Talk:Philosophy/Workshop

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

This page is a guided discussion, to try and pull together various additional insights for the Philosophy article.

As a guided discussion, it varies slightly from the talk page. Rather than long threaded discussion, the principle on this page is short summary comments, and rather than interminable debate the rule here should aim to be that different people simply state their view, rather than discuss others views. When the views are stated, we then look to see where they agree, where they differ, and what's learned together.

The aim here will be to ask questions that clarify the article and views on it, so that a degree of improved communication can happen. As such it's likely to be a mix of questions about philosophy, and questions about editorial activity. Some of these will be open questions, others may well be "here's my impression, what does or doesn't work about it as others see it" (ie, attempts to test my impressions of the article structure and check if there are errors)

I have no idea what will happen, but I expect many questions and relatively short, easy to work with, answers. Longer answers may be refactored to help the debate be productive. The talk page is still as it was for main discussion, this page is more to provide a way for me to gain quick insight into questions that seem important to the article, and to allow consensus on various points to be developed with more ease. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groundrules[edit]

  1. Do not reply to others' comments. If you disagree or support another person's views here, add or modify your own comment to note how you feel. And explain why.
    • In some cases it might be appropriate to do this by appending to ones previous comment "Update: ..." But this should be avoided as a rule.
  2. Try to keep it short and direct. Long answers aren't usually needed for this.
  3. Editors are allowed (indeed, encouraged) to re-edit their previous answers, whether to better state their views or to address a point that comes up after.
  4. If you want to propose a question, list it in the "proposed questions" section. The main subject of this page is a guided exposition of different people's views.
  5. This page is purely to develop understanding and consensus. It's not for threaded discussion. It's for listing of what editors consider important viewpoints.

Questions about the structure of the article[edit]

What are the top level headings, which people think "Philosophy" must name and (however briefly) cover?
  • (comments)
  • Brief etymology. (origin with Pythagoras, Aristotle's use of the term which stuck, medieval usage following Aristotle, modern usage in 'philosophy department' sense. Dbuckner 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Banno 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRichiar 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however if you want to bring in Aristotle's use of the term (rather than Plato's), insofar as they differ, it should be mentioned. Zeusnoos 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but no logorrheic renditions: "some"/when "one", no useless words: "really", "truly," "nicely", "rational," "critical," etc.--Ludvikus 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJL 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it should be very brief, containing few if any links to other articles except for History of philosophy Banno 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRichiar 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it shouldn't fail to mention key figures mentioned later in sections of the article (empiricism, rationalism, etc). Zeusnoos 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but treat each geographical region separately: Europe, China, India, Africa, etc.--Ludvikus 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJL 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philosophical 'isms' (realism, nominalism, idealism, rationalism, empiricism). Dbuckner 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I suspect that this would turn into a list of "my favourite isms". Banno
Support, so long as they are in the context of prose. Keep it basic. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-it seems an encyclopedia article, particularly a general intro, would have something like that Richiar 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending agreement upon key -isms and appropriate context about their introduction into philosophy. Zeusnoos 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, that's easy: just no ism that's a Neologism --Ludvikus 17:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but kept brief and ideally in prose rather than a long list of short paragraphs and links. JJL 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short (2 paragraph) subsection on each of: Metaphysics, Ethics and aesthetics, Epistemology, Logic Dbuckner 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no more than these, with links to main articles in each. Banno
Support { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRichiar 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support . Some topic or another seems missing from this list, if I think of it... Zeusnoos 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Banno's POV restriction: "no more than these" --Ludvikus 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but this list isn't exhaustive. JJL 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative - to be based on college & university curricula --Ludvikus 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key is to keep each very brief, no more than a paragraph or two, and to send any dissent to the relevant main article. Banno
  • I agree, most of the sections will be brief as they defer to main articles on each topic. Certain topics however need to be included at a more detailed level. That is matters that do not have their own main article and that fit with the topic of philosophy in general. Perhaps then most of the subsections will be easy, just summaries of a branch eg, metaphysics or a historical phase, eg, rationalism, with links to the respective pages. Matters regarding the interation and overlapping of these different branches/historical epochs do need to be covered in this article.Lucas 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - brevity, not levity --Ludvikus 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems a degree of debate about topics of the form "Philosophy of X" (philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of religion, etc). These seem to be more a potentially open-ended range of subtopics or specialisms of philosophy. As regards this article, I'm thinking one section covering many of these "philosophy of X" type subtopics might be a good approach. Thoughts?
  • (comments)
  • One section suffices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)
  • Agreed. Furthermore, it should not contain a list of "philosophy of..."'s, but rather a link to the portal or the cats. Banno 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these would be self-explanatory. Again the overview issue of compartmentalising in philosophy and secondary sources on this: what problems arise from compartmentalising, when it happened in history, etc.Lucas 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds fine { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above Richiar 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with keeping it short with link to lists and direct mention of some of the prominent contemporary cats (e.g. "philosophy of science", "philosophy of mind"). Also agree with needed caveat about such compartmentalizing. Zeusnoos 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - this easy - don't see the fuss - just check the college Freshman catalogs - my exact count of such isns is 12 - in the Analytic tradition. --Ludvikus 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that one section is probably enough. JJL 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article dives directly (after a short introduction) into "philosophy of region X" type subsections (Western, Eastern, African, etc). No overarching context for these separate sections is given. As a result for the newcomer it's pretty unhelpful, and seems to assume knowledge. Do people have any better views how to structure it?
  • (comments)
  • It is entirely pointless structuring philosophy by region. Averroes was a Spanish philosopher, who wrote in Arabic, but was an Aristotelian. Schools and traditions are what define philosophy primarily. They should all be deleted. Dbuckner 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably this would imply an overarching section summarizing the global growth of philosophy schools, otherwise all we have is a list of schools and traditions and a bit on each with no overall connecting context? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Schools' is difficult. There is the one fairly continuous tradition stretching from Aristotle to the present, but that is split into various sub-schools. I was thinking about that today. Peter King (have you invited him?) is pretty good on that thing, having written whole books about the subject. He's the best for this. It's a difficult subject for most philosophers, as they tend to be trained in one school or another, and specialise fairly early, at least in England. Dbuckner 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Banno 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Richiar 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a more or less single tradition from the Greeks until the early twentieth century, when a split between analytic philosophy and the various schools known as "contintental" occurs. The article should not be structured by region as far as that tradition goes; I do wonder whether there shouldn't be separate treatment of the Eastern tradition (and other traditions if they are notable) linking to more detailed articles. I just don't know enough about Eastern philosophy to know whether it can be dealt with under the same heading as Western philosophy - I suspect not. KD Tries Again 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • I think this is a complex issue because if we do not include these different areas and subsume them under some Western history. The newby reader will perhaps garner some idea of the diversity of philosophy and not some single-minded notion of it, so it may also be of benefit to the new reader. For the non-newby reader it is handy to have somewhere to get to all of these. Unlike the duplication of the "history of (western)philosophy" there is no subpage "the geography of philosophy" so it needs to be somewhere. Lucas 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the nature of the current regional material is mixing the issues of continuation with western philosophy (historians of philosophy explore how it is that the grammarians of India developed logic at the time that the did, why Persians might be concerned with certain neoplatonic themes shortly after the official closing of the Academy) and 'native' religious concepts (Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism). Many of these regional considerations (e.g. African cultural philosophy that is not specifically referring to Hellenized Egypt and Confucianism) have only recently been bought into the fold of philosophy, as concepts and categories from epistemology etc., ones that may have been foreign to these traditions, are imposed. Zeusnoos 19:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something must be said about Eastern vs. Western. It seems inevitable--if for no other reason than editor expertise--that this will focus on on the latter. We should probably get used to that. Breaking things up by region more than that if os questionable value to my mind. JJL 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why subject-oriented sections (ethics, epistemology) are defined as "(Western)". They should not be. Additional Eastern-derived material can be added to them. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level of detail[edit]

I get the impression the introduction and first section (this version) are replaying debates rather than characterizing and summarizing them. Can we agree there are many definitions, in the intro at least, and leave replaying the debate until the main article?
  • The significance of the question being more, whether it's felt that the intro and indeed 1st section contains a level of detail which is inappropriate to those sections, by re-enacting debates or listing quotes rather than characterizing, summarizing, and moving on to the next aspect? Eg: not so much whether the definition is disputed, but the giving of examples in a summary intro. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first section (the list of quotes) is a load of old rubbish tacked on by someone who felt it would be useful. I find it highly confusing, because they are mostly not definitions, are anecdotal, and serve to confuse the reader. On the intro, I would prefer to say something that philosophy is clear and logical thinking about 'big questions' (a bit informal, but gets the idea across to the average reader), then say how the philosophical approach differs from the way that non-philosophers would approach these questions. (i.e. formal or systematic, critical logical thinking without appeal to authority or revelation &c). Dbuckner 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section of quotes is distracting, unnecessary, and arbitrary in any case. I strongly believe that the article should begin with a simple, clear definition of philosophy. The fact that there's disagreement over the detail of what philosophy does should not be used to conceal the fact that there's considerable agreement on what it actually is. I mean, librarians can shelve philosophy books without much trouble; publishers known when they're publishing philosophy. It's not as mysterious as all that. KD Tries Again 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • The first section is useless unless it is made into prose form.
It is inevitable that there will be different definitions of philosophy in the introduction. My only hope is to keep it short but comprehensive. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A much debated issue in defining philosophy has been about its usefullness. To say it is useful means you can say that it does this or that in particular, eg, it solves problems, or answers to some deep need (or curiosity) to give answers to "boundary questions" or as you say "big questions".
But often how philosophy distinguishes itself from other areas contradicts these kinds of definitions: medicine is useful it cures peoples ills, engineering is useful it builds bridges etc. To be able to say what it does, eg, satisfies our inate need to know who we are what the universe is, big questions etc. it presumes you have an idea where it is going, this, however is the last thing we know about philosophy and some say it is defined by its very uselessness.
As soon as it becomes useful it is called something other than philosophy, eg, psychology, applied science, technology, etc. In history many of these things were called "philosophy" or "natural philosophy." And as soon as it knows the thing it asks questions of, it is no longer philosophy and becomes a science, eg, knowledge of life: biology, zoology; of wealth: economics; of humans: anthropology; language: linguistics, etc. --Lucas 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just can't say anything to this question. I'll have to leave it to the others. Richiar 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The first section, philosophers on philosophy, seems to be a list of quotes selected from q:Definitions of philosophy. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, we have Wikiquotes for that. In one prose paragraph, how would you personally, summarize the views/quotes stated?
  • (comments)
  • I would prefer to use Definition of philosophy which is quotations arranged thematically. These show that philosophers agree 1. Philosophy is difficult to define 2. Its method is systematic, critical and logical. 3. Its subject matter is the 'big questions'. 4. Its branches are metaphysics, ethics, theory of knowledge. Dbuckner 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, if philosophy is anything it is hard to define, and I'm not sure how successful we have been in giving our couple of words about it (analysis, problem solving ,etc.), I doubt it'll stand the test of time (especially on wiki). I think we have to be brave and let the article and the philosophers quotes, speak for themselves and avoid defining philosophy in the intro. --Lucas 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with comments by DBuckner Richiar 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definitions of philosophy article is poorly organized. There must be a better way to tackle it. Anyone? Should it be merged with metaphil or deleted? I wonder if the dictionary entries used were written by philosophers - for instance - Penguin on goals "the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". Of the common factors of methodology: formal, logical, systematic, critical, it seems to me that critical comes closest to the 'essence'. Zeusnoos 19:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed questions[edit]

  • (q)

There's a concern about having a balanced presentation; i.e., specifically the debate over the analytic framework vs continental. I don't know how to frame the question, but maybe someone could pose the question here, if that would seem proper. Richiar 09:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A truly balanced presentation is desirable, as far as I am concerned. From reviewing past discussions on the philosophy page, I think the wheel gets stuck in the mud when this becomes a demand that every statement - even and especially introductory statements - be tailored to be consistent with what Derrida and/or Deleuze and/or Foucault [insert your own continental heavyweight] would say about the topic. One simply cannot, in practical terms, proceed in that manner - not least because there are sharp disagreements between so-called "continentals", but because they (like analytic philosophers) hold different views at different times. I suggest that in the general parts of the article - the introduction for instance - one must search for sufficiently general terms which can capture the views of at least most philosophers. Strong disagreement, if notable, can be cited in the meat of the article. KD Tries Again 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Overview of the subject[edit]

This section looks at what sort of information is central to describing philosophy. The purpose of the introduction is to tell readers in overall terms, what they are about to read: - what philosophy is, and the key things to note about it. That does not mean we re-enact debates there. A reader needs to know that this is about "thinking about the nature of existance" or even "the study and inquiry into issues such as morality, ethics and metaphysics", as opposed to (say) "study of brain proteins". Very simple terms, but reasonably accurate and useful. We can leave finalizing the detail till later.

The following is a tentative "starting list" of my impressions and questions from reviewing the discussion.
In each case, the question is this:

In brief, what is your impression of how the article should address this? And how useful/helpful/important is this to have a good appreciation of philosophy, in general?


1/15 There is a question whether it's fair to say philosophy is in simple terms, a study and inquiry (informally) of the "big and often intangible questions in life". Specifically, that it covers at least, Ethics, Metaphysics, Values, Morality, and the nature of Knowledge ("meta-knowledge"? epistemology?).
  • (Comments)
  • Philosophy can concern anything, as long as the proposition in question is general. It must not deal specially with things on the surface of the earth, or with the solar system, or with any other portion of space or time. (Russell) Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two ways of looking at this, some philosophers think that only universal propositions ("big questions") are valid philosophy, ones that apply everywhere and always, what is called in latin, veritas aeternitas. But for the last 200 years or so (since Hegel) these ideas have been attacked, and we can find philosophers turning away from discussions of the truth or falsity of lists of general (universal) 'propositions' (of the form X is Y), considered as forever true (as some scientists might) and instead dealing with concrete matters in tandem, such as the relation of science to power the "small questions" of the (human) body, political praxis, individual artworks, particular social issues, and ideology, turning toward the question of how, what is allowed to be called "truth" in a society is produced. Some associate belief in a certain list of propositions as "true" and universal, with political universalism, ie, some euro-centric dominance. So, far from dealing in the intangible as the question suggests, it sometimes also deals with these very tangible questions of life and death. Lucas 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what a "universal proposition" is. It would be fair to say that most philosophers think that the propositions of philosophy should be true, and there is a long-standing debate about exactly what "true" means. It might be fair to say that the last hundred or more years have witnessed developing skepticism about the possibility of pure intellection arriving at unassailable truths, given some of the factors mentioned above: that we are embodied minds, that we are subject to various ideologies, or in short that unprejudiced reflection is at least extremely difficult and perhaps impossible. Nietzsche, Marx and Freud (and indirectly Darwin) can take credit for this. It is not clear, however, that attempts to state truths have been abandoned; one ongoing difficulty is the status of discourses which are skeptical about truth, and yet presumably make some claim to their own truth. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
2/15. There is a question whether other areas may be validly included or argued within "philosophy", because the definition of philosophy (a stubject which is often its own metasubject) is by no means universally agreed.
  • (Comments)
  • Be clear about where the disagreement lies among philosophers. Everyone agrees on the method (rational, clear, critical, analytical, more or less systematic &c). Everyone agrees that its questions are general (not limited to specific or particular things). But there is widespread disagreement about whether there are specific philosophical truths (i.e. things that can be proved by doing philosophy that other sciences can't), or specific objects of investigation (universals, essences, haecceities, individual essences, possible worlds), or whether there are no such things, and ph. is simply a method of clearing up our thoughts (a kind of logical therapy). For that reason, there is a disagreement about the goal of philosophy. Is it in order to discover truths? Or is it to clarify concepts? Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


3/15 There is a question whether reliable sources tend to characterize philosophy as an area or field of investigation, or a method of investigation, or some other way. (And indeed it's possible that both are common).
  • (Comments)
  • All philosophers agree that the method of investigation is logical, critical &c. Not all philosophers agree what the subject matter actually is (see above). Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be disinclined to ever say "all philosophers agree that philosophy is X". Since if X is "critical" or "logical" or "investigation," as the question states, then our reader will go away thinking philosophy is, eg, "logical." However, if a philosopher has discussed logic in any useful way she has probably just redefined what "logical" means, and so our reader gets the very impression of philosophy that the philosopher attempted to undo. Critical too has problems, is it the Kantian Critical? the Marxian one? or just a reference to a questioning or dialectic attitude? -- Lucas (Talk) 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A general description of philosophy can, and I think must, be stated in an encyclopaedia article. As I've said elsewhere, the general description need not capture every shade and facet of every philosopher's thought. Nevertheless, there are elements which all notable (Western) philosophies do have in common, and we need only fine tune the language: philosophers use arguments to refine concepts and attempt to establish conclusions which can be supported by reasons. Now, it doesn't matter, I think, that different philosophers have different ways of arguing or define "concept" differently: I can think of no notable exceptions to a statement like this. The handful of exceptions, if necessary, can be noted in a qualifying paragraph in the body of the article. KD Tries Again 15:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
4/15. There is a question whether philosophical approaches are distinguished by their explicitly rational, logical, and systemic approach to these, via critical thinking. [Check - if so, is this universal or just the expectation of certain traditions?]
  • (Comments)
  • There is no tradition rightly called 'philosophy' which is not characterised in some way by its explicitly rational, logical, and systemic approach to these matters. The word 'philosophy' traditionally applied to the discipline which began with the Greeks, was continued by the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, adapted by the early modern philosophers, and is taught in 'departments of philosophy' across the world. Later it was realised that other cultures have traditions of thought which greatly resemble philosophy, and so the name was applied to these also. Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the most important point for an introductory overview of philosophy is that its approach is explicitly rational and critical. I understand that it is generally systematic, but since there are some important exceptions to that, I myself would probably say it's rational, critical and aims to be coherent - because even avowedly unsystematic thinkers try to make their work "hang together" one way or another. I think the central element to the rational/critical approach, is argument - and I think this should be easy to explain to. Whenever one teaches a class to beginners in philosophy, the first point to get across is that it's not enough to "think" or "say" that, e.g., murder is bad or matter exists or minds are disembodied: it is only philosophy if you can advance arguments in support of your view. I'd like to emphasize that this element is common to analytic and continental philosophers, as I think that's sometimes a matter of controversy.KD Tries Again 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • You will find at various times different words are used to describe the right thinking in philosophy, rationalism was popular after Descartes and all the way up to postmodernism (if there is such a thing). But in many philosophies in the 20th century Descartes has been criticised for dividing mind from body and putting reason etc on a higher plane. Others divide understanding from Reason and consider Reason to be the main thing. Logic, (all the -ologies) has an interesting history and became quite formal until Heidegger who tried to return it to some more natural dialectic meaning.Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many differences in detail, but the philosophers who held all these competing positions had in common that they summoned arguments to advance their claims. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
4a/15. Clarification question - Is it the case that just because some system of knowledge/myth is traditional knowledge and structured, in some culture X, doesn't necessarily mean we would recognize it as "philosophy"? (Other than perhaps in terms of "philosophy of culture X" where we study their way of thinking as an object, using Western philosophical approaches and tools?)
  • (Comments)
  • I agree, that a culture may have a structured mythos/tradition that isn't Philosophy: eg, I have doubts about saying "Eastern Philosophy" is actually philosophy, and I understand that they don't consider themselves to be philosophy. Richiar 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might need to reword the question, your X could stand for western philosophy. Here we must not confuse academic philosophy (which is already western) with philosophy in general. In the West we do recognise other cultures' ways of thinking as philosophy (comparable perhaps to the roots of our own philosophy) and pose the question, is our own knowledge or, way of life, any better or more true? Some positivists, and the general status quo (media etc.) might have a stake in ensuring that everyone considers it to be better, so one needs a critical standpoint. Others might consider western philosophy (& its roots) as a corruption of natural truth, people are now treated as commodities (the labour market, prisons/asylums, etc.) But again, this might present a kind of denial of how we got here. The other philosophies are the very things that allow us to speak of something distinctive called "western philosophy". --Lucas Talk 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky question since it might assume that philosophy is unified in time and place and has always been striving for some sort of atheistic or demythologized purity. Take Hellenistic philosophy, side by side with Peripatetics and Pyrrhonian skeptics worrying about logical determinism and knowledge are middle Platonists worried about how to classify demons and heroes in the hierarchy of being. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5/15. There is a question whether in more everyday terms, it's fair to say philosophy looks at questions like -- What does it mean when we call something Good? How do we know what is Right? Is Emotion a good guide to Morality? When we say we 'Know' something, what precisely are we saying? In simple lay-terms, would example questions like these provide a fair representation of well-known examples within the field?
  • (Comments)
  • These do not include Metaphysical questions like: ulitmately what things really exist? Is it just atoms? Does that leave a place for souls, minds, emotions, people? Is the brain identical with the mind? All that sort of stuff. A famous question is: why is there something rather than nothing? Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, questions about the ultimate nature of things we seem to be aware of, and the relationships if any between them (time, space, matter, life, death, mind, self-awareness, emotion, existance)? FT2 (Talk | email) 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sample questions are certainly not the only ones. There are many starting points of inquiry in philosophy. Philosophers have argued about what the best or most fundamental starting point may be. Bringing up sample questions may lead to lack of consensus since philosophers naturally argue over what questions deserve more attention (or should be asked at all). Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would help me personally, but I would want it to come from somebody who knows what they're talking about. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


6/15. There is a question whether it's fair to say there are many approaches within philosophy, and that different cultures and traditions have developed over time their own different approaches to these kinds of questions/understandings.
  • (Comments)
  • It is fair to say that. Any article worth its salt would have to deal with Monism, Pluralism, Realism, Nominalism, Idealism &c. Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would take a philosopher(s) to answer. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7/15. There is a question whether its a good point to make, that within different cultures and traditions, different schools have often grown up, often stemming from the novel insights of specific individuals.
  • (Comments)
  • Correct. Thus, Aristotelianism, Platonism, Kantian thought, Hegelian thought, Thomism &c. Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Good point to include. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I defer to the remarks above. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8/15. There is a question whether at times these approaches have diverged, or overlapped.
  • (Comments)
  • Overlapping schools include Aristotelianism and Thomism. Divergent schools include Hegelian, Analytic vs Continental &c.Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Hegel (& the divergent adaptation of his work by Marx) is something of a convergence for academia, since he was the leading academic philosopher after Kant and was read by most philosophers thoughout Europe and America during most of the 19th century. Then there was the beginnings of a break around 1900. Of course breaks occurred individually previously like Shopenhauer, Kierkegard and Nietzsche.--Lucas Talk 14:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Marx was a followed of Hegel is controversial (see Althusser). I wonder how much we have to worry about degrees of iverlap and divergence at this stage? That will quickly become highly technical. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • I don't think an encyclopedia article can do more than provide some examples of divergence and overlap since the entire history of philosophy is riddled with the questions of divergence and overlap (e.g., how much of a rationalist and/or empiricist was Kant?). Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better in a side article. Sounds like a good suggestion from Zeusnoos. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9/15. There is a question whether it's fair to say that formalized philosophy as a specific subject of study (as opposed to thinking about philosophical subjects generally which many cultures did), is generally considered to have arisen in the West with the Ancient Greeks.
  • (Comments)
  • That is reasonably fair, except Indian logic and philosophy are a specific tradition which developed over a long time (I'm not an expert), also Chinese philosophy.Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As formalized anything you might say the West but if you just mean teaching there are huge traditions of passing on and teaching philosophy in almost all societies. Written philosophy and large schools occurred in Greece and Asia around the same time, also the Judaic tradition comes into the picture in the West.
  • India has assimilated and appropriated more western thought than Indians care to admit. Not sure about Chinese except western ideas (such as methods in astronomy) were introduced during the Latin Middle Ages. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my understanding of Confucius, Lao Tsu, and Sun Tzu, its an entirely different composition of elements, and would be best put on a different track from Western philosophy. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10/15. There is a question whether historically, at various times philosophy has been merged/demerged with, or considered tightly related to, subjects such as Natural Sciences, Cultural Mythos, Logic, and Religion, and if so how that relationship has worked.
  • (Comments)
  • That is a mistake. Aristotle already distinguishes the natural sciences from what he calls 'first philosophy'. So do the schoolmen of the middle ages. Logic has always been part of the Western tradition. Theology was always separate. Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did he define "first philosophy"? What does the term mean? FT2 (Talk | email) 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Philosophy/Quotations which is a list of 'big philosophers' characterisations of philosophy. Under Aristotle. 'First philosophy' enquires into the fundamental or ultimate reason of everything. Dbuckner 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I agree with the question these are the issues for a philosophy article. There is no simple answer. The modern word science comes quite late, previously it had been called "Natural Philosophy". Hegel considered his entire work to be "science" (in German, Wissenschaft, usually translated as science, but in other contexts can also mean "academic"). Aristotle liked divisions and categories and always split things up. However, he gave us the book, "Psyche" and he may have categorised it as science at the time, but today it might be considered philosophy. Orphism was influential in Plato and Socrates. Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Science is not a modern word. Hegel held a chair in philosophy and reference to his works will show that he plainly distinguishes between logic, ethics (or right), aesthetic, the natural sciences, and so on. Perhaps confusion arises because the German word "Wissenschaft" is used in the humanities as well as in the sciences, necessitating qualification - thus when Hegel uses "Wissenschaft" he is using a word often translated as science, but not restricted to science in the English language sense. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • Above responses are all good. I can't add more. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11/15. There is a question whether dispite the divergent views, a range of key concepts have been developed, particularly in the relatively rigorous approach favored in some Western traditions, and these often introduce subtle distinctions which wdiely inform debates. (Examples of such key concepts might be a priori v a posteriori, or ad hominem)
  • (Comments)
  • Practically all of the English philosophical terms (reductio, contingency, proposition, inference, individuation, generic, specific &c) developed out of Latin philosophy and logic in the Middle Ages. There are similar terms in other traditions (e.g. Indian logic), but I am not an expert. Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say key concepts too but more than just this you might say a language. For example "ratio", originally from maths it meant "rate or measure", eg, 2 metre-stick lengths, rationalism built on this. Descartes then also came up with irrational, the unmeasurable (eg, square root of 2 has no whole number answer). The idea of incommensurate (important in 20thC philosophy of science) also comes from this.

--Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Practically all? Sample of English philosophy terms from Greek not medieval Latin philosophy: philosophy, epistemology, meta_physics, ontology, logic, ethics, empiricism, dialectic, dialogue, skepticism, hermeneutic, pragmatism, aesthetic, phenomena, politics, physics, semantic, semiotics, synthesis, symbolic, cosmology, anthropic, idea, paradigm (misused term in philosophy), energy, criterion, critical, taxonomy, axiomatic, paradox, system, analysis, analytic. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll defer here. I have no background to respond. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12/15. There is a question whether some approaches to philosophy have used more rigid categorization and hierachical structures, to try and place philosophy on a less fluid basis, and how this is viewed.
  • (Comments)
  • I have no idea what this question means.Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind that maybe hierachical thinking was a key feature of some traditions (perhaps the Aristotelian line of thought) whilst a more fluid sense of the nature of things would be a feature of other (perhaps Eastern) schools. Ie, some fighting paradox and ambiguity, and others accepting it. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are your references for these other schools of thought? Dbuckner 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an impression, that I'm trying to hone and check up. I get the impression that earlier "western" traditions (some of the ancient greek philosophers?) sought to analyze by categorizing into hierachies. Rhetoric comprises these things, which comprise these things, &c. Hierachical. By contrast it seems that a predominant theme in some other traditions (particularly some eastern philosophies?) is to avoid categorization, or to resist the notion that categorization is meaningful, in favor of a nondual viewpoint where subject/object/categorization distinctions are deliberately considered relatively unimportant. I have no idea how "real" that impression is considered, nor if its significant or representative of anything in terms of "how philosophy is", so I'm asking, really, to check it out. My question is also, that some early schools in the west seem to have used taxonomic structure as a major means to understand things philosophically ("What is rhetoric" for example). I get the impression that's no longer how it's done. If it means nothing then fine. I would like to check first though in case somewhere in this vague impression is anything of use or value. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you are talking about, to be quite honest. Dbuckner 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm confused then. Will try to explain "off this page", in case. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has certainly been a contentious topic within the Western tradition in the twentieth century, with French thinkers such as Derrida and Deleuze criticising hierarchical thinking derived from the Platonist/Aristotelian tradition. But I'd regard this as a rather advanced topic rather than something a general article needs to cover. As for Eastern traditions, I think we need to hear from someone who's an expert. I haven't a clue.

KD Tries Again 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

  • The question is spot on, there have been some very broad sweeping criticisms of such hierarchies and of the entire history of western philosophy that goes from Socrates to the 20th century. They are difficult and demanding criticisms and refer to hundreds of philosophers through the whole western tradition. But it is not as simple as saying they destroy hierarchy and replace it with anarchy. --Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Though we seem to agree this is a difficult question, I think that like other matters referred to above, we seem to believe that these matters are best handled in their own articles. However, I think that the main philosophy article is the best place for such things since they often concern philosophy in general, it also allows the article to give something other than summaries and redirections and be a little more "interesting" and up to date. It also helps toward reliability since it appears on an important page and a wide variety of editors might contribute to it.-- Lucas (Talk) 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with KD that this issue of hierarchy is an advanced topic. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No big objection to dealing with the issue of "hierarchy" - just nervous about the huge scope of the topic. As for being up-to-date: is that our aim? The hierarchy question was a hot topic in continental philosophy thirty or forty years ago - is it hot today?KD Tries Again 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • I believe I understand your question; I suspect thats true, and why I suggested keeping East and West on separate tracks. To give an example, the motion of Tai Chi is seen as a language and a way of being in unity with life, simultaneously. Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13/15. There is a question whether it's fair to say a range of subjects have had a philosophical approach applied to them, for example, "Philosophy of religion", which would be an attempt to examine religion from a more dispassionate perspective, as an object of study within philosophy.
  • (Comments)
  • Probably Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this important, we can see Enlightenment attempt to leave out religion, some suggest it failed and that what we get in much philosophy is actually based on some faith though they pretend to be anything but religious. Some suggest that it is not Greece but religion in the West what gives its philosophy a distinctive character. It is also interesting to see how Eastern philosophy relates itself to religion in comparison. Another big issue is philosophy's relation to Art and history but I dont see a questino on this. --Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the question related to Philosophy of Art (or Aesthetics), Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, etc, rather than just Philosophy of Religion. Yes, there are many such sub-categories, but I think reasonable people could agree on a short list to be treated in this kind of article. Perhaps minor sub-categories could be listed, with links to their own articles. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • Disspassionate is one thing. There is also the need of philosophy to think about topics from disinterest (or at least from different values than practitioners). I'm thinking of the field of psychology, where broader issues of what is being studied and practiced (science or non-science, ethics) are not asked from within because it is a career. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: for example-I would say "philosophy of religion" is an application (maybe, sort of) of philosophy to look at the underlying premisis of a religion, and the content would be "Theology". Richiar 04:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14/15. There is a question whether one could list some well recognized logical/philosophical 'tools' that are commonly applied or appeasled to, within philosophy, such as (list of examples).
  • (Comments)
  • There is a very long list, mostly to do with identifying fallacies of some sort. You mention ad hominem. Denying the antecedent, interemption, reductio, straw man, many many more. Dbuckner 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These would be fallacies of muddy thinging (ie, poor logic), right? Tools used to spot bad lines of thought? I was thinking more of tools developed such as deduction, induction, possibly axiomatic/propositional thinking and the like. What other kinds of philosophical 'tools' exist? FT2 (Talk | email) 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skill in argumentation is the one method used to train students, so hard to think of others. But tools like clear expression, careful arrangement of points, avoidance of obscurity, and all that, are also very important. Informal logical techniques, if you like. Dbuckner 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not like to think in terms of tools fo philosophy. It gives a false sense of security that you can take up something and apply it to diverse materials, it doesnt often work that way. Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of such tools is an indispensable part of the education of beginning philosophy students. Later, one might develop skepticism about specific tools, but it is not possible to do philosophy without any of them. By the way, a recent book called The Philosopher's Tool-kit would be a good citation here. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • Appreciate the remarks made above. I defer. Richiar 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14a/15 (based upon above) Many 'tools' used in logic seem to feature in both early mathematics and early philosophy. Would tools such as deduction, induction, and axiomatic logic, be considered mathematical methods developed in a geometric context, that were later applied to general philosophy? Or were they general philosophical methods later applied to mathematical situations such as conics? Or logical methods refined in general philosophy and later used in geometry? Is the question okay or does it need rephrasing somehow? (Basically, what was the relationship between philosophy, logic and mathematics very early on? How did the whole idea of this sort of thinking seem to emerge into these three areas? Where did the core approaches develop in these? Do we know?)
  • (Comments)
  • No, nearly all these terms and tools arose in the 11th and 12th century, from logic. They were probably developed in order to meet the need for rigorous argumentation in theology, and to deal with apparent paradoxes arising in the Scriptures. Much as modern mathematical logic arose from the need to provide foundations for mathematics. Dbuckner 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double check needed on this answer? - Axiomatic, propositional, logical thinking was around and being used in geometry/mathematics at the time of Euclid. (Useful resource: History of logic which I found just now.) FT2 (Talk | email) 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No double check needed. I would also beware any references from Wikipedia (tertiary source, poor). To be honest, I admit writing at least half of that article. But do not confuse the Euclid mentioned there with the one who wrote the Elements! Dbuckner 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Euclid of 'Elements' fame was the Alexandrian one, wasn't he? Around or shortly after Plato? If so, then does this mean that the notion of clear, precise, axiomatic, propositional, deductive thinking was alive and discovered early on in the Ancient Greek tradition (~ 250-400 BC), long before the Middle Ages? (In which case, was it a mathematical/geometry discovery imported into general philosophy, a philosophical discovery inmported into mathematics/geometry, or ... &c as question above.) I could be wrong though in identifying Elements as evidence of axiomatic propositional thinking being discovered that far back, hence the question. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Euclid of Alexandria was the geometer. Euclid of Megara was the pupil of Plato was the logician (hope I've got that right). Logic really begins with Aristotle (the Organon). It is not really connected with mathematics until the 19C. You keep using the term "axiomatic propositional thinking" that I do not understand. Can you explain its meaning? Dbuckner 06:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't respond. Richiar 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14b/15 (based on above also) How fair is it to say that philosophy attempts to apply logic to the entirety of existance in the attempt to truly understand its nature?
  • (Comments)
  • The development of logic and of philosophy are inseparable. They are more closely connected in some periods than in others. In medieval philosophy, there is really only logic and theology. The emphasis on logic is less in the early modern period, where philosophers are more interested in psychological and epistemological questions. Then in the middle of the 19C logic takes off again, in fact rockets off, with amazing new developments. This is the main feature of 'analytic' philosophy. In continental philosophy, there is little formal logic, but still use of informal methods. Dbuckner 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One should be cautious here, because "logic" means different things to different people. On the one hand, there's formal logic, which generally implies the use of logical notation. This is what took off late 19th, early 20th century, largely thanks to Frege and Russell (who were skilled in mathematics) and Wittgenstein. At the same time, the term "logic" continued (and continues) to be used in a broader sense than just formal (notational) logic. In its broader sense it doesn't mean much more than critical/rational discussion, e.g. Deleuze, "The Logic of Sense". I would defend the position that all philosophy involves rational argument (and therefore logic in the broad sense). Clearly not all philosophy involves formal logic. Many pro philosophers can't even do much formal logic. KD Tries Again 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
Ahem. Lukawiciez (too late to spell) credits Aristotle with the invention of formal logic (the representation of the logical form of arguments using variable letters or placeholders). But, 'logic' does now mean predicate calculus, I agree. I mean it in the sense that Ockham, say, means it in 'Summa Totius Logicae'. Dbuckner 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You the man. I only just found out there were two Euclids!

KD Tries Again 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

  • Logic is just one of the branches and has waxed and waned, for example another branch, epistemology was big in the Enlightenment, logic was big for Russell et al in early 20th century, ethics was a big concern of the ancients, metaphysics was big in middle ages etc.--Lucas 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Logic for logic's sake is a specialized field in philosophy. Applying logic (esp. informal logic) is essential to any philosophical endeavor. Even in types or styles of philosophy that do not conform readily to tight logical structure, arguments are still being made. Zeusnoos 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't comment, but this is a fascinating discussion. Richiar 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15/15. If you wanted me to understand what philosophy was (in overview) and the important aspects of it as a field of study, are any of the above impressions unimportant -- as opposed to needing serious correcting but actually touching on something useful? And what else would I have to know, to get a decent balanced overview?
  • (comments)
  • I think this gives a good picture. Ultimately, philosophy is just clear, logical thinking about big questions. Dbuckner


These seem to me some of the key overarching points that are suggested by previous discussion and are relevant to the bare question "tell me about philosophy". What I'd like is, others' comments on this list. Detail aside, is this a fair represummary of "core knowledge" or do you have improvements?

Note that each of the points listed will need its own discussion, right now I'm just trying to establish "main conceptual stuff" and "what's core issues in the field", so I know where people stand on these questions within philosophy.

Essentially, is there anything notionally in that list that is really wrong, or that's seriously missing, that's needed to summarize the subject overall? (Allowing that each point obviously needs refinement later on). Can you live with this as a list of "core stuff we need to tell people to have described philosophy"? If so, good, if not, why? That's really the question here.

Again, this is not a threaded discussion, it's just each person's own views, one after the other. Feel free to add your own review issues below, keeping it brief. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is not correct, i.e.it's really wrong. I thought the premiss of this workshop was that it is on the 'most say this', 'but some say this' approach, where the 'most' and 'some' are authoritative sources? You are entirely correct in the way you characterise the main subject matter of philosophy, i.e. the 'big questions'. But each of these areas has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which philosophy proper is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved. Can you please ensure that any views you reflect here are sourced with authoritative references, and that they are not your own personal views. Many thanks. Dbuckner 10:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to find out. It's hard to know if (for example) an article is balanced, without testing one's understanding and impressions on it, and the fact that you me or any contributor feels the article is or isn't balanced will lead merely to more dispute. Because the main discussion has failed to reach consensus on what's what (although specific groups of editors do agree within themselves), I'm going very step-at-a-time, so as not to assume. My approach is, "Here's a small, self-contained single statement or question, does this work, if not where does it fall down or need improving". The above list is an informal list of impressions by an admitted non-philosopher reading the article and a few other sources. Does it work, and if not then what would philosophers say in its place.
So what I get from your answer is that a key aspect of philosophy that's omitted (as you view it) is its explicitly rational and systemic approach, via critical thinking. And that's an important thing to clarify and part of what I'm hoping to achieve in this specific section. I've added that as an item in the list, because you've commented pretty much directly on that alone, and haven't yet commented on anything else except that yet. Question though: can you advise above if that's a universal expectation in all traditions which are acknowledged to be "philosophy"? And comment on my other impressions?
The aim is, a tentative "let's help communally refine a list of what's important", not an "I think this is the answer" list. I get the impression that a good overview of philosophy touches on many of these kinds of topics - but I'm not a philosopher to be certain of the refinement of each, or if they are correct or not. So I have listed some impressions as a starting point only, for those who edit the article to put me right if needed. It's a little slower, but it's better than going round in endless revert wars, because when a consensus of editors is reached on what a list of key points should look like, it'll genuinely be a clear consensus with no edit wars, and able to inform the article. Some aspects will give rise to disputes, we can look at whatever sources people feel are authoritative in those areas to clean up our views, and add cites for all the other points we do agree upon. But before that, it's good to check where we agree already, and where the issues really are arising within that. Being explicit about checking communally, point by point, is a good way to achieve that - slower, but works very well. Hopefully that clarifies and reassures a bit. Please email me otherwise :)
I have taken your point, and reworded the list to make clear its my impressions that are being corrected here. In so doing I'm thinking that if the editors here can explain what philosophy is to me, then we'll be most of the way to understanding what we need to explain to others. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall what is missing is a focus for the article. (1) Is it to be just list of self-enclosed descriptions of various philosophies, like an expanded version of the philosophy navigation template with an amount of hand-holding for young or newby readers? (2) Or should it aim at giving some information about how philosophy and its various areas overlap and interact, how different geographic regions have interacted. Should it contain details of how theology, science, human-sciences, history, mysticism and the arts have both shaped and been shaped by philosophy. (3) Or again should it focus on a certain way of doing philosophy that is prevalent at the moment, based on either a (3a) rational/mathematical/logical paradigm or (3b) a more literary/historical/social one?
  • At the moment it fails on a number of these and mixes them up. It gives mainly (3a), rationalistic etc., in the intro. In its clear short brief divisions it also presents a logically divided picture of philosophy which again matches (3a) but also allows for the listing required by (1). The area of (2) and (3b) as literary/historical is largely left out. In these areas I think we need some leniency to allow these sections to grow and avoid stiffling them under a rigid and enforced rationalism. The presentation at the moment gives a misimpression of philosophy and its history as if it were nicely boxed off and neat, as something that is a fait acompli, when in fact it is spread-out, ill-defined and largely unfinished.--Lucas Talk 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That philosophy is unfinished and hosts many controversies provides no obstacle to offering a simple description of the subject; something achieved by most college brochures and web-sites, by books like Philosophy For Idiots, and by other encyclopaedias. It is plain that the detailed views of everyone from Duns Scotus to Gilles Deleuze cannot be reflected in such a description; but it is not impossible to find a description of sufficient generality to encompass all these views, while remaining informative. KD Tries Again 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
  • Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent. (See, I do know some philosophy!!) :)Richiar 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy/Workshop&oldid=1137084058"