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)

Relation to physics

Hello. I'm one of the editors currently trying to improve the physics article, and I'm attempting to sumarize physics for the lead section. Out of the sciences, philosophy, and mathematics, I'm the least knowledgeable about philosophy; so, could I kindly ask for some help from some philosophers about how they see the philosophy-physics relationship from their side? In short, would it be fair for me to say

Simplistically, philosophy can generally be regarded to be the analysis of ideas relating to nature in some way that physics as a science cannot yet study.

Bear in mind that this sentence is meant to be placed in the lead section and so not be too "involved". I would greatly appreciate all input, including personal abstract definitions of what philosophy is; and anything else that would be worthy to note. Thank you. Krea 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think many philosophers would question whether it is clearly the case that space & time are among the "elementary constituents of the universe". It's also raise a question about how settled it is that it is part of "the nature of the universe" that there are only 3 dimensions of space. From what I see, there is an unquestioned tendency to assume that our conceptual structure is somehow the way it is because it corresponds to the nature of a more "external" universe --JimWae 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to say it, but I strongly believe that the sentence you quote above should not be in the introduction to the Physics article. Rick Norwood 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Krea, as you know I worked long and hard with you folk over at Talk:Physics/wip, before abandoning the task as hopeless. Hopeless, that is, if people were unwilling to accept advice from philosophers. It is not sufficient simply to "inject" philosophy into a revised physics article with a well-chosen sentence. (Your proposed sentence, by the way, is not a good one. Talk to me at my page if you like. I'll try to find time to help, in some limited way with that.) The definition of physics, the range of objects of its inquiry, and the place it occupies among the sciences and in human intellectual endeavour generally – these are deeply philosophical matters. Few editors working at Talk:Physics/wip have any comprehension of this fact. I count you as an honourable exception. Good luck!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope this isn't an out-of-place comment here, but I would like to see a mention of natural philosophy in the article somewhere (with a note on historical meaning). jake b 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Sorry about the late response. Let me try to address the comments that were made as they were made. When I said, "elementary constituents of the Universe," I mean that they are elemntary in the sense of a physicist: that they cannot (yet) be explained in terms of something else. Of course, I am not making, and think it would be foolish of me to make, statements about the ultimate fundamentleness of any quantity. About the dimensionality of space, bear in mind that whenever a physicist talks about something there are always assumptions that the physicist makes, but never says (because it would be too cumbersome). Thus, when a physicist says the Universe is 3+1 dimensional, we are really saying this:

"From the results of all observations and experiments done so far, there is enough evidence to suggest that the Universe is composed of 3+1 dimensions..."

I think few physicists accept without thought that there are three spatial dimension: string-based theories are, as we all know, formulated in at least 10 dimensions. I am just being lazy, whenever I say that there are 3+1 dimensions; that's all!

Now, I agree that the sentence is poor. But, partly, it has to be poor because it is going into the lead section: it has to be simple and compact. When I talk about stuff like the number of dimensions, Newton's second law, or fundamental particles, I'd love to talk about all the deep stuff, but I realize that I can't. I must keep it simple, and ultimately in a form that is slightly misleading and incorrect. For example, if I introduce N2L, I don't start by saying that "force" is essentially an intermediate quantity that one can create precisely because all known interactions can be equated to a rate of change of the object upon which the interaction acts on. I would just say that "force" is something that causes objects to move. I would then dump all the subtleties later on. Yes, Noetica, I don't quite know why some physicists look down on philosophers so much. Quite frankly, physics is nothing without the philosophy underneath it. Actually, I do sort of know why: but here's not the place to talk about that! Anyway, the point is that I don't want all that "heavy" stuff here; I can add that later on when I delve into the details. For now, I just want something simplistic for the masses.

Hopefully I'll give it more thought in the summer. Thanks for the offer of help Noetica, and thanks to everyone else who commented. Finally, yes, there should be something on natural philosophy! Krea 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism section screwed up

Haven't checked it for a while, but it's no longer the section I wrote. Someone went in there, rewrote it without discussing it here, so it's no longer accurate and includes irrelevant material. I know other editors here have been through this many times, but it's kind of annoying. Can we agree to revert back to the version around the last week of February? I don't care if people want to discuss improving it, but I am depressed to see it replaced with something poor. This is no criticism, of course, of copy-edits by Noetica or others.

- The wording is unclear: you might think Kierkegaard admired both Hegel and Schopenhauer. - Schopenhauer was an Idealist? (Who cares anyway in a short piece on Existentialism?). - Perspectivism does not mean a life-affirming view of the world. - The material on religious existentialists might need to be cut for length, but moving it to a footnote about Kierkegaard is inappropriate. - "Heidegger adapted the phenomenological approach, in his book Being and Time, of rooting philosophical explanations in human existence (Dasein), to be analysed in terms of existential categories (existentiale)." This is my sentence rewritten so it no longer makes sense. Analysis of Dasein is not the phenomenological approach. Jeez. - The paragraph on the French existentialists is just very badly written (nausea is literal in Sartre's novel, not technical), and why this big dose of Beauvoir?

Bah.KD Tries Again 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)KD

I don't know who all has worked on existentialism. I have not, as best I remember. I think Noetica has, and I think his changes were improvements. In any case, it is too late to revert.

This is a fact of life when you write for Wikipedia. If you don't want your writing to be mercilessly edited, don't write for Wikipedia. I can't tell you how often I have spent hours trying to phrase things "just right", with balance and clarity and accuracy and references, only to come back later and find people have stuck things in all over the place -- no balance, no references. But, that's the way it goes. All you can do is rewrite the section. Rick Norwood 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey KD, it's not perfect, but to play devil's advocate for the Existentialism section as it is:

• Kierkegaard actually did admire Schopenhauer since 1854. Anyways, the word "respectively" separates K-to-Hegel and N-to-Schopenhauer.
• Schopenhauer is an transcendental idealist in the Kantian vein.
• Perspectivism and Heidegger will need some changes; I will alter it shortly.
• Religious existentialsm really is too long for the short section; the "see also: Christian existentialism" ought to do it.
• The Nausea (novel) article, does have a specialized Sartre definition of his "nausea".
• Long story, but Beauvoir is one of the most important existentialists.

Cheers, Poor Yorick 20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rick, I hear you. As for the other points:

• We just took Schopenhauer out of the Idealism section, as we don't even have enough space to explain Kant properly. He is just not necessary in the existentialism section just because he's a source for Nietzsche.
• Perspectivism relates to Nietzsche's epistemology; it's not a doctrine of existentialism at all - why include it, even if correctly explained?
• I am prejudiced against including atheistic and excluding religious existentialism, but willing to see the latter go into a footnote: but rephrased, because these are not simply followers of Kierkegaard.
• I don't think Beauvoir is an important philosopher at all - many more important are excluded from this introductory article. Are there introductions to existentialism with chapters on Beauvoir's thought (not just her connection with Sartre)?
• The Wiki article on Nausea (novel) supports my contention that it's an actual physical sensation from which Sartre draws philosophical consequences. Roquentin feels actual nausea - physical revulsion, not technical existential nausea.KD Tries Again 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Hi, KD. Regarding your points:

• Schopenhauer is a parallel to Hegel in this regard. They're not existentialists, but we include them just because they're precursors to the existentialist viewpoint; they provide starting points. We can omit them from the section, I guess.

• Kierkegaard's "Truth is Subjectivity" is also not a doctrine of existentialism at all; the stages, anxiety and despair are much more important to 20th-century existentialism. It just seems to me that T-is-S and persepectivism are two parallel epistemological structures K&N suggest. For the sake of parallelism, I would say mentioning either N's master-slave morality with K's stages OR N's Ubermensch with K's man of overcoming despair. I would support a parallel of N's Will to Power and K's Purity of Heart; but I think the WtP is too controversial to include here.

• I agree with not excluding religious existentialism entirely. But to go into that in-depth; that belongs in the theology article. I wholly support making it a detailed footnote here.

• Other than Merleau-Ponty, who is mentioned in phenomenology (and of course Camus); I can't think of another philosopher more important than Beauvoir. She was an equal partner in developing existentialism with Sartre:

She has written plays and novels as well (that's a given)

She's one of the only ones to provide an "existentialist ethics"

There are many books with chapters or significant sections on Beauvoir:

• Bob Solomon's Existentialism
• Jack Reynolds' Understanding Existentialism
• David E. Cooper's Existentialism
• Steven Luper's Existing
• Thomas Flynn's Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction
• Hubert Dreyfus' Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism

• Well two reasons why I think Sartre's nausea should redirect to Nausea (novel)

If there's a specialized version of Sartre's nausea, we should use it. We don't send people to bad faith, we send to bad faith (existentialism)

Nausea (novel), not only describes how Sartre's uses nausea in his play, it also has a link to actual nausea! ;)

I agree that "technical existentialist sense" ought to be taken out though.

Cheers, Poor Yorick 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on nausea:

I am responsible for the point that the term nausea is used in a technical sense by Sartre. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I'll say this just for the record. Certainly what Sartre describes in his novel is, first of all, an unexplained but standard sort of "physiological" nausea, just as what Camus describes in La Peste is, first of all, a standard epidemiological plague. Both the plague and the nausea take on new meanings, though, coexistent with the base meanings. Nausea was already being used in a more "elevated", "existential", sense by Levinas (De l'Évasion, 1935) three years before Sartre's novel appeared. And he certainly seems to have given the term a special meaning: "In 1935, Levinas was convinced that through sensation and states of mind, we discover both the need to escape ourselves and the futility of getting out of existence. In the physical torment of nausea, we experience Being in its simplest, most oppressive neutrality. To this, Levinas adds three provocative themes. First, a being that seeks to escape itself, because it finds itself trapped in its own facticity, is not a master, but a “creature” (OE, 72). Second, nausea is not simply a physiological event. If nausea shows us, dramatically, how existence encircles us on all sides, to the point of submerging us, then social and political actuality can also nauseate" (Stanford article on Levinas). Well, for all of us nausea could be a purely physiological event. Perhaps as children we only experienced it that way; perhaps animals (and analytical philosophers!) only experience it that way. Levinas and Sartre invest the term with sufficient extra semantic weight for us to say that they use it in a technical sense.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All good stuff, but quite a way from existentialism. As far as Sartre is concerned, I think contingency and bad faith are enough to mention. "Nausea" does not show up in any of his philosophical texts (IIRC) - but it's no big deal. I also think Sartre and Camus are enough for French existentialism in an entry this short - but it's also no big deal.

I amended the sentence on perspectivism. Maybe it can be more elegantly phrased, but the point is not that interpretation depends on perspective, which is pretty trivial, but that truth itself depends on perspective. See "Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense", for example.KD Tries Again 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)KD

A few weeks ago someone added a section on Ortega y Gasset: I really liked the comments made, but in terms of the form and fit of this overview article on philosophy it was taken out, not because Ortega y Gasset isn't notable or important, but for the sake of the form and fit of the article being an overview that reflects the field of philosophy. I think the changes to the existential section were well intentioned, but seem to diminish the quality of what was there before, both in structure and content. And there was no discussion about it, for a section that was stable and of fairly high quality, when major reconstruction was made. I noticed the changes by Poor Yorick but did not revert them because no other editors seemed concerned. Richiar 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Guardian of Truth, Justice and Philosophy - I'm kidding :)

article 1017 republic of the philippines

by definition

I've done some work on the section "Definition of Philosophy" but as it stands, it comes across as too negative. Can someone come up with a few more positive definitions of philosophy? Rick Norwood 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rationalism and Empiricism

The Rationalism and Empiricism section in this article seems to contradict itself at various points as well as under explain some premises (especially dealing with Empiricism, which has a sentence-long definition in contrast with the paragraphs devoted to Rationalism). With approval, I'd be happy to help clarify various parts of it (especially since I have a quality source, Introducing Empiricism by Dave Robinson). I also have a bit of background in rationalism, so I could see if I could possibly fix anything there too. However, I wouldn't undertake any of this without some approval, seeing as how this article is a bit of a warzone. --Blingice 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The war is over. Peace has broken out, and everyone is helping to improve the article. Rick Norwood 13:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sun Tzu said "when there is peace, prepare for war". I don't know what the relevance here is, maybe he had some reason for saying that. I it just occured to me reading your remarks. Here's to the peace. Richiar 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get to reviewing the section this weekend, and I'll suggest my changes.--Blingice 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason

I see the bit about philosophy and reason has finally disappeared from the intro. here. It was bound to happen. The most important component of the definition, and Wikipedia the only encyclopedia to omit it. I'm trying to emotionally disentangle myself from all this, but perhaps war should break out? edward (buckner) 06:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent efforts on the main body of the article are very welcome, so I hope no one will be distracted by this again. I have attempted to add back in a bit about reason that I hope is uncontroversial. Still, I'd rather have it reverted for now if it must be so that improvements will continue elsewhere. JJL 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it now says that philosophers place an emphasis on reason. That's rather like saying mathematicians place an emphasis on numbers, or astronomers on space, or whatever. It misses the point that the genus is 'big questions', the species is 'thinking about in a rational way' as opposed to sitting cross-legged and chanting. Ironic that the bit that was removed was the only sentence in the whole article actually written by a professional philosopher (Peter King). But I've long since realised that actual knowledge of the subject is an automatic disqualification from contributing to this page (Plato was an Idealist, Berkeley wrote in Latin &c). So let it be. edward (buckner) 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You will have noted that as soon as you pointed out my errors, I fixed them, and expressed my appreciation for the correction.

If someone in the mathematics article wrote, "mathematicians place an emphasis on numbers" I would instantly revert it, as any rational astronomer would revert "astronomers place an emphasis on space".

My point, which I have expressed so often and to which you have never responded, is that while many philosophers think that reason is the proper method of philosophy, and while I think that reason should be the proper method of philosophy, there are in fact major philosophers who disagree, or at least who mean by "reason" something very different from what you and I mean.

The article should state what is true, not what ought to be true or what you and I wish were true.

Rick Norwood 19:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

NO!!!! I have asked many times who the major philosophers were. EVERY TIME you have evaded this question. You ONCE gave a quote from Carlyle which you claimed supported this position. It did not. I pointed this out THREE times, and each time you ignored it. This is extremely frustrating. edward (buckner) 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia policy as I understand it, and as I've seen it elsewhere, is that experts don't need to justify what non experts consider to be true or not true, based on the non experts lack of comprehensive understanding. This issue on reason was addressed exhaustively in January and February. I misunderstood Rick's comment.Richiar 05:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be reverting the sentence Ebuckner alluded to in several hours, but I would like to try making a slight adjustment with the phrase "wedded to reason". Richiar 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No objection. The strong language was removed in its entirety; I was trying for a compromise. To my mind if it doesn't proceed by reason and logic then it isn't (Western) philosophy, but that seems to be a point of contention here. JJL 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted a paragraph similar to what E buckner had, but not identical. I tried to keep the grammar readable, simple, and concise. I removed a few words which seemed a bit lumpy, (Religion revelation superstition authority) Hope it passes the audition. Richiar 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK by me. I agree it's less wordy, and I might even suggest striking the defensive Of course... line. JJL 13:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to your rewrite. The point about reason is that people who everyone wants to call philosophers use "reason" in funny ways -- for example Plato's remark that what we call reason is really memory of past lives! Rick Norwood 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have to go back over all this? Plato's use of reason where it matters, in the dialogues, is not remotely "funny". You can search high and low for "major philosophers" who don't proceed by reasoned argument, but you won't find any. There are a few interesting, marginal figures like Shestov, maybe Deleuze and Lyotard is some of their works, but otherwise the Western tradition is rational through and through.KD Tries Again 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)KD

No, I do not want to reopen the subject. I think both sides have said everything they have to say. Rick Norwood 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism continued (and Phenomenology)

Fixed what I perceived to be errors, including some stylistic problems ("Sartrean" was used before we meet Sartre). Listing specific works by philosophers of the rank of Camus and De Beauvoir seems inconsistent with the rest of the page. The last sentence, which had been preserved from my previous version, made no sense once the contrast with religious existentialism had been lost - I replaced that without the previous detail. Heidegger did not deeply immersed himself in Nietzsche until the years after Being and Time, so I left him with only the influence of Kierkegaard. My own POV is that the section is now heavily weighted to two philosophers we all agree were not really existentialists: Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. I would like to change that. Any views?KD Tries Again 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)KD

I agree. I am heavily POVed towards not making Kierkegaard an existentialist stereotype. Since existentialism really is a 20th-century movement; I am fine with taking out the whole four sentence paragraph on K&N and focusing more on the 20th century, and how Existentialism "married" phenomenology.. Poor Yorick 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest deletion: The Phenomenology section is too long. I suggest we delete the last sentences on hermeneutics. As they stand, they are incomprehensible, and while I am a fan of Gadamer, I am not sure hermeneutics is notable enough for this introductory page. If it's truly essential, it should probably have its own section beginning with Schleiermacher and be explained properly. If the last sentence was the one which mentioned Heidegger and Sartre it would more smoothly lead into Existentialism.KD Tries Again 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Agreed. edward (buckner) 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Poor Yorick 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.KD Tries Again 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Academic

For more than a year, we fought over the introduction. Do you really want to renew that fight by insisting on the clearly untrue proposition that philosophy is, by its nature, academic? Rick Norwood 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, "clearly untrue" seems like a tough case to make...but in the interests of compromise, I'll leave out the plainly obvious fact that philosophy is academic even if some people choose to do it in another context. JJL 13:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rick Norwood 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Link: Philosophy Wiki?

Anyone else checked out that link? That site is almost completely empty of content. Why link to it?KD Tries Again 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)KD

I agree that the link should go. Rick Norwood 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'll "be bold", then.KD Tries Again 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Definitions of philosophy

The section on definitions has deteriorated from where there was a reasonable section on March 4, to now, where the section now reads as "some notable philosophers have said that philosophy is no better than a pile of ______". Richiar 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC). (P.S., correction of spelling of "abismal" to abysmal). Richiar 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the fate of the article to deteriorate when unattended. I agree the section is pretty lousy now; in particular, most paragraphs do not offer definitions of philosophy. I'd suggest striking the waffle about logical positivism... and that's not all. Pointless section unless it offers some interesting and contrasting definitions.KD Tries Again 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)KD

I don’t agree that the March 4 version was much good. It contains the strange sentence 'Several philosophers or philosophical directions have had ideas about what philosophy is and what it should not be'. (how can a direction have an idea?). It contains the unsourced claim that ' Accordingly, metaphilosophical relativists may claim that any statement can be counted as a philosophical statement, as there is no objective way to disqualify it of being so' and the rest is just some waffle placed around an arbitrary set of definitions that Lucas found on the internet last year, some of them badly misquoted or out of context. The quote about Plato about "the feeling of wonder at the world." is out of context. Plato is insistent, in the Republic, that the philosopher is not some kind of dilettante, and that real knowledge can only be obtained by knowledge of the Forms.

For most of the history of philosophy (ie. from Aristotle to the end of the scholastic period), there was general agreement as to the nature of philosophy. It is the science of first principles, i.e. truths that explain the truths of all other truths. From the early modern period onward, there is considerable difference in the view of what philosophy is. If there is a consensus view at all, it is that philosophy is really an esoteric form of psychology (think of what Locke is trying to do in the Essay, and think why the journal Mind is so-called). You can explain some of twentieth-century philosophy as a reaction to this extreme psychologism (something that Frege and Heidegger have in common, at least). As for late 20C and contemporary philosophy, it's too early to say. edward (buckner) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The only quotes in the section which come close to being definitions are the Berkeley and Wittgenstein (I don't know the context of the Bacon quote, but it's hardly a definition). And the last paragraph is nothing to do with it. Why are we keeping this section?KD Tries Again 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Either the whole section should go -- it is a holdover from a much earlier conception of the article -- or only things that actually sound like definitions, e.g. "Philosophy is the science of first principles", should be included. This isn't Wikiquote. Rick Norwood 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote for delete the whole section, given that the introduction is a little longer than originally intended, and that the branches of philosophy section was not in place at that time. Richiar left a message on my talk page which is pertinent. edward (buckner) 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At the least it is misplaced; such a discussion would work better much further down in the article. But, it's more a list of bullet points than a discussion. I'd say delete it from there, place it here (on the Talk) page for future reference (possibly after an archiving), and cannibalize from it as needed in the future. JJL 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. No comparable article has this sort of arbitrary "aphorism IPod" selection. 271828182 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'm dissapointed enough that Simon Blackburn's perspective has found its way out of the intro, and cannot come to terms with the notion that it be marginalized further. The nature of philosophy itself is of importance. The section has deteriorated in quality of prose etc., but that's because Wikipeople like to nitpick at meat until there's nothing left but bone. { Ben S. Nelson } 02:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Many great philosophers of the past would never have described themselves as Western or Eastern. In fact, I doubt the majority would have. Why do we impose this classification on them? joseph 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is sad that no living philosopher is influential enough to be mentioned in the article, I don't see Simon Blackburn making the cut.

The division of philosophy into Eastern and Western in this article is a compromise reached only after great difficulty. Throughout most of history, there was little interaction between philosophers who lived more than, say, a few thousand miles apart, and so this artificial distinction can at least be maintained until the beginning of the 19th century. Rick Norwood 20:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Different philosophers have differing ideas..." hasn't sounded right to me, with different and differing in the same phrase, so I change differing to varied. I trust this willread smoother and not be of concern. Richiar 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy is....

The lead first line currently states that Philosophy is the study of ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and logic. Whilst these are obviously major topics in philosophy, it is completely inaccurate to define philosophy like that. This is a problem I see in many places, even the prospectus for Cambridge university. People always end up describing philosophy as "Studying questions of what is true, the right way to live, what is knowledge, is there free will?" Sure, those are philosophical questions, but philosophy is not just a collection of questions - it's the thing the questions have in common.

At the minimum, we need to insert an "etc" or a "things like ..." to the paragraph. At best, we should change it completely. A much better definition that is broad enough to cover all philosophy and narrow enough to still be philosophy is something more like:

Philosophy is the intellectual discipline that examines the most fundamental concepts in human life and reality. Thinkers over the course of a few millennia have centred on questions of the true nature of reality (metaphysics), what it is to have knowledge (epistemology), the right way to live (ethics) and the correct principles of reasoning (logic). Typically the method of examination is through the use rational thought.

Or something like that. Any thoughts? --Alfakim-- talk 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The thought is that if this could be done by the word 'mainly', and no more than that, then, fine. However, an objection is that, by broad agreement here some time ago, Wikipedia was not going to define philosophy in the way that nearly all other encyclopedias, philosophy department prospecti do it, namely as rational critical thinking about 'big questions', but by its subject matter. Clearly you can't define something by its subject matter then add '&c' or something like that. Remember that what is in Wikipedia is not what is the case, or even what you can find in any reference work, but what the consensus arrived here is, by editors. edward (buckner) 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I rather like the definition offered by Alfakim. If Dbuckner likes it, too, maybe we should give it a try. Rick Norwood 16:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, the positions taken on this issue were varied. i.e. I don't think we should be "defining" philosophy at all, as in establishing sufficient conditions. We should just describe it. That way, dissenters who object to "defining" philosophy according to its subject matter, or as critical inquiry, etc., are nonstarters. { Ben S. Nelson } 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to re-working the beginning of the lead to be more inclusive, not merely listing the conventional divisions of the discipline. But I think the way things are right now is not bad, and could simply be improved rather than replaced. To be honest, I don't much care for Alfakim's formulation. Here's how things stand:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

Now, if the objection is that this doesn't define philosophy, at least it clearly identifies philosophy. We are never going to get a definition that will satisfy everyone. If we aim for that, we'll have a Heraclitean flux in the article forever. I propose this, to show that philosophy is not contained tightly within the confines of the Big Four:

Philosophy is concerned with such questions as how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic). It also addresses many topics arising from such inquiry. Examples from each of the four areas just mentioned are: the nature of justice and the good society (political philosophy); mind in a material universe (philosophy of mind); the means of discovery in the sciences (philosophy of science); and how to apply rationality effectively in actual decision-making.

In the end, we need some content. The trouble is that each of us has favourite content, and its hard to suppress the impulse to include it. I urge restraint, and a cool consideration of the needs of the reader. The traditional areas are indeed foundational; it does no harm to list them. If we want to show more developed content, let's show how inquiry in the Four founds other inquiry, by giving such examples.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a good comment by Noetica. I thought the major objection to the word "rational" came from Ludvikus, and I thought he was clearly overruled, although he would not desist. Richiar 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current lede is useful to the kind of person who might need to look up Philosophy on Wikipedia. Also, while I don't disagree with "most fundamental", a physicist, theologian, mathematician, etc., might. There's always an issue of whether pPhil. studies big questions, or certain areas, or, in one of my favorite characterizations of the subject, is it is simply the case that "Phil. is the study of its own history." Anyways, since you say I see [it] in many places, even the prospectus for Cambridge university. People always end up describing philosophy as [in the lede], it seems that we are in agreement that it is a widely accepted way to describe the subject? I don't mind fiddling with it, but we ahve spent much time on those deckchairs, and energy might be better spent elsewhere in the article. JJL 02:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we need to move on. There is still plenty of work to be done, especially on the subarticles, and more debate on the lede is just going to stir up hard feelings without moving the article forward. (By the way, Richiar, nobody objected to the "word" rational. The objection was to the claim that the rational method defines philosophy. To say that most philosophy is rational discourse is fine. Rick Norwood 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Alfakim version is an improvement, and the word "typically" qualifies the claim to rationality for those who are squeamish about it.KD Tries Again 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)KD

The only problem with the "by example" definitions opposed to mine are that they are incorrect. Philosophy IS NOT just about metaphysics, ethics, epistemology and logic. In fact that's so grossly narrow it's just stupid. What about philosophy of science, for instance? It seems pointless to just stick "etc" on the end, as this means nothing to a reader. That is why I suggested the usage of a broad definition followed by the examples useful to users - i.e. the main topics: metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, logic. --Alfakim-- talk 00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Noetica did not suggest they were definitions. Instead, they suggested -- rightly -- that the act of mentioning these paradigmatic fields only succeeded on identifying philosophy in some way. { Ben S. Nelson } 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that merely "identifying" the subject is enough, do you? I mean come on, seriously. This is an encyclopedia, is it not? In case you haven't noticed, my suggested definition above also incorporates the same paradigmatic fields so it also identifies the subject - as well as providing a fair definition. It is far too much to assume that a person coming here already knows what philosophy is, and currently the page very incorrectly makes it seem like it's just a study of four questions. At the very least we need to add an "etc" - at the very best, we need to include some information that describes what might replace the "etc". --Alfakim-- talk 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Was responding to your quip, which was based on a misreading of the other author. Avoiding definitions is entirely prudent given the nature of subject matter -- so yes, FWIW, I do think identification of philosophical traits is enough. But admitting this doesn't mean either that identification should rest at a mere list of areas of concentration, or that background knowledge is presumed, neither of which are desirable { Ben S. Nelson } 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have an entire article to expand on the etc. The intro. should be short and to-the-point. JJL 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed { Ben S. Nelson } 03:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Abrahamic philosophy

This section is insufficiently notable for inclusion, and has no content that could not be moved to another section. It should be removed. Opinions? Banno 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the section belongs in Religion and Theology, not Philosophy, so should be removed from here for that reason. Also, the sequence of sections was rearranged in the article, and it looks like someone is promoting a pov. Richiar 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)