Talk:Contemporary philosophy

Inclusion of the Nicholas Rescher Professionalization Quote

“ ...the day of the philosopher as isolated thinker--the talented amateur with an idiosyncratic message--is effectively gone. ” — Nicholas Rescher, "American Philosophy Today," 'Review of Metaphysics' 46 (4)

I've been waiting to respond to this edit until I had time to give a full defense of it. Here it goes--User:Byelf2007 removed the Nick Rescher quote saying that it was "unnecessary and inconsistent with other articles". Let me take on each criticism one-by-one:

• "inconsistent with other articles" - I am not sure what Byef2007 means by this, but if this quote is inconsistent with other articles then that is a problem with those articles. This article explains in detail how and why contemporary philosophy has become extremely professionalized and devoid of amaturs. Which is to say, the quote summarizes the entire point of the "Professionalization of Philosophy" section of this entry which is itself well sourced (and correct I might add). Which is to say, the quote accurately and correctly captures the (for good or for bad) extreme professionalization of the field. You might criticize contemporary philosophy for being over-professionalized, but someone would have to be very out of touch with the present state of the field to be unaware of the point Nicholas Rescher is making in the quote.

• "unnecessary" - I am not sure how someone can call the quote both wrong and unnecessary. I can understand "correct but unnecessary" because the quote might be trivial and/or repeat obvious points already stated in the article, but in claiming that the quote is "inconsistent with other articles" I take Byelf2007 to be saying the quote is wrong! Which means: (a) it isn't trivially true (and so can't be so trivially correct as to be “unnecessary”), and (b) that it is in fact shown to be necessary by Byelf2007's edit itself since the quote summarizes and puts on display the results of the "Professionalization of Philosophy" section which Byelf2007 seems to have missed (otherwise he would have criticized that section rather than just this quote; either both that section and this quote is wrong, or neither is).

Just to avoid misunderstanding: I don't mean to criticize the editor of this change (i.e. Byelf2007). In fact, welcome to editing this article! It could use more devoted editors. But, I do disagree with Byelf2007 deleting this quote and I just want to do Byelf2007 justice by giving a full justification before I reverse his/her edit.

Overall, contemporary philosophy has become extremely professionalized in the last 100 years (peer-reviewed journals, professional organizations, a good deal of standardization of methods and core texts, informal enforcement of professional requirements for working in the field, etc.) and amateur outsiders contributing to the field have all but disappeared. This is not something the population at large is very aware of, possibly because in becoming professionalized philosophy has become extremely insular. The professionalization of philosophy might be a bad thing or at least have significant downsides even if it has been good for the field all things considered. Many philosophers have published works concerned about the “over-professionalization” of the field (e.g. Richard Rorty comes to mind). But to criticize the professionalization of philosophy is different from saying it hasn't occurred; in fact, to criticize the over-professionalization of philosophy you have to recognize that professionalization has taken place. The “professionalization of philosophy” section discusses the professionalization of the field, but to see the evidence of the professionalization for oneself one only need to look at the top peer-reviewed philosophy journals and notice how rare it is for a publication to be authored by someone without a philosophy PhD or employed by a philosophy department. Or, as an even weaker standard to show the professionalization of the field, notice how rare it is for any article in one of those journals to even cite a piece of philosophy produced in the last 100 years that was not authored by someone with a philosophy PhD or employed by a philosophy department.

What about Deepak Chopra and self-proclaimed “philosophers” of the guru, self-help, mystic sort? Well, I won't start an argument about who is a philosopher, who is a religious figure, who is a motivational speaker/writer, etc. Instead, let me just point out that this article states up front that it is about the term-of-art/technical term “contemporary philosophy”, which clearly doesn't not include Deepak Chopra. This article isn't really about “recent philosophy”, it is about a technical term “contemporary philosophy” which is used to label the era of philosophy after “modern philosophy”. As a technical terms, neither “contemporary philosophy” nor “modern philosophy” mean “recent philosophy”. Notice that the technical term “modern philosophy” labels an era of philosophy that ends by the first years of the 1900's at the latest and so couldn't mean “recent philosophy”.

In fact, this article is really about “philosophy” as itself a technical term that refers to a particular field/institution that “philosophers” (in some other sense of the word) like Deepak Chopra do not participate or engage with. "Philosophy" as a technical term referring to the community/field including Kripke, Korsgaard, Gibbard, Dennett, all of the publishing faculty of the philosophy departments of the world's top colleges (Oxford, Harvard, NYU, etc.), the people publishing/reading peer-reviewed philosophy journals, etc. is very different from "philosophy" as a colloquial term referring to anyone's religious, political, or self-help/motivational beliefs or thinking. To give an analogy: I can "do biology" by capturing an insect in my backyard and dissecting it just to satisfy my curiosity, but that is very different from my "doing biology" by participating in the community/field including those we would label "biologists". In one sense, biology is anyone's beliefs/thinking/investigation about lifeforms, but in another sense it is a technical term referring to a particular community/field with methods, journals, degrees, professionals, conferences, history, etc. Similarly, "philosophy" is often used as a label for any abstract belief or thinking that is neither instrumental nor scientific (so neither "how old can meat be and still be eatable?" nor "how old is the universe?"). But "philosophy" as a technical term is a label for a particular community/field/activity.

Anyway, now I might be straying too far from what Byelf2007 meant with his criticism. All Byelf2007 said was that the quote was "unnecessary and inconsistent with other articles" and I really can't be sure what he had in mind in saying that. I've tried to cover a lot of ground to try and respond to his/her criticism however Byelf2007 might have meant it. In general, my point is just that the quote is a wonderful distillation of the “professionalization of philosophy” sub-section and so belongs in this article. When I re-add it, I'll put it in that sub-section which perhaps Byelf2007 will find to be a satisfactory compromise.

- Atfyfe (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

21st century

In my opinion, either this article should be called 20th century philosophy, or a seperate article about 21st century philosophy should be created. Most philosophers on this page have been long dead. They are not our contemporaries. This is an entirely different age. The Berlin Wall and the World Trade Center have fallen. History hasn't ended, as Fukuyama thought almost twenty years ago. Russel and Nietzsche make no mention of this, because they were long dead by then. A contemporary philosophy needs to take into account these events, among many others, and the effects they caused. I am not an expert on this. If I were I wouldnt need the wikipage, or I would make it myself, but I hope you see where i'm getting at. Today is the 10 year anniversary of this century. I think the wikis should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.67.202 (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a long response to this, but I think all that needs to be said here is that this entry is about a particular field of study that uses the term "contemporary philosophy" to historically label the work done in the field after Kant or after 1900 given the major changes in the field at that time (radical advances in logic, a focus on philosophy of language, professionalization, analytic/continental divide, etc.). Those broad changes in philosophy as a field persist today and so philosophy is still considered to be in the same "era" that began about 110-180 years ago. The Berlin Wall and the World Trade Center did affect philosophy (e.g. work on torture and terrorism increased), but these were not fundamental changes to the methods of philosophy in general. Rather, these issues were approached using the same philosophical method that Russell pioneered at the end of the era of "modern philosophy" and at the beginning of the era of "contemporary philosophy". Russell did not work on issues of terrorism and torture (to my knowledge) but philosophers who today work on those issues because of the historical events you mention are doing so still using the same philosophical approach as Russell. Russell and Socrates might both be dead, but Russell is still a "contemporary philosopher" because that label is for a method of doing philosophy rather than a label for "living philosopher" or "recent philosopher". - Atfyfe (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes but when it comes to the general structure of an encyclopedic explanation, one can only agree with the IP above when they express concern about it. Other users (see Archives 1, passim) find this title at least puzzling, if not misleading or even confusing. To suggest it is a wrong title or that the content is off-topic, would even seem fair.--130.34.32.151 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Only to the same exact degree that Modern Philosophy is misleadingly titled. Both the entry for modern philosophy and contemporary philosophy make it clear up front that they are technical labels for certain periods in the history of philosophy rather than just phrases for referring to recent philosophy. Also, I believe those earlier comments were responded to by making it very clear at the beginning of the article what this entry was about. - Atfyfe (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You are probably right. True it is the lead section makes it clear (it only mentions this every issue, in fact...). I can not agree, though, that both contemporary philosophy and modern philosophy are exactly as misleading. But this issue is too hard to resolve and I will consider the concern addressed. Thanks again.--130.34.32.151 (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Continental Philosophy Attack on the Contemporary Philosophy Entry

Curtd59 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Um... Sorry, but I don't think the analytical continental divide is represented except as a critique of analytical philosophy, or an APOLOGIA for continental philosophy. The primary difference between the constructs is, sure, the method of the argument: experiential versus empirical, but primarily it's the precedence give to science, naturalism and correspondence on the side of the anglo and empirical philosophers, and to experience, hierarchy and morality on the side of the continentals. Which is only noted in the Continentals section. Nor is the reason for this divide: The Franco-German rejection of the Anglo social model, and the separation of the german and anglo culture in the early 1800's. That is the NPOV on the divide if we apply any historical reference to the matter. At this point, most people in the west view "Obscurant" language as a form of deception that should have gone out with Religious mysticism. And it's certainly a critique of Heidegger and Rorty and the postmodernists that they're works are a deliberate attempt to restore the authority of the church with the authority of academic and moral philosophers.

It's not a trivial issue of style or method. The traditions are egalitarian and scientific on the Analytical side, and hierarchical,

I mean, the french and the german philosophers attacked the anglo enlightenment for a reason: it's antithetical to their cultures. Why? Because the anglo model is a moral code supported by the Absolute Nuclear Family (See Emmanuel Todd) and the German and French Models are on the Traditional Family, which retains its authoritarian rather than egalitarian set of duties. It's still in debate which model was right (I think moving toward the German at this moment). More specifically the continentals and the american postmodernists are attempting to restore the values of socialism as a moral code given that socialism has failed in theory and practice.

One interesting phenomenon is that with the professionalism of philosophy has also come most of its decline. Economics, History, Experimental Psychology, and Cognitive Science have been contributing primarily to the debate and philosophers are increasingly ignored. So much so that it's a frequent complaint in the west that philosophy and religion departments are constantly being cut of funding - Because religion is categorized along with philosophy.

Perhaps as a practitioner I assume that all of this is obvious (it's taught in most university courses on Postmodernism or Modernism in one way or another).

SO BEFORE SOMEONE PULLS THE AMATEUR CARD: Why is it that the rest of the articles on movements here and on other sites make use of this information and this page does not? I mean, I'm not going to do the work if it's going to be a bit of warfare to post it. Too much to do already. Thanks for your patience.

Curtd59 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If what you posted here is suggestive of the edits you intend on making, then yes, there will be "a bit of warfare to post it". I have trouble knowing where to begin taking issue with your claims and much of it I have trouble even making sense of. - Atfyfe (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the user's chief complaints was that one of the biggest criticisms of philosophy, its practical uselessness, only arose after the professionalization and subsequent schisms of the discipline. I don't think it would be a bad idea to note that the popular view of the decline of philosophy occurred alongside its secular institutionalisation. To be honest, I find the quote about philosophy going from the public to the private realm of ideologues talking amongst themselves rather unsettling myself. I don't think the user's points were obscure. I err on the side of the continentals myself, but I do despise me some Babette Babich, who is a fine example of why philosophy probably needs to have its funding reserves cut. 173.230.98.68 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for Further Additions

If anyone was interested, here are some suggestions for additions to this entry:

1. Women have moved into philosophy during the contemporary era, a section about that would be a worthy addition. Feminist phil of science and ethics, issues with sexism (e.g. the McGinn scandal), etc.

2. A subsection about the American Philosophical Association and its history would be a worthy addition.

3. Short history sub-sections for both the Anayltic and Continental sections would be excellent (e.g. how analytic went through the rise and fall of logical positivism, ordinary language philosophy, the appearance of virtue ethics, applied ethics, and experimental philosophy in the late 20th century, etc.).

4. A line or two about the NYT The Stone should obviously be added.

5. Maybe a section about how world events affected the field (they largely did not, but a small section talking about why they have not and the few exceptions would be worth it).

I am not sure what else. But I figured throwing out some ideas might be helpful. -Atfyfe (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Curious about an edit

Yesterday User:Harvard1932 added a paragraph to this article as part of a campaign to build connections to his recently-created article on "System philosophy" (which was speedily deleted today on the grounds that it's something he just made up).

That was rightly reverted by User:Snowded (though Harvard then restored it and was reverted by Snowded again).

Earlier today a new anonymous user, 81.170.9.201, reverted Snowded's reversion, apparently as part of some kind of revert-stalking of Snowded. (As of this writing almost all of that users edits, which began yesterday, have been reversions of Snowded's edits, and have gotten him three warnings). I reverted that. (Addendum: I just realized I accidentally reverted Tony's intermediate edits as well when I did so! Sorry Tony, just clicked the wrong button!)

Now User:TonyClarke, who appears to be a very old, experienced user, while making a series of what seem to be good, productive edits to this article, seems to have restored that paragraph again, with slight changes, including changing the now-broken link to Harvard's now-deleted article to the similarly-named but (apparently) unrelated Systems philosophy.

I've deleted it again, but I'm just kind of curious how that happened, since it seems implausible (and I don't want to jump to the conclusion) that Tony is in league with Harvard or that disruptive anon. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

HI Pfhorrest. I thought the original post had an element of truth in it, that contemporary stuff is influenced by past stuff in philosophy. I think most editors who are well minded have something useful to say, and we have a duty to consider that and try to bring out the useful truths rather than just revert what might seem partial nonsense.. That way lies edit wars. In view of that I wrote a section on the relevance of contemporary philosophy, and the intro then needed a hook to this as per policy on intros. So I used the deleted post slightly cleaned up.

The was my thinking, thanks for asking. Not sure where to go now, perhaps more cogent examples in the intro.

TonyClarke (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors who insert original material on multiple pages without citations etc. are generally vandals and/or self promotors and that was the case this time. Clearing up such trails over multiple articles leaves little alternative but reversion. However if it stimulated you to add the section on history then some good came out of it. The section needs expanding and I removed the Newton reference - in part because it was a satire on Boyle and was not intended in the way it is currently used. Also in effect it is commentary without references ----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am on the side of Tony. I hate to say this. But Pf and Snowded are two stubborn minded philosophers who runs Wikipedia philosophy section like their own little backyard together. Every single time I see talk page comments, I see Pf and Snowded together like they are teaming up to rule Wikipedia, which is a hilarious scene. I don't even know how many times I have to mention this to them: But philosophy is UNLIKE SCIENCE. Philosophy can be PROVEN THRU TIME AND DEBATES, without a source even. While science can only be proven thru experiments and experiments, it can also do without a source, if the experiment results are consistent. Citation on a source often times SLOWS down philosophy research, like a "speed limit" on your thought process. And not all newest philosophy development are published (publication takes year, while debate only take hours to confirm a concept). But ultimately, I understand where Pf and Snowded came from. <-- similar to someone close to me. Graduated from the top university in China. Focused 11 years on Daoism, his only job was to think and write. Contracted by the most prestigious publisher of the province. Offered free review, free printing, at no expense of publication from his pocket. In the end, every single time me and him debates on philosophy, with 3rd party of friends as judge. I win. This "age gap" between traditional philosophers like Snowded who believes in traditional stubborn rules (I don't know what style it is even classified as), or a debate-driven philosopher like me who advances on fast thinking, free roaming of ideas, who proves their philosophy not with citation; but with powerful arguments, debates, public-discussion, open discussion (rather than peer review), to prove a concept.Harvard1932 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The above edit is a very clear personal attack that fails to follow talk page guidance. The editor in this comment specifically says s/he has no intention of following wikipedia policy. Why TonyClarke has chosen to reinstate this nonsense twice I don't understand but I'm not wasting any more time on it, Harvard1932 to be very very clear, if you carry on making personal attacks and ignoring wikipedia rules for editing then I will take this for community review with a recommendation for sanctions. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As a target of this supposed attack, I don't read the above as a personal attack myself. It's kind of rambling and misses the point but it's attempting to argue fairly about the matter under dispute, and certainly isn't the kind of comment that needs to be summarily deleted from the talk page, which is an action I think should be reserved only for the most egregious offenses. Talk pages aren't articles, we can afford to let bad arguments stand, though we're not compelled to even engage with them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are both being far too nice about this, behaviour best nipped in the bud. Will try and avoid saying I told you so in the new year :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[redacted]

I think his editing behavior definitely needs to be nipped in the bud, and the only reason I haven't sought administrative action is because I'm lazy and also he stopped for now so no need. I'm just being principled about talk page censorship here, which is a pet peeve of mine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That anon just above me though (who's probably the same one who's been stalking you), that the kind of clear personal attack that I wouldn't object to you deleting if you felt like it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep I suspect someone with an off wiki dispute given the comments. Admin action seems to have hit it! Pet peeves we are all entitled to at Christmas - have a good one! ----Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Pf and Snowded, stop taking things personally on my personal wiki page. Community does not mean just you two. Community is the entire audience who chooses to edit the wikipedia on their good will. Do not ever think, you are the reflection of everyone else beyond yourself. And in no sharp, my previous statement was offensive. I did not use any offensive languages, but to express my right of the speech. Don't tell me, wikipedia talk page doesn't allow expression of true thoughts/emotions.Harvard1932 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am from rapid response and you are all being audited. Work it out please. JKshaw (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

OK I'm curious. What is rapid response and just what does 'audit' mean in this context? ----Snowded ^TALK 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The 'System Philosophy' paragraph needed to be deleted. Glad to see others deleted it. Good work User:Snowded and User:Pfhorrest. - Atfyfe (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see people still arguing with system philosophy on Christmas, I think it is rather sad (Doesn't apply for me, since my family is half-Asian, never been a huge fan of Christmas). System philosophy is nonsense until you have constructed the entire set of systematic ideas in your mind. Anyways, pointless to talk about a wikipedia page on a concept that was never completed in editing, thinking you have accomplished something. Or you are talking about the edit I made on this page? But I don't think so, because edit made on this page got nothing to do with system philosophy. And atf, you seems to be friends with Snowded and Pf, because you talk about them as being "together", "grouped". Not to assume anything, but you made yourself suspicious when your counter-argument was: "nonsense". Which is NOT a logical counter-argument if you ever took any scientific logic classes. And you are a 10 years philosophy graduate. And trying to get PhD. Doesn't know the basics of logic surprises me, actually gives me a cold-shiver when I sees it. - Please learn to formally challenge an idea with depth of reasoning, appropriate logical response, and a complete understanding of the argument before trying to agree/disagree against it. Philosophy 101 lecture.Harvard1932 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit 2, Atfyfe just edited his "was nonsense" part out. So he actually acknowledged his mistake. <--- I have been taking screenshoots on all of the arguments since the edit war pf and Snowded started. Glad to see you are giving me even more evidence to play around. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous edit of sources

Could the most recent poster on this article please explain what they have done, and why? If major change are made without explanation, it is likely that it will be challenged , as here. The poster is anonymous: 207.161.217.209. Given previous edit wars on this entry, I think we should all be as transparent as possible about who we are. TonyClarke (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@TonyClarke: I think the edits speak for themselves, but I'm happy to explain anything you're unclear about. The main changes were:

1. Converting two tables to a standard list format as the information contained is not "tabular in nature" and is not suitable for that format (I would also suspect that there may have been accessibility issues);
2. Changing the names of the journals previously contained in the tables to their full names as used in the titles of their respective Wikipedia articles;
3. Removing two non-bidirectional and inappropriately placed navboxes;
4. Removing see also links that merely "repeat links that appear in the article's body" or that are of peripheral relevance;
5. Bringing consistency to the variety of English being used; and
6. Minor stylistic changes.

If major change are made without explanation, it is likely that it will be challenged , as here.

So on what basis are the edits being "challenged"?

The poster is anonymous

As are most editors.

I think we should all be as transparent as possible about who we are.

Why do you say that? Are you suggesting that I have been less than transparent?

Finally, if you were wanting a reply, why would you not have notified me of this discussion? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to ask what you meant by the heading "Anonymous edit of sources". What sources are you concerned about? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, and apologies. I think I was having a bad day, and the changes seemed quite extensive and unexplained. It would have been helpful if you had put some description of what you had done and why, in your original edit.

TonyClarke (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)