themselves).

What would be immensely helpful is if we had a contributer here from India or China or some such, with a philosophy degree from a university in their home country, who spoke English fluently enough to shed some light on what the distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy looks like according to Eastern sources.

However, lacking such a person, perhaps we can look at translations of the interwikis from this article? For starters here is a Google translation of the Chinese Wikipedia article on Philosophy]. The Sanskrit Wikipedia article on Philosophy doesn't appear to be very large, and Google can't do Sanskrit translation, so I'm not sure how much use it will be. But maybe things like this are a good place to start looking for sources to counterbalance our western bias? --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

According to a recent book on philosophy in China "Marxist philosophy, Western philosophy and Chinese traditional philosophy are three independent and yet interrelated philosophical trends in the 20th century Chinese academic and cultural world.[4] Here is a link to a book about contemporary Chinese philosophy. TFD (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some books which compare Western and Eastern as there are philosophers (Freeman for example) trained in both traditions. Will try and hunt them down when I get home --Snowded ^TALK 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, exactly - editors have been complaining for a long time that the bulk of the article is about Western Philosophy. Right. Because nobody has added comparable content of Eastern Philosophy. I am sure that good, well written content on Eastern Philosophy would be welcomed. Someone needs to produce it.66.108.138.156 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, that would be good but alas impossible. Eastern philosophy does not exist (excuse the metaphysical pun).Tobit2 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

details about today thomas' fortune?

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

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