|Modern philosophy has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
On the Removal of the Redirect
This page used to redirect to 19th Century Philosophy. I'm not too familiar with the specifics of wikipedia's policies, but I think this redirect was misleading. I also think this article probably deserves a page of its own.
The History of Western Philosophy has a decent section on "modern philosophy." How to deal with this overlap, I don't know... but if modern philosophy is going to be a redirect, maybe it should go to History of Western Philosophy.
Impoverished use of American English
"Math". Come on, Wikipedia; you can do better. Now corrected.
Who is Gezim Vrellaku?
There is argument among scholars that Spinoza is the first modern philosopher and not Descartes. Descartes was still wrapped up in the medieval arguments that were discarded by the modern philosophers, and first by Spinoza. I think this is worth noting. --Thinking thinker (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Bgordes, 26 May 2011
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The opening line should be 'Modern Philosophy is a branch of Philosophy that originated in...'. Stating the origin of Modern Philosophy straight up doesn't make sense. It's like asking what a bakery is and being told 'The bakery originated in South-East Asia' (not a correct fact), it shouldn't be the first information conveyed. Stating what a bakery is (ie. a place where things are baked) before moving onto it's finer details is more appropriate. Same applies with Modern Philosophy. Bgordes (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, I know about the xkcd cartoon, but wikipedia should be not concerned with this at all, pro- or contra and I do think that it is proper and wikipedian to refer to Philosophy as a parent context to the more specific Modern Philosophy. Sandb (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Has been reverted back. sonia♫ 09:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
FEatured Article quality first sentence
Adjective X is an X is poor writing. That sort of thing ("the painted turtle is a turtle") routinely gets cut at FAC. The reason is the words themselves ("Adjective X") already make it clear that this is an aspect or subset of X.
I beleive this article is being played with to preserve the "linking game" and not for the furtherance of better articles as such.
Taking page off of watch, now. Dealing with these sort of edit wars is way unconstructive to me, given the vast amounts of Wiki articles that just need better content.
The first paragraph in the history section introduces Rationalism and Empiricism and is then followed by this "(These are retrospective categories, for which Kant is largely responsible; but they are accurate enough.)" I added a request for citation, but I'm not sure how accurate the sentence is. I've always read that Kant was responsible for the end of the Rationalism vs Empiricism debate, and I had always assumed the distinctions existed beforehand. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? —Zujine|talk 13:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Rationalism and Descartes
Currently, the section on Rationalism is entirely focused on Descartes, which I think fails to give the reader a real picture of the philosophy. I propose editing it to be more general. —Zujine|talk 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I have come across the stub article page of Early modern philosophy. After finding this one, I am undeceive if I should contribute heavily to the Early Modern page, or #REDIRECT it to a new section within this article concerning the period between Descartes to Kant, with a brief preface on the later Renaissance thinkers. Does anyone have strong opinions either way? Tradereddy (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)