Jump to content

Talk:American philosophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kudos

[edit]

Nice article. Good introductions. --Blainster (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! JEN9841 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article fills a big gap. The Tetrast (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Radically new?

[edit]

From the article:

James, along with Peirce, saw pragmatism as a radical new way to think and resolve dilemmas. In his 1910 Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking

That sounds contradictory.

Pragmatism does seem to involve some radical innovation in philosophy, with its sense of meaning as prospective, but, right in the quote, James calls it "a new name for some old ways of thinking," and meanwhile Peirce says (CP 5.11):

Any philosophical doctrine that should be completely new could hardly fail to prove completely false; but the rivulets at the head of the river of pragmatism are easily traced back to almost any desired antiquity.
  Socrates bathed in these waters. Aristotle rejoices when he can find them. ....

. The radicalism may be in terms of (CP 5.12) its "conscious adoption" and "the elaboration of it into a method in aid of philosophic inquiry".

In short, the quoted sentence seems to need a rewrite but I'm unsure how to proceed. The Tetrast (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've given it a shot, replacing "as a radical new way to think and resolve dilemmas" with "as embodying familiar attitudes elaborated into radical new philosophical method of thinking and resolving dilemmas" The Tetrast (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your change here to be acceptable. JEN9841 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I feel lots of trepidation in writing about William James, I'm only lightly acquainted with his work. Thanks again for getting this whole article going, I couldn't have done such a thing. The Tetrast (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

[edit]

Once again, a problem with Ayn Rand and philosophy. An IP address has recently removed the paragraph which contains a discussion of Ayn Rand and her work, in addition to removed her picture from the page, citing the fact that "Ayn Rand is not recognized by academia and so is not philosophy". I reverted it, referring to the change as "drastic," and asked that all future such revisions be discussed on the talk page. The same IP address quickly reverted my revert. The issue at hand appears to be whether or not Ayn Rand should be mentioned in an article on American philosophy. I think she should be. It would seem to me to be highly unusual for an article on American philosophy to entirely omit Rand, regardless of her stature in academia. At best (or worse), something should be said (from an academic perspective) about her work. What does everyone else think? JEN9841 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned yes, but the current level of prominence is not proportionate. She is only taught in a couple of places (and those receive foundation type grants) and in general the best that can be said is that she is a "popular" philosopher. --Snowded TALK 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JEN9841 on all his points. It's true that few academic American philosophers besides Robert Nozick and Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY at Buffalo) have given Ayn Rand much credit. I think it's somewhere in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that Nozick says that, thanks to Rand, nobody (or "no philosopher" - I forget the exact words) will again be able to talk about what it is that people are entitled to without raising the issue of who is to produce it, and so on; that's Nozick's testament to her standing influence. And "philosophy" has never been entirely synonymous with "academic philosophy." I think that Ayn Rand is a special case (especially given most philosophers' unfortunate reluctance during the past 100 years to define philosophy other than by identifying it for the time being with some program or department within philosophy - "study of the logic of science" - "phenomenological description of the world as lived" - "chiefly critical" - "very intelligent conversation" - or by defining it as "the discipline that can't define itself" - etc.).
1. Many have criticized her technical-philosophical adeptness and her erudition in past philosophy. But exceptional cases happen. Somewhat (though not very) analogously, in literature Theodore Dreiser's literary prose adeptness has not often been highly regarded, but his work is still considered literature i.e. "belletristic". He lacks something but he also has something.
2. Ayn Rand has clearly had an impact on latter-half 20th-Century American political philosophy, particularly among libertarians, even if it's often such that libertarians and others criticize her or even define themselves against her. I don't know how to source that claim but doesn't she always come up sooner or later when such people talk? A philosophical impact. Insertion: Here is one Brian Doherty saying in 2005 "Libertarianism may not 'usually' begin with Ayn Rand anymore. But...," alluding to the title of a 1971 book It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand (American libertarianism, that is). The point being that Rand has been a seminal writer in a popular political-philosophical movement influential in the USA. Is that not a significant part of Betty Friedan's claim to be in this article? Friedan's career for the most part was not in academia though, granted, she and her books have been much discussed and taught there, though usually not cheek-and-jowl with more theoretical philosophers such as Putnam, Rawls, or Nozick (or maybe I'm wrong about that but I haven't thought so). End of insertion The Tetrast (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC). At any rate, no right-of-center philosopher seems able to get away without taking some kind of stance about Rand as a philosopher good or bad. A picture of the American political-philosophy scene is not complete without her. The general reader can fairly expect to see something about her in this article. Nobody here has called her the devil, but if anybody thinks that she is, then it's still best to give her her due and move on.[reply]
3. Kant talks somewhere about the capaciousness of philosophy, its housing of many things that not all would agree are philosophy in the strictest sense (whatever that is).
4. The original opening paragraph to the "Return to political philosophy" section contained five sentences, four of which were about Rand and were fairly concise and uncontroversial, well designed to keep the section from turning into another Rand argument zone. I don't think that four sentences are too much. If such is felt to be out of proportion, an alternative is to expand the non-Rand discussion in the section and elsewhere in the article. It's not impractical to suggest that or to wait for it happen; it will very likely happen. Keep in mind that it's a young article and can be expected to grow further. It may also be appropriate to include a sourced statement that many American academic philosophers do not consider Rand to be a genuine philosopher, since the presence of that common opinion is another long-standing fact of the American philosophical scene. On the other hand, then somebody will swoop in, seeking to add a counterbalancing statement or three. I'd say that it's best that, as to Rand, this article get in then get out.
Therefore I concur with JEN9841 (FWIW, this article's creator and principal editor so far, while I've done work in the Pragmatism section, especially regarding Peirce, also added lots of pix) that the four Rand sentences be restored. The Tetrast (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC). Small addition. The Tetrast (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The Tetrast's comments I believe are insightful. I would like to restore the Rand section, but this time with a sentence expressing the fact that, overall, she has not been well-received in academia. Perhaps something like, "While Rand remains popular within the American libertarian movement, academic philosophers have been highly critical of the quality and intellectual rigor of her work." JEN9841 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Academic philosophers have been highly critical of the quality and intellectual rigor of Rand's work, but she remains popular within the American libertarian movement." Just a thought. Either way is okay with me. (Actually, in my experience, she's popular also among quite a few Christians except (and it's a big "except") on religion and child-raising, but we've enough on our plate in this article as it is.) Also bring back the pic! I won't make a recommendation on how long to wait for Snowded to respond, but he may be busy at the moment. I've been rather busy myself (plus I have a cold) otherwise I'd be less wordy, more concise. The Tetrast (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Your version seems to sound a little better. At any rate, I'll wait a day or two for more opinion before I make the change. JEN9841 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I waited four days for other opinions, and since there were none, I made the changes that the Tetrast and myself had agreed to. JEN9841 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describe Santayana as Hispanic-American or Spanish-American?

[edit]

My answer is: Basically, both. 129.59.185.6 changed the image caption for Santayana from "George Santayana, the most famous Hispanic-American philosopher" to "George Santayana, the most famous Spanish-American philosopher", and in the edit summary said: "he was not Hispanic, but spanish." However, "Hispanic" is usually taken to include, without being limited to, "Spanish"; i.e., all Spanish are Hispanic but not vice versa. In other words, the image caption had been saying that Santayana was the most famous US philosopher from anywhere in the whole Spanish-speaking world, and 129.59.185.6's edit now has decreased that to Santayana's being the most famous US philosopher from Spain, just one part of that world. The article already says that Santayana was "Spanish-born", so, I'm inclined to revert 129.59.185.6's good-faith edit. (Actually, more of an issue is that of the sense in which Santayana is describable as one of the philosophical pragmatists, but I'm not prepared to explore that issue currently, but I hope to get to it.) The Tetrast (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Here are some dictionary definitions that back up what The Tetrast has said:
Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.
A Spanish-speaking person.
A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent.
I would support your edit reversion. JEN9841 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done! The Tetrast (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Recent editor changed it back to "Spanish-American", that editor should read this talk page section. The Tetrast (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
"Spanish-American" is undeniably correct. "Hispanic-American" is maybe correct depending on what you mean by "Hispanic" but is confusing, because while it can maybe include Spain, it also can exclude Spain depending on who you talk to. So what is the point of taking a clear phrase everyone understands and replacing it with a confusing phrase? 24.21.175.70 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rawls & Nozick images

[edit]

Somebody has restored the Rawls image but removed the Nozick image. It's starting to seem silly. What's up?

Both images have been questioned. Both images remain in main articles. Both were in Harvard Gazette Google image searches on
Rawls image file John Rawls Rawls ("File photo by Jane Reed") Rawls
Nozick image file Robert Nozick Nozick Nozick

There is a deletion request only for the Nozick image.

The Nozick image was also used by the Britannica (which says that it's from the Harvard U news office) and also by The Telegraph. The Rawls image was used also by the NY Times. The Rawls image appears at a number of academic sites.

Suggestions? The Tetrast (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC). Tweaks The Tetrast (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Late response, I know, but that is indeed strange that Nozick has no images on Wikipedia. JEN9841 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some copyright issue, I guess. I was just worried that this wiki would turn into an image battleground with deletions, re-insertions, etc. I was laying the groundwork to nip it in the bud, but then the activity ceased so all's well, though I have to admit that the wiki looked nicer with the Nozick image still in it. The Tetrast (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Alasdair MacIntyre

[edit]

I am starting to have second thoughts about the inclusion of Alasdair MacIntyre in this article. It is true that he has taught in America for very long, and he is largely responsible for the resurgence of virtue ethics in the United States. Nonetheless, I still believe his treatment in this article is too long. I think somehow we could strike a compromise, where his treatment is not as long as it is now, but we still mention his status in American philosophy. This is a judgment call, and I would just like to hear others' thoughts and opinions. JEN9841 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one for me. There's an early lecture series by Peirce that's often called his lectures "on British logicians" but they're not all British; they're all in the British tradition. How important is MacIntyre and how "American" is he or has he become (or how MacIntyrean has he made American ethical philosophy)? I tried briefening the MacIntyre paragraph but mostly by rephrasing. For my part I won't object if you shorten it more substantially, I lack a strong view on the question. The Tetrast (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany are missing

[edit]

Jewish and other refugees from Nazi Germany such as Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, and Theodor Adorno made huge contributions to American philosophical life. They brought with them philosophical knowledge from continental Europe: the critical theorists contributed to the American social sciences and the Straussians established one of modern America’s most important schools in political philosophy. The European brain drain during the early and mid twentieth century greatly impacted intellectual life in both continental Europe and the United States, causing the American university and American intellectual life to take on a leading role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.80.249 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Eugene Gendlin is another Jewish refugee from Austria who was first and foremost a philosopher, though he also worked in psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Gendlin Rosalegria (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:03-rawls-225.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see absurd people

[edit]

lacks a "core of defining features, American Philosophy can nevertheless be seen as both reflecting and shaping collective American identity over the history of the nation." Is unintentionally hilarious. Hopefully at some point somebody will be able to do better than that. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant to be an unconstructive comment: in fact it's fairly well known and accepted that American public discourse takes place in fairly narrow channels, dictated to some extent by the failure of education but predominantly by the active maintenance of a common world view that unites for example the Democratic and Republican parties and the vast majority of the population excluding only a small minority. In fact it does have a very clear core of base defining features incident upon the origins of the dramatis personnae, i.e. as European lumpen proletarians, African slaves, etc. Expository text recapitulating known scholarship on this is what I was referring to. Also there appears to be a conflation or lack of exposition of the difference between the amalgam or construction of the lede, American popular philosophy or whatever, and the branch of Western academic philosophy which is what the body of the article is about. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest there is still no better nor more prescient definition than from the opening of Book II of De Toqueville's Democracy in America. A rather long quote, perhaps, but a quote from Tocqueville is obligatory in any case. This perhaps only addresses your first sentence, but it is a start. I agree with your last sentence, but its description is beyond my powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrycroswell (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Fredric Jameson somewhere?

[edit]

If this page is one that talks about American philosophers, then I see no reason to exclude Jameson from the list of contemporary philosophers since I would say that he's pretty influential as a thinker. If it's about the philosophy of America as a nation-state or American politics, I see why exclusion would make sense but I'm not sure. Thoughts? Birb God (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy in America

[edit]

As far as I can tell, this article isn’t about a distinct sort of philosophy that is “American Philosophy”, so I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to name the page ‘Philosophy in America’. Open to thoughts (i.e. let me know if I’m way off for any reason). — HTGS (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section outlining Phenomenalism in America

[edit]

Ciao fellow Wikipedians -- just a quick note to indicate that I have included a small section illustrating the attempts of various scholars in America to conduct additional research into the evolution of phenomenalism-- which first emerged in Europe in a related form within George Berkeley's subjective idealism and Emmanuel Kant's epistemology. As an example, I've included a link for the internationally recognized work of Colin Murray Turbayne which was undertaken at the University of Rochester during the mid-20th century. No doubt there are others who contributed as well, so this might be an interesting first attempt at describing this area of research in America. I hope this is permitted. Happy editing and thanks in advance for your consideration! With best wishes to all160.72.80.178 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]

I reverted the edit since the cited source does not establish that phenomenalism was a significant movement in American philosophy. Biogeographist (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao User:Biogeographist --many thanks -- this seems like a valid point. Perhaps we can rename the section to Subjective idealism which gave rise to Phenomenalism in America within the works of Samuel Johnson (American educator) and Jonathan Edwards(theologian) who were contemporaries of Berkeley in America as shown in the cited reference. I hope this is an improvement. and thanks again for your assistance. Ciao 160.72.80.178 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
I reverted again. The additional citation that you added still failed to verify your claim that "The mid-20th century also ushered in a renewed interest by various scholars within the United States in phenomenalism". Gary Cesarz's encyclopedia article on "Idealism: subjective" that you added in your second edit doesn't say anything about the mid-20th century, and his history seems to be an accurate recounting of the significance of phenomenalism in America: as far as I know, subjective idealism/phenomenalism was not a significant movement in America after the rise of realism in the first part of the 20th century. To prove me wrong, you would have to cite secondary or tertiary sources that say otherwise, which the sources you have added so far don't do.
The hyper-specialization of universities in the second half of the 20th century produced, of course, individual scholars working on all kinds of topics, even philosophies like subjective idealism/phenomenalism that are associated with an earlier time period, but the work of such individual scholars is not necessarily significant enough for a survey article on American philosophy unless there are secondary or tertiary sources that show how they are significant in a broad view of American philosophy. However, I moved the Cesarz reference you cited to the "Rejection of idealism" section since it is relevant to that subject. Biogeographist (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao User:Biogeographist --Thanks again for the guidance -- sorry that the references were not comprehensive, but thanks again for including the additional material. Keeping your suggestions in mind, I've attempted to include references for Colin Murray Turbayne's work along with the work of John McDowell as they relate to the Cartesianism problem of mind-body duality within the post Emmanuel Kant era in early 20th century America with references from the eminent scholar Nicholas Rescher, JSTOR.org, philpapers.org and the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers. Perhaps this would be more acceptable within the section of the article entitled "Contemporary Philosophy"? Any thoughts would be welcome. In any case, thanks again for all your help and best wishes for the continued success of Wikipedia.org.160.72.80.178 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
Your most recent edit looks much better. The "Contemporary philosophy" section is a better place for it; I doubt that subjective idealism/phenomenalism in the 20th century is significant enough to merit its own section. Your phrase in order to resolve the problematic Cartesian duality of "mind" and "matter" in the post-Kantian era struck me as odd since Cartesianism is pre-Kantian. Rescher wrote, "As McDowell sees it the Cartesian separation of mind from matter is profoundly wrong"—which is true enough, but doesn't have much to do with the post-Kantian era, and Rescher didn't claim that it does. So I rephrased that sentence based on the first sentence of Rescher's chapter. Note, however, that the kind of thinking Rescher discusses is, as he says, "grounded in nineteenth-century German post-Hegelian idealism", which is very different from a phenomenalism inspired by Berkeley, as Rescher noted in the last two paragraphs of his chapter where he mentioned two thinkers close to Berkeley and called one of them "substantially detached from the sort of position we have here considering". So there's quite a disconnect between various positions called "idealist". I also removed the word "noteworthy", which is WP:EDITORIALIZING (if it wasn't noteworthy we wouldn't include it). Biogeographist (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao User;biogeographist --many thanks for the revisions---once again I stand corrected---sorry its been several decades since I completed my BA in Philosophy and I'm not quite up to date on the latest distinctions and nuances prevalent in the field. The revised version seems perfectly fine. Thanks again for your assistance. Ciao160.72.80.178 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]

Prominence of Marcuse in influence of Frankfurt School in US

[edit]

Biogeographist, I'm just going by the sources. The two I cited, Mark Kurlansky's 1968: The Year that Rocked the World and Oxford University Press's Understanding Society: A Survey of Modern Social Theory, are clear about Marcuse's prominent role in the US among the philosophers of the Frankfurt School. I haven't been presented with evidence to convince me against the statement.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which you cited, states in its entry on Marcuse: The Frankfurt School has had an enormous impact on philosophy as well as social and political theory in the United States and around the world. In the 1960s Marcuse ascended to prominence and became one of the best known philosophers and social theorists in the world. He was often referred to as the Guru of the New Left (a title which he rejected). During the late 1970s through the 1990s, Marcuse’s popularity began to wane as he was eclipsed by second and third generation critical theorists, postmodernism, Rawlsian liberalism, and his former colleagues Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin. In recent years there has been a new surge of interest in Marcuse. To me, this supports the prominence of Marcuse too. إيان (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That passage from the Marcuse entry in the SEP doesn't say that among Frankfurt School critical theorists Marcuse was especially influential in the U.S., just especially influential in the New Left in the 1960s. When I studied the Frankfurt School in college, the text we used was The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, published in New York in 1978. (I still have the book.) Marcuse is not especially prominent in it. Its introduction mentions Marcuse's prominence in the New Left: "Lowenthal and Marcuse, finally, continue the tradition of Frankfurt critical theory in America into the present day [1978], with the latter playing a key role for the theoretically inclined minority of the New Left of the 1960s" (p. xiii). But the same introduction begins:

"Critical theory," the umbrella for a whole spectrum of positions associated with the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, has finally, after long delay, an opportunity to become an integral part of English-speaking culture. Comprised of philosophers, literary critics, sociologists, psychologists, economists and political scientists – of whom Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Lowenthal, Herbert Marcuse, Franz Neumann and Friedrich Pollock are the major figures – the Frankfurt School came into existence in the mid-1920s as an association of Left intellectuals that formed the privately funded Institute for Social Research.

There's no indication that among all these thinkers Marcuse was most influential in America in general and over the long term. Mann's Understanding Society claims that "Marcuse was the most influential of the Frankfurt School critical theorists on North American intellectual culture" but provides no evidence. Mann gives two reasons for Marcuse's purported preeminence. The first reason is that Marcuse stayed in the U.S. after 1945 and wrote his major works in English. But that is true of Fromm as well, so it doesn't uniquely make Marcuse important. The second reason is that Marcuse "engaged with the student and countercultural movements of the 1960s in his work". That helps explain why Marcuse was popular with the New Left, but I don't see how it justifies the claim that Marcuse was the most influential of the critical theorists in general. Biogeographist (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marcuse was the most influential of the Frankfurt School critical theorists on North American intellectual culture—that's enough to support the statement right there. As for the claim that the source does not provide evidence, we can presume that the impact comes from his relationship with the New Left and the broad popularity of his books, especially One-Dimensional Man, as attested to by Kurlanskly and others, (Bryan Magee has also noted that Marcuse's prose was much more accessible than his colleagues', but that's a different story). Besides—per WP:NOR—it's not our place as editors to question the evidence of the Oxford University Press source and thereby engage of analysis of it if it similar claims are not already questioned in reliable secondary sources.
As for the book from 1978, it doesn't refute the claim and WP:AGE MATTERS; we shouldn't defer to a book published nearly half a century ago, before the resurgence of interest in Marcuse which must also be taken into consideration in assessing his impact in the US. إيان (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept saying in the Marcuse paragraph that Doug Mann thinks that Marcuse "was the most influential of the Frankfurt School critical theorists on North American intellectual culture". It's his opinion and it's in a reliable source, so we can report it as his opinion. But I object to stating the opinion in Wikipedia's voice at the start of the section when Mann doesn't provide evidence to support the claim, only an easily refuted rationalization. It's not as if Marcuse's preeminence in the U.S. is a basic fact that is universally accepted and stated in all sources on the subject. It's our role as editors to evaluate the evidence in the sources we use. For example, at Talk:Clinical formulation, I noted that although a reliable source claimed that a certain psychologist was the first to use the term "case formulation", that claim was easily refuted. Above I refuted (undercut) Mann's reasons for making his claim. Another issue is that Mann is Canadian and his use of the term "North American" presumably includes Canada, but this article is about U.S. philosophy. But we can include the quote from Mann as an interesting opinion. Biogeographist (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with how it stands after the most recent edit. No need to further belabor the argument as various other aspects of the article more urgently need improvement. إيان (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان: Overall, I appreciate your edits to the article so far. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image at top of article

[edit]

A user recently removed the image from the top of the article depicting the drafting of the Constitution on the grounds that they think it is an "unsourced nationalist image that presents political event as a philosophical act" (link).

I think there are a number of problems with this, including: (1) political acts can be (and often are) philosophically relevant; (2) the Founders themselves were political philosophers; (3) the Founders were in turn influenced by earlier giants in political philosophy, like John Locke; (4) the US Constitution itself came to have its own significant influence within legal and political philosophy. Also, the presence of the image in the article was stable--it appears it has been there for about 15 years (added by me in 2009: link). So as to not start an edit war I figured I would prompt any further discussion here. JEN9841 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One (unrelated) thought is that there might be an image that more clearly and quickly gives the reader the impression this page is about philosophy, and not politics, or political philosophy. I doubt such an image is readily available though, so I support restoring the image at least for the time being. — HTGS (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_philosophy&oldid=1221768429"