Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

FAC of Nihilism

The article Nihilism is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nihilism/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

FAC of political philosophy

The article Political philosophy is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political philosophy/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yugoslav philosophy

The article Yugoslav philosophy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 6 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Essay-like page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Accessment

Am I correct in thinking that Plurality (identity) falls under WP:Philosophy? I came to this conclusion initially because of the connection to mental worlds via tulpas. Though, looking into it further, it seems like it fits WP:MIND and WP:WPHS. -Flower (she/her) 24.155.147.109 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

My discussion with Google AI about epistemology

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I proposed that statement to Google AI:

The current epistemological analysis of knowledge is more a "ism", a particular metaphysical view. If we consider the different views on knowledge over history, then the study of knowledge, which was not called epistemology at these times, is not distinguishable from philosophy and includes metaphysics, ethics and logic. Therefore, in no way "Epistemology" is a branch of "philosophy", even though epistemologists present it that way. It is at best, today, a metaphysical view, not a branch. A branch can be determined by an object of study, a particular question, not by a particular view adopted.

Here is the reply from Google AI:

The claim that "epistemology" is a metaphysical "ism" rather than a branch of philosophy is a specific philosophical argument, not a widely accepted view. Traditionally, epistemology is defined as the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, examining the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. The argument posits that current epistemological theories have become so tied to specific metaphysical viewpoints (like rationalism or empiricism) that they can no longer be seen as a neutral, objective study of knowledge itself. Instead, the argument suggests, one's "epistemology" today is essentially a pre-determined metaphysical stance, which then informs one's view of knowledge. Therefore, it is not an objective, neutral branch of philosophy that asks a universal "what is knowledge?" question, but rather a specific "what is knowledge according to this particular metaphysical view?" question.

I claim that Google AI is biased by the English sources it uses, because it is rather the opposite if you consider different cultures. Today's epistemology and its corresponding analysis of knowledge is actually little known in other cultures and perhaps not even in other areas within the anglo-saxon culture. It is also biased by the algorithm it uses, which most likely is based on the search term "epistemology" and thus has the biased view point associated with the introduction of that term. The field is big enough that most likely we can find sources that claim its application in science, etc., but the real test is to look at sources centered on sciences without looking for "epistemology", only to philosophical issues in general, and see what they use when they have philosophical issues to address. Then we will see how much this "part" of philosophy is used in science. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this intended in any way to relate to Wikipedia content? It appears not to, and accordingly WP:NOTFORUM would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, it is related to content at the general level where we are here. This is not the talk page of an article, but the talk page for the orientation of the field in general. I refer to the biases of AI, but actually, if you look at them, it is obvious that they do not apply only to AI. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

This is the talk page for WikiProject Philosophy. It is not a talk page for discussing the orientation of the fields of philosophy or epistomology in the abstract. What specific changes regarding Wikipedia content are you proposing? I'm quite sure that most experienced Wikipedia contributors will be aware of the many discussions around the biases inherent in the way sources are selected, not just for philosophy, but for content in general. Merely stating that a (well-known and documented) problem exists isn't particularly useful, and even more so when framed in the context of Google's LLM: next-word-guessing technology inherently incapable of offering any useful insight, rather than paraphrasing the commonplace, or when unable to do that, hallucinating nonsense. I see no reason whatsoever why we should see such untrustworthy banalities as even remotely relevant to a serious discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, there was no need to use Google's AI to illustrate this point. If you are right that the problem of cultural bias and bias related to domain-specific search terms is well understood, then my comment adds nothing new. Feel free to delete all of this, as I am not interested in the controversy. But before you do that, take note that I disagree that this talk page should discuss specific changes, because specific changes can only be decided on a case by case basis in the talk pages of articles. Here, except in reference to specific articles, only general principles can be discussed. If you claim that this page can only be used to discuss issues with specific articles, that would be a view point. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

If there is a bias in the way epistemology is treated, a discussion about it is certainly relevant, not a forum topic, and action should be taken. Using AI to illustrate this bias is actually a good idea, because the mechanisms of this bias are the same. I understand that if an understanding of the sources differs so much from what is expressed in the articles that it becomes difficult to discuss it in terms of one-off sentences, then it looks like a forum-style discussion of general points. Therefore, I don't mind the argument being hidden. I sincerely, but naively, believed that my efforts to contribute to improving the content would have been better appreciated. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The 'opinions' of next-word-guessing algorithms are of no relevance to any sensible discussion of bias within Wikipedia, for the reasons discussed in this thread. [1] In brief, LLM's are neither capable of checking content against sources, nor of assessing 'bias' in relation to Wikipedia policy on the subject. Anything they come up with will be nothing more than vague platitudes about some imaginary abstract notion of 'bias' which has no useful bearing on how Wikipedia approaches the topic.

The Wikipedia community as a whole justly views LLM output with scepticism, and has, in multiple discussions, made it abundantly clear that such output is of no utility on talk pages (see e.g [2]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Artificial intelligence (AI) was only used to illustrate biases, and only the first sentence of the AI ​​response was used. The first sentence is: “The claim that ‘epistemology’ is a metaphysical ‘ism’ rather than a branch of philosophy rests on a specific philosophical argument, ‘a view that is not widely accepted.’” I should have deleted the rest of the AI ​​response and emphasized more that this was simply a way of expressing that I am not impressed by the claim that the view presented is “not widely accepted,” because it can be explained by biases, the same ones we might expect with AI. Furthermore, perhaps I should have elaborated more on the fact that “epistemology,” with its analysis of knowledge as a form of belief, is actually more of a view, an “ism,” than a branch of philosophy, which is the key point. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

At risk of falling into forum discussions, Wikipedia is really interesting in that it is being spoon fed into LLMs (likely, this talk page included). On a side note, Wikipedia is cool because it has the previous versions maintained for most of the site. This means in the future, we (humans) can use the writing from before AI to avoid inbreeding a bit. With all this in mind, the need for accurate information that minimizes bias to avoid biasing the outputs future physicians, lawyers, and scientists will inevitably be using. With this in mind, perhaps OP is trying to find ways to minimize this bias? If we could use AI as an instrument to detect bias within our articles, we might be able to improve the product. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It was not my point, but it is also a valid point. I won't say more, because it is not the subject, but I appreciate the comment. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup question on LLM articles

I've been finishing up dealing with a number of almost entirely LLM-generated articles from a now-blocked user. Many of these were very marginal concepts and I've just redirected them back to more relevant items (eg refined utilitarianism to utilitarianism) - many were originally redirects to begin with.

There are a couple I'm not sure what to do with, & I'd appreciate some advice on the best way forward for these, as I am not a specialist in the area -

• Satisfaction paradox, Hedonic asymmetry - my feeling is that these can be redirected but not sure where best to redirect these to; all inbound links seem to be tacked into "see also" sections
• End-of-life ethics - this is undeniably a significant and notable topic, but I don't think a waffly LLM-generated article helps anyone (see also reproductive ethics by the same user, now deleted)
• Hedonology - this was completely rewritten by LLM but the before and after versions bear little relationship to one another (Before, pricing model for damages, possibly the same thing as hedonic damages; after, Benthamite utilitarianism)

Andrew Gray (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Embodied cognition

Embodied cognition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Edward Said

Edward Said has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Article on Paul Seligman

Would there be any interest to create an article about Paul Seligman?

I am struggling to find sources when it comes to biographies, and there definitely are enough for his works The Apeiron of Anaximander and Being and Not-Being: An introduction to Plato's Sophist.

Anyone would be willing to aid? Thanks much Boyosoap (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Dual loyalty (ethics)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Im doing a bit of a search, this article does not seem to be that heavily developed. I found an acrticle about Dual Loyalty in Medical Ethicsand in reference to jurisprudence, also in a medical context and in health care treatment for prisoners, there also was a bill introduced in the 119th Congress called the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act there are some references to the idea from the American Jewish Committee as part of their glossary of hateful terms I haven't found much in general on the idea of dual loyalty to even really credit the concept enough for an article to exist on it. ErrorTheory (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Restructuring Moral Nihilism

I was reading a bit of the articles on Moral Nihilism, metaethics, and non-cognitivism. One question I have is whether or not it would be smart to group Non-cognitivism with Moral Nihilism, as kind an alternative to error theory. Further, I think that the article on Non-Cognitivism should have the frege-geech reference in it, since the problem it poses may be broader than to just Expressivism, and can apply to other versions of Non-cognitivism. In Moral Nihilism there is reference to the "so-what" problem posed to theories like moral error theory, but I think it could be developed, posing the now-what problem, the criticisms of the problem, as well as the potential solutions/reactions to it, such as moral conservationism, moral abolitionism, moral substitutionism, and fictionalism (note moral fictionalism has a reference at the end of the article on the broader fictionalism (maybe its reference there could be expanded as well). Also note that the frege-geach problem is referenced by articles on both Quasi-Realism and Expressivism. Searches for the Frege-Geach problem refer to both, but clicking on the it from either Frege's page or Geach's page each link to its reference in Expressivism. ErrorTheory (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest being WP:BOLD and making any changes you think make sense, disagreements can be discussed as they arise on the talk page. I wasn't sure what changes you were suggesting with your first point, sorry, although any changes should be guided by how high-quality reliable sources treat the relationship between moral nihilism and noncognitivism. I agree Frege-Geach is relevant to noncognitivism broadly so worth including in that article (note that it is already being discussed under the name "embedding problem", plenty of room for expansion though).

One consideration on the suggested changes to moral nihilism: make sure that the page does not become overly-detailed, it should always be first and foremost an article summarising moral nihilism at a high level, as accessible and concise as possible. If there is lots of info on all these topics, new pages can always be created focusing specifically on them. Broader overviews (like textbooks, specialist encyclopedia articles) are always a good guide for how much space to give to different topics.

These are just my opinions though, would be interested what other editors here think. Shapeyness (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

FAC of Aesthetics

The article Aesthetics is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aesthetics/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

A well written article. Goes fast in a good way. I noticed you cite Wolterstorff but do not mention his own contribution to aesthetics (particularly in music) in the article. The same could be said of Noel Carroll. Also, nothing on the paradox of fiction? Cake (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello MisterCake and thanks for your feedback! I found a way to mention Noel Carroll and the paradox of fiction. Wolterstorff could also be included but he gets less attention from the overview sources that I'm aware of. There are other cases where philosophers are cited but not mentioned, but it's not feasible to mention all of them if we want to keep the article concise. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Good to see. The paradox of fiction especially. Theories of make believe influence thinkers in fields outside art too (mathematical fictionalism for instance). While I understand, I guess I am team thorough rather than team concise. Wolterstorff and Scruton are two I would mention. I put Guyer's high praise for Scruton on the aesthetic section of the analytic philosophy page. You can also see there that at least to me Wolterstorff is much more clearly on team "social theory" than Goodman. But that is probably why I need another editor, as I respect Guyer and you a good deal. Cake (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

These decisions are not easy and may depend on context. For example, both The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics and the Historical Dictionary of Aesthetics have very little on Wolterstorff. However, they seek to cover aesthetics at large. Works focusing on contemporary aesthetics may give more weight to Wolterstorff's views. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I would argue the reason Wolterstorff and Scruton are sources for the article is because they are prominent in the field, rather than mere historians or commentators. You are right he isn't so prominent that the Stanford Encyclopedia has a "Wolterstorff's aesthetics" page like it does for Goodman (which reads to me more like Quine than a 'social construct' guy like the article says, but what do I know). It does have a philosophy of music article with two sources from Wolterstorff. Cake (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Analytic philosophy

As others have noted on the talk page, the article was a mess. It is a work in progress, but I think I put some amount of work into it, such that now I hope a decent article is taking shape. I am not an expert in anything and so hardly an expert at everything. Any help is appreciated. Cake (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Introduction: Meet Petunia - spirituality and social change

Greetings. My contribution(s) to this Wikipedia team effort is to work with individuals who are keen to see and support new advances and insights into human well-being. If this is you, please join me in strengthening a recently submitted for review article about spirituality and social change. (I hope this is an ok request. I’m a new editor.) From my review of Wiki Projects, I would like to especially invite those from the following projects: Philosophy, Religion, Education, Psychology, Sociology and Physics-Metaphysics/Cosmology.

The help I need now is to get a strong article framework published that can be built out by future contributors across fields and disciplines. My commitment to this transdisciplinary focus is to keep putting forth material until we achieve a stable article.

If you have the passion, energy and imagination to build-out a fantastic, comprehensive social psychology theory that reformulates/reforms the phenomenon known as Maslow’s theory of self-transcendence and peak-experience. This is the place for you.

Please know that I understand that this possibly transdisciplinary effort is not a Wiki Project. Rather, it is an invitation to check out the Article under review and have fun! Your experience and expertise in your fields will be a great contribution to what I believe more likely than not is a profound addition to the fields of social psychology. I can not do this alone. Your comments, feedback, critiques, and strategies, etc. are welcomed. Thank you for your consideration. Excelsior! Petuniabaa (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have a gross misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I suggest you take the time to correct this, starting by reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, with particular attention to the sections entitled 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' and 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion'. If you want to 'support new advances and insights into human well-being' you will have to do so elsewhere, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, only covering topics which can be shown to meet our notability criteria, which is entirely dependant on there being in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Accordingly, even if your draft (Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory I presume) wasn't entirely unencyclopaedic in tone, and giving every impression of being written by an inferior imitation of ChatGPT, if it isn't an attempt at satire, it would still be rejected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

feedback and article reassessment request - Contractualism

Hello! I’ve expanded the Contractualism page. It originally had only about 2,000 bytes and just one short paragraph as most of the previous content had been deleted. I added new sections, structure, and content. This is my very first contribution to Wikipedia, and it’s part of my Wiki Education assignment for my course (Psych 220A). I’d really appreciate any feedback on how to make the article better, as well as a reassessment of its current rating.

Thank you! Ztahmasebi (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Requested move at Talk:Jean le Rond d'Alembert#Requested move 29 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jean le Rond d'Alembert#Requested move 29 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Judgement, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team