Talk:Philosophy/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Analytic tradition

Apologies, but I don't know how to work wikipedia, so I'll just ask that someone try to fix these issues. The section on the analytic tradition needs a lot of fixing. 1. ordinary language philosophy arose out of a response to Wittgenstein's Investigations, not the tractatus. 2. the idea that we can solve problems piecemeal is not restricted to ordinary language, but is pretty much typical of all analytic philosophy. Russell, who almost never considered ordinary language to be important at all, was probably the first to claim this- he wanted philosophy to follow the piecemeal scientific model, and not the big hegelian systems of philosophy. 3. I don't know much about him, but did Freud really think that philosophical problems are unrelated? It seems dubious to me, given that since he was in Germany he would have learned Hegelian philosophy, which claims everything is connected. 4."There are indications that a new revolution may be underway in English-language philosophy." I think by this point the revolution's already happened. Apparently, in the past decade, there's actually been more of a movement in analytic philosophy to bring ordinary language and analysis closer together. Anyways, something to think about. 5. Finally, Quine and Co. aren't the ones reacting to the Philosophical investigations, that's the ordinary language guys. Quine is following in the tradition of Russell and the early wittgenstein - looking at the logical structure of language, not the ways in which it is ordinarily used.

If someone makes these edits, you have my thanks! PG 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You raise interesting points, but you may have to put them in the article yourself. A few suggestions. First, put comments to talk:Philosophy at the bottom of the page, and sign with four tildes. Second, introduce one of your suggestions into the article at a time, by clicking on the EDIT icon to the right of the heading of that section. Rewrite the paragraph, in the Edit summary box type a few words to describe what you have done, and then click on Save page. Rick Norwood 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. I did something about most of your points, but didn't touch the part of the wiki that #3 talks about because that part of the article is suspicious at a conceptual level and needs to be clarified if it can be saved. Are we led to believe that Quine was not an analytic philosopher because he advocated holism? Or Peirce, because he advocated synechism? Lucidish 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Philosophy

In the Eastern philosophy section i see this paragraph - "Eastern philosophy refers to the broad traditions that originated or were popular in India, Persia, the Middle East, and China." - but i see Islamic scholars like ibn-sina (avicenna) included in Medieval Europe?? its pretty absurd. Islamic philosophy do not have the same structure or focus as Hindu-Buddhist or Chinese philosophies but they DO NOT belong in Medieval Europe! either they go into a category of their own - Mediterrainian philosophy - in which case both Islamics and Greeks belong there, or they should be in a broad category - Eastern philosophy. In both cases they should be out of Medieval Europe.

SV 17:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I respect your geographical point, but I insist that those Islamic scholars remain connected with the other medieval thinkers, as these traditions were substantially intercommunicative. To separate them out just because of where they operated would be an injustice to the history of philosophy. The simple answer is just to rename that section "Medieval philosophy". KSchutte 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, renaming it "Medieval philosophy" will do. I am not very insistent on geographical point because it is like imposing the modern idea of nation states on ancient world. I am more about cultural influences, Greeks, arabs and hebrews are mediterranean peoples with much in common. Naming sections like "medieval european philosophy" or "greek and roman philosophy" is absurd! The correct lineage would be "Mediterranean philosophy" borrowed into "Roman christian philosophy", "Eastern christians" and "Hebrew and islamic philosophy".

- SV 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Howsoever that may be, SV, please do not introduce careless grammar and stylistically inept alterations for others to mop up. Noetica 20:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be careful to the best of my english ability..but i'm looking to fix "substance" before "style"... SV 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Noetica, that at least until version 1.0, Wikipedia is very much a work in progress. Most editors welcome substance improvements like the one from SV. Allow some editors to introduce style errors while they improve articles' substance. Others will copyedit later. Also keep in mind that few editors appreciate having their efforts called "inept". The Rod (☎ Smith) 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Rodasmith and also SV. I wrote gruffly about grammar and style, and I should not have. Rodasmith, the copyedit annotation includes this elaboration: ...(checking for proper spelling, grammar, usage, tone, style, and voice). But you comment, in removing my own inserted comment: i.e. until its subject is philosophy instead of the word "philosophy". Surely you advert, therefore, to a matter of content, not one of spelling, grammar, usage, tone, style, or voice. Certainly the article could be improved in its content, but that is not a question of copyediting, is it? Hence my own suggestion. Furthermore, I disagree about something else. It seems to me that the article goes well beyond discussion of the word "philosophy", since beyond the definitional there is a great deal of quite useful history, serving as a "hub" from which users might navigate to other articles for more focused treatments. I find your opinion, as it is expressed so far, surprising. What do you think the scope of the article should be? Best wishes and respect, Noetica 23:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of the words tone and style in the {{copyedit}} annotation include the requirement for encyclopedic tone and style in the opening sentence. The opening sentence of this article describes the word philosophy instead of the topic of philosophy. I suggest that until the opening sentence describes philosophy, this article is not encyclopedic in tone or style, so the {{copyedit}} template should remain. Unfortunately, descriptions of philosophy keep reverting to descriptions of philosophy. I hope that when the major revisions are complete, we will have a definition of philosophy useful for describing philosophy in an encyclopedic opening sentence. The Rod (☎ Smith) 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

O, I see. Pardon my misunderstanding of your edit summary, which was this: The "copyedit" template should remain at least until the style of the intro is encyclopedic, i.e. until its subject is philosophy instead of the word "philosophy". But in fact you take exception not to the whole intro, but only to the first sentence, am I right? On the strength of that objection to the first sentence, you solicit copyediting for the whole article? Well, I put it to you that the first sentence is just fine. It is a normal and useful thing to define a term like "philosophy", and in so doing also to discuss its earliest acceptation, at the start of an article such as this. You write (above): Unfortunately, descriptions of philosophy keep reverting to descriptions of "philosophy". But do they? Here, in this article? I see little beyond the first two sentences that does that. I suggest that the copyedit annotation be removed. The article in its present form stands in no more need of copyediting than most other Wikipedia articles do. Respectfully yours, Noetica 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the copyedit tag deserves to be there, it isn't because of anything in the introduction. Rod is here repeating the arguments he's made a few sections up. I find the arguments uncompelling, in part because no empirical explanation can proceed without first definitively describing the topic under scrutiny, but also because the ban on definition-like activity would involve chastizing Encyclopedia Brittanica for the following introductory paragraph to epistemology:

"The study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek episteme (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge." Lucidish 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. I suspect Rod would be perfectly content with an extremely brief one-liner definition. The problem Rod is identifying is in the first couple sentences, the entire second paragraph, and the entire first section of the article. This is way too much space spent on the word "philosophy" (and some of it, such as the second paragraph, "pretends" to be talking about Philosophy rather than "Philosophy". I'm not sure I agree with Rod's interpretation of the words "tone" and "style", and I don't think that these objections fall under the ordinary usage of the term "copyedit", but I agree with him that this is still a substantial defect/fault/problem of/in this article. KSchutte 15:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not my impression. Rod: "My interpretation of the words tone and style in the {{copyedit}} annotation include the requirement for encyclopedic tone and style in the opening sentence. The opening sentence of this article describes the word philosophy instead of the topic of philosophy. I suggest that until the opening sentence describes philosophy, this article is not encyclopedic in tone or style, so the {{copyedit}} template should remain."

We can cut it back a bit, maybe integrate the definition section into the intro. Seeing as the definition section is misleadingly named - it actually discusses "anthropological" facts - this might be killing two birds with one stone. Lucidish 16:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly are the "anthropological facts" that it reports? That the Penguin Whatever of Philosophy has "some quote or other" in it? That's hardly the kind of "anthropological fact" that an article of this scope should contain. KSchutte 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary opinion upon philosophy's relation to science Lucidish 16:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, KSchutte, I would be perfectly content with a brief one-line description of philosophy. My drive is simply to alter the style of the intro so that it describes the article's topic instead of a word. And yes, I would have a difficult time defending my categorizing the introduction's focus on a word as a copyedit problem, but I don't know of a more restrictive Wikipedia template to tag style problems. The Rod (☎ Smith) 18:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused. You first said, "The opening sentence of this article describes the word philosophy instead of the topic of philosophy. I suggest that until the opening sentence describes philosophy, this article is not encyclopedic in tone or style". Presumably, something to be scrapped. Then KS said, "I suspect Rod would be perfectly content with an extremely brief one-liner definition," which is out of line with your comments, because you had said the opposite. Then, while claiming to agree with his interpretation, you go on to dispute it, by suggesting that "My drive is simply to alter the style of the intro so that it describes the article's topic instead of a word" (assuming, of course, that there is a difference between a topic and definition that is salient for the purposes of the article). What is it, exactly, that you're saying? You can't have both at once. Lucidish 02:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You're confused because you don't grasp the principle of charity. I recommend you go look that up before you try to actually do any philosophy. KSchutte 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, the principle of charity is something I disagree with in many cases, not something I "don't grasp" (or, have not given reason to show confusion towards here, since you've just brought it up now). In any case, there are a number of formulations of that doctrine: and in this particular instance, you have misused what I think is the most reasonable formulation of the principle of charity, which is constrained by the evidence (text). Other, less reasonable formulations of it, simply ignore the text in order to optimize the load of truth to the writer's statements; and this is unreasoning, irrational, anti-intellectual, etc. Perhaps you'd like me to post my arguments against it? I have quite a few. But I have the feeling this isn't the time or the place for that sort of thing. Lucidish 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the eLucidishion, Lucidish. Hm. I would have thought most articles at this level of generality must begin in something like the way this one currently does. I can't see the problem, myself. Still, I doubt that an article introducing philosophy could ever be furnished with an uncontroversial incipit. Noetica 03:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No prob. :) Lucidish 16:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we already have an article on the definition of philosophy, let's relocate text on that topic to that article, further improve that article, and then link to it from the intro of this article. — goethean ॐ 17:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh hoh!! This has been proposed more times than Georg Cantor could count. Let me just rephrase your proposal bit though: Since we already have an article on the definition of philosophy and an article on the history of philosophy, why don't we gut this useless article and replace it with something very similar to Kschutte's version and then work from there.--Lacatosias 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all in favor of this idea because then you would simply have no article left.

This article is a main article, meaning it is general in scope, and in some sense governs the rest of the set of philosophy articles. That means it may branch out a bit, providing some links to other important articles (though not to the extent to which the Philosophy Portal is meant to). It is vital that small section summaries exist to the most critical portions of the subject, i.e., the definition (in the intro), its history, fields, and applications. If smaller articles want to be redundant, then they risk making themselves insignificant. A main article, on the other hand, doesn't have to worry about that option.

Just as an aside, the "definition of..." article was created by Dbuckner, inspired by disagreements here. It was an ad hoc measure. Lucidish 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, elimination is perhaps too strong and will never acheive consensus here anyway. I think even you, in an earlier comment, agreed that the historical theme had come to overwhelmingly dominate the article however. We can therfore, at least, begin to cut back on definition (restrict to the lead, for heaven's sake and then debate its contents) and cut back dramatically on the size of the history section at some point when we someone has formulated some clear idea of what to replace it with (I don't want to do it because I will almost certainly end up stepping on everyone's toes in this context). Doesthe majority aprove of cutting back on the definitional part if this article, restricting it to the lead section and trying to come up with the most perspicuous formulation. Something that inclued the central points of Dbukcner's excellent compilation of defintions from standard works is what I'm ideally aiming at. --Lacatosias 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure, the historical bit is a monster. My feeling is that it would be good to have a tripartite division, separated into Classical, Medeival, and Modern eras, with no excess weight given to any of them. (And of course we retain the Eastern philosophy stuff because that's important.) The "modern" section will therefore be a bit difficult to summarize, and will take a crafty writer, but oh well.

I also think it's a good idea to have a little discussion of each branch of philosophy, as per your plans.

I agree that the article should not make claims that flat-out contradict those of reputable sources, but let's at least do it correctly: i.e., if there's a dispute between resources, then we either note the dispute, or we omit the topic entirely. I oppose Dbuckner's compilation because his sample has been limited and redundant. Case in point: Blackburn and metaphilosophical naturalism. A more robust discussion on this issue can be found in the archives.

Moreover, I have problems with the idea that the material in encyclopediae that is presented as certain cannot be treated with a skeptical eye. IE: even if Blackburn had not made his entry, it would still have been wrong to parrot an inaccurate claim about naturalism when you know you can verify the negation of the claim from a non-encyclopedic (but still rock-solid) resource. IE: if Encyclopedia Conyislandica tells you that externalism in epistemology is very unpopular, but you have just gotten back from an epistemology conference where everyone is shouting "THE NEW WAY OF IDEAS IS SUCK! HOORAY FOR EXTERNALISM!", and you have access to the minutes of the meeting which demonstrates that, then we have reason to treat the vaunted Encyclopedia with suspicion, and provide an outline of the disagreement (or omit the topic entirely). Lucidish 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, my careful explanation of my removing the "copyedit" annotation was lost because of an editing clash. I have removed it, though. I had spent an hour copyediting the whole article, even though that was not what was being called for by the annotation, as it emerged later. Let anyone who wants to restore the annotation reflect on the consequences if we were all to issue such markers whenever some fetish or other of ours was not duly accommodated, Rod! (O, I mean fetish in the nicest possible way...) Noetica 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I found it. Here it is:

OK, so it emerges that Rod's concern is not what it had appeared to be, pretty well by his own admission. It is not a general problem with the standard of copyediting in the article, but something of a fetish (if I may express myself so directly with impunity) for avoiding etymology, and avoiding any concern with terms rather than their referents, no matter how fleeting that concern appears in the larger context. I agree with Lucidish that other reputable encyclopedias use the same style of introduction as the one Rod censures here. Examples are easy to find. On the strength of that agreement, and after weighing the issues carefully, I'll now remove the copyedit annotation. If anyone wants to put it back, let them reflect on the consequences if everyone were to impose such ill-focused markers in articles. This one caused me to spend an hour in copyediting the article. It benefited from that work; but I would not have given that task priority if the request in the annotation had not impelled me to do it. Noetica 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how my concern ever appeared to be anything other than having the article's introduction describe philosophy instead of the word philosophy, but I am happy with your removal of the {{copyedit}} template. When this article eventually describes the topic instead of the word, I will attempt to ensure that the description appears in the introductory paragraph. The Rod (☎ Smith) 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

intro

"In the present-day context, it is used to refer to debates concerning topics such as what exists, what knowledge is (and whether it is possible), and how one should live. Philosophical literature is typically characterized by its use of reasoning in order to advance cogent arguments about these topics. Typically, these arguments involve consideration of competing views and their perceived inadequacies."

This seems to me a very negative picture of philosophy. Philosophy is "debates", "arguments", "competing views", and "perceived inadequacies".

Sadly, I get the feeling that the discussion on this page reflects that view of philosophy. No movement toward consensus, just "debates", "arguments", "competing views", and "perceived inadequacies".

Doesn't anyone have anything positive to say about philosophy? Doesn't philosophy make any positive contribution to our understanding of the universe? Rick Norwood 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you haven't even glanced at my draft of this article. It illustrates what an article on philosophy ought to look like (except, of course, that it isn't finished). KSchutte 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the view that philosophy is the love of wisdom is perfect. Lucidish 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Rick, I absolutely love your revisionist history and your overemphasis of mathematics in an article on philosophy. It just shows what an incredible authority you are on this subject. I hope someday to sit down in the philosophy classes that you teach. I'm sure I could learn so much from you. KSchutte 03:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to stay civil, or the tone is going to sit around eating at all of us. What do you think is revisionist that Rick has done? Lucidish 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to the patently false edit annotated by the comment, "There is no evidence that Plato and Aristotle actually met." That is ridiculous and absurd. No original research, Rick. Furthermore, the mathematics bits to which I take offense include:

"Bishop Berkeley's famous refutation of Isaac Newton is an exception"

"Kant's method was modeled on Euclid"

I could've sworn Rick had one or two more questionable edits, but I don't see them in a brief reading of the article, maybe someone has wisely taken them out. Keep in mind that I don't disagree with these things because I think they are false. I disagree with them because they aren't important to philosophers generally speaking, and would never be found in a similar article on philosophy. KSchutte 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Have I looked at your article on philosophy, KSchutte? No. There are, after all, more articles and books on philosophy than any one person has time to read. One the other hand, if you cared to make a contribution to this article on philosophy, then I would read it carefully and comment on it. Rick Norwood 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you have evidence that Plato and Aristotle met. Please cite your source. According to my sources, Plato was away in Syracuse when Aristotle attended the Academy.

We both agree that the article needs more philosophy in it. I've cited the bits that I know, and do not share your view that two examples of the influence of mathematics on philosophy is excessive. I've suggested that you share your knowledge of philosophy here, by contributing to the article. I suggest it again. Rick Norwood 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Which sources? I generally sympathize with your edits, Rick, but I'm afraid that everything I've been taught about Plato and Aristotle is in conflict with that claim. They're a semi-famous example of how great teachers produce great students (which is itself a noteworthy and interesting philosophical fact, now that I think of it). If that's a myth, then it would be a pretty big deal. At the very least, Raffaello Sanzio would not longer be the heartthrob amongst the hearts and minds of the youth of today. Lucidish 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Rick's only source is http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Aristotle.html which does not at all say that Plato and Aristotle never met. It says only that when Aristotle initially arrived at the Academy, Plato was on "vacation" somewhere. Apparently, Rick erroneously inferred that they had never met. Frankly, I think using a mathematics resource as your primary (if not only) resource for an article on philosophy is extremely problematic. Rick, you should at least be checking these things with other sources before you make these edits. KSchutte 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

KSchutte, you are jumping to a conclusion that my only source is a web page that in fact I have never even seen. Of course, it is impossible to prove that Plato and Aristotle never met. However, I've read a great deal of both Plato and Aristotle, as well as many of the ancient historians of the period, and I have never seen any record from the period of a meeting between the two -- which would, I think, be a big deal if it ever happened. Lucidish, you are right, if their meeting is a myth it is a big deal -- which is why I don't want this article to perpetuate the myth until someone can offer evidence that they met.

Another point by KSchutte, who says "There hadn't been a lack of communication between philosophers of these religions. There had only been a lack of philosophers of Islam." It isn't entirely clear what this means, but it seems to mean that there were no philosophers from the Islamic world before Avicenna (980-1037). I suggest he read Islamic philosophy for many counterexamples. Rick Norwood 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not my job to prove anything to you. You are the one revising history, not me. You only need to look around; verification is everywhere. (Here is a fine example, from Diogenes Laertius (just scroll down to the section on Aristotle): http://www.brainfly.net/html/diogenes.htm) As to your second point, all I meant to suggest was that the phrase "formed a confluence of traditions that had previously been largely separate" suggests that there had been some sort of ideological division between the groups prior to this time. This "separation" if we insist on calling it that, wasn't a separation of traditions, it was merely a separation of geography. They hadn't been able to communicate prior to this time. It isn't as though the philosophers had refused to speak with each other before this time. My edit was only clarificatory. I find it quite hilarious that your questionable edits are given no defense on this talk page, but you immediately revert anything that doesn't suit your whims. Go back to the math articles, please. And now, finding myself utterly dissatisfied with the level of intellectual honesty around here, I join the long list of people who announce that they will have nothing further to do with this page. I will come back when I finish my draft, but until then, all hope is lost and I see no reason to continue reading this horrible pretender of an article on philosophy. KSchutte 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a very intresting reference. I will discuss it more fully below. You say that you don't have to prove anything to me. Of course you don't. But you do have to cite references for your contributions to Wikipedia. That is all I have ever asked of you.

Yes, the traditions of the East and West were separated by geography. I would have thought that was too obvious to need stating, but if you feel it needs to be in the article, by all means put it in. I have no objection. Rick Norwood 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, here is what KSchutte said, "Remove inappropriate insinuation. There hadn't been a lack of communication between philosophers of these religions. There had only been a lack of philosophers of Islam." and here is what he says he said, "all I meant to suggest was that the phrase "formed a confluence of traditions that had previously been largely separate" suggests that there had been some sort of ideological division between the groups prior to this time. This "separation" if we insist on calling it that, wasn't a separation of traditions, it was merely a separation of geography." Do these two statements really say the same thing? Rick Norwood 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Lucidish isn't the only one who needs to read up on the principle of charity. Go to it, Rick. It might help you out. (By the way, I still think it ought to be left out that they had been "largely separate". It is utterly irrelevant.) KSchutte 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read -> comprehend -> post.

My invitation is still open, incidentally. But this is the second time where you have not even bothered to read the pertinent material, much less consider it, so I can only presume you're not actually serious about anything here. Lucidish 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

East v West

The introduction says The central goal of philosophy, according to the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy is "the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake". Which philosophy are you talking about??? In Indian philosophical traditions there is NOTHING analogous to "disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake"!! All we can find in Indian philosophical traditions is Knowledge as a "means" to an "end" called Dharma. so "own sake" "disinterested" is uniquely a Greek idea and NOT universal definition of philosophy! SV 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. On the other hand, the quote is from a scholarly reference work. I think the best way to support your point is to provide a quote from a standard work on Indian philosophy. Rick Norwood 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from - AN INTRODUCTION TO INDIAN PHILOSOPHY by Satischandra CHATTERJEE, Dhirendramohan DATTA - 4th edition Calcutta, 1950 -

In relation to Western philosophical thought, Indian philosophy offers both surprising points of affinity and illuminating differences. The differences highlight certain fundamentally new questions that the Indian philosophers asked. The similarities reveal that, even when philosophers in India and the West were grappling with the same problems and sometimes even suggesting similar theories, Indian thinkers were advancing novel formulations and argumentations. Problems that the Indian philosophers raised for consideration, but that their Western counterparts never did, include such matters as the origin (utpatti) and apprehension (jnapti????? rivedi) of truth (pramanya). Problems that the Indian philosophers for the most part ignored but that helped shape Western philosophy include the question of whether knowledge arises from experience or from reason and distinctions such as that between analytic and synthetic judgments or between contingent and necessary truths. Indian thought, therefore, provides the historian of Western philosophy with a point of view that may supplement that gained from Western thought. A study of Indian thought, then, reveals certain inadequacies of Western philosophical thought and makes clear that some concepts and distinctions may not be as inevitable as they may otherwise seem. In a similar manner, knowledge of Western thought gained by Indian philosophers has also been advantageous to them

Indian logic offers an instructive example of a logic of cognitions (jnanani) rather than of abstract propositions--a logic not sundered and kept isolated from psychology and epistemology, because it is meant to be the logic of man's actual striving to know what is true of the world SV 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In light of SV's post, dharma, I guess, is conformity to the telos of noumena; something like striving toward, loving, respecting the purpose of all things. If that's even a remotely faithful interpretation of the idea, its epistemic project would be part of a larger enterprise which is simultaniously metaphysical and ethical. I guess not quite "disinterested".

But now that I think of it, it's really just the Stoics and the more faithful among the scientists who want to pursue truth in a disinterested way. That doesn't seem like a feasible thing to apply across the board, though it is an interesting and noteworthy fact about some traditions.

It does seem to be the case that many philosophical approaches from the West see intrinsic value to truth, or as an end-in-itself; some (i.e., hedonists) would only see instrumental value in it. Lucidish 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution: cut it out!! rather than adding every version from every tradition on the face of the earth. The lead is already way too long as it is. --Lacatosias 09:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Aristotle

Did Plato and Aristotle ever meet? I cannot find any statement in the works of either where there is a mention of their meeting. Aristotle, of course, mentions Plato, but he does not mention meeting Plato.

KSchute offers as evidence of their meeting Diogenes Laertius, who wrote more than five hundred years after the death of Aristotle, and yet is able to quote what Plato said about Aristotle. The reference for the quote is Aelian. Now, Aelian also lived about five hundred years after the death of Aristotle. As for his accuracy, consider the following quote from his Wikipedia article, "The Beaver is an amphibious creature ... it understands the reason why hunters come after it with such eagerness and impetuosity, and it puts down its head and with its teeth cuts off its testicles and throws them in their path ... ." Am I wrong to wonder if Aelian might have made up a quote, just like he made up his animal lore? If this is the best evidence for such a meeting, I remain in doubt. Rick Norwood 23:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick, this isn't the place for skepticism of such sources, or of common knowledge, unless you have verifiable and serious references to the contrary. Lucidish 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Sometimes I let myself get carried away by my fascination with ancient history. Most of my reading of history is original sources, which I prefer over secondary sources, and I am often surprised how different the history we "know" now is from the history that was known at the time. It is sometimes as if a historian a thousand years in the future wrote a history of our time with nothing to go on but issues of the National Enquirer. Rick Norwood 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I am sad to admit, my 4000AD counterpart on Hypo-wiki-telepedia will defend the existence of Batboy to no end. Lucidish 01:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate the lack of ancient sources that have survived that might have proved such a connection between Plato and Aristotle. On the other hand, there is a complete lack of evidence that suggest that they didn't meet, in which case, we would have to go with the opinion that they had (there are, after all, claims about this dating back quite a long ways...). The problem with real ancient history is the paucity of sources, which means that (in many cases) ancient history is reconstructed on the basis of so few sources that with more contemporary events, we would be inclined to think it questionable at best. Nevertheless, the strong ancient tradition that Plato and Aristotle did meet and the lack of ancient sources that they didn't makes for a fairly strong prima facie case (one should note that Aristotle's tenure at the Academy was quite a bit prior to true acclaim as a philosopher; nor does he seem to have been the star pupil; rather it is history -- and the divisions within the Academy that arose after Plato's death that gave Aristotle his particular place, as such, it should be no real surprise that the "meeting" of two such great philosophers may pass unrecognized in their own writings -- although Aristotle does make a good number of references to Plato's philosophy). Ig0774 09:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

(Since the previous discussion was archived, I reiterate my unanswered proposal here.) I propose that the focus of the introduction be a topic instead of a word. In order to accomplish that, the article should open with one or more sentences with philosophy as their subjects, e.g.:

Philosophy is the study of a diverse range of frameworks and essentially second-order cognitive activities, including aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Various schools, traditions, and methodologies of philosophy hold differing areas of focus and views about the subject and nature of philosophy, some including the fields of politics, physics, and religion. The fundamental method of philosophy involves the systematic use of critical reasoning to evaluate arguments in defence of assertions of belief or opinion.

I am not committed to the specific claims of that description—it is merely a consolidation of other content already in the article. I also understand the desire to retain the etymology of philosophy near the beginning of the article. To accomodate that desire and still focus the introduction on the topic instead of the word, I only suggest that a description of philosophy appear before the etymology of the word. Respectfully, The Rod (☎ Smith) 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lucidish 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the new intro -- mostly. I'm not entirely happy with the construction "frameworks and essentially second-order cognitave activities"...not that it is wrong, just that it is a bit heavy for the first sentence in the article. How about just "Philosophy is the study of a diverse range of ideas, including..." Rick Norwood 22:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I rather agree with your comments. I don't think the point of the introduction as it had been was accuracy so much as clarity: the current incarnation sacrifices the latter for the former. In fact, I think that the introductory paragraph is a bit too dense... on the other hand, in manages to accurately capture the spirit of some philosophers: a lot of big words, not a lot of actual content... I don't intend to argue for the previous version of the introduction -- there were serious flaws with that too... One should perhaps note, too in the third paragraph, the two notions given from two separate dicitonaries are not actually (or in any obvious way) contradictory.

Perhaps the way to go with this is not really to attempt to give a "definition" (seeing how hard that is), but to provide more of an introduction... i.e. "Philosophy is concerned with..." rather than "Philosophy means...". I, for one, am not sure that "philosophy" means anything at all (which is just to say that the subject matter of "philosophy" is defined by "philosophers" rather than any other criteria, unlike just about any science -- but that is neither here nor there). Ig0774 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They can be contrasted so long as scientific research is understood to be a field of intellectual inquiry. Lucidish 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Crticial Theory

Should Critical theory (Frankfurt school) have a mini-section on it in the "modern philosophy" section? -- infinity0 18:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind

Any comments (up or down) would be appreciated.--Lacatosias 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the huge phrenology diagram which seems out of place. As a purely historical subject it shouldn't take up that much space. -- infinity0 19:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, what is it with you people on the English-based Wiki. All of the images were borrowed from the FA German version. The German articles on philosphy of mind are almost ALL FEATURED ARTICLES. If you don't like the phrenology brain, what would you suggest as a replacement? Exactly, that's what I thought. Philosophy images are all over the place, aren't they?? I almost think it's a contradiction in terms. Yet absolutley no one can put in doubt the fact that the reason there era so few Fueatured Articles in philosophy is partly because of a lack of images.--Lacatosias 10:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The devil take me as I had forgotten the most fundamental point though. Phrenology was the first systematic attempt to specify which parts of the brain gave rise to which mental functions (or states or whatever your preferred term is). This was the basis for Fodor's important modularity of mind hypothesis and has also been vindicated to some extent by modern studies of the neural correlate of consciousness, the neural correlate of this, the neural correlate of that, etc.. It is still very much oen to dispute whether, and to what extent, mental states can be localized in speficic brain areas. We now know, for example, that the amygdala is the locus of fear and anxiety, the orbito-frontal cortex plays a huge part in planning and decision making, the areas of Broca and Wernicke have to do with very specific aspects of language. So it is not just of historical interest.--Lacatosias 11:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I barely know anything about the mainstays of philosophy of mind, it's an adventure to learn more. One thing I might add (if space allows) is the research of Benjamin Libet and reactions to it in the free will section. Lucidish 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that would belong in an article concerning the consequences of neuro-scienctific research for the free will debate. The article free will or determinism for example. The last section attempts to address the consequences (if there are any) of positions such as materialistic monism in general on the free will debate. Besides, the article is supossed to be an overview as broad and "reductive" (if you will excuse the pun) as possible.

--Lacatosias 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

More East v west concerns

I hate to point out that the article is almost singularly about western traditions. There is NO mention of the pioneers in the philosophy of mind, the oldest school of dualism, samkhya of circa 600 BCE or buddhist idealist traditions like yogacara whose ideas were borrowed by many medieval/ modern philosophers. SV 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I will be adding this information ASAP.--Lacatosias 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional information about Eastern philosophy would be welcome. Rick Norwood 22:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, reading yogacara as preliminary idealism has its problems too (idealism focuses on the conscious subject — but who is this conscious subject? Neverthelesss, Eastern philosophy is sorely lacking on this page. Any additions would be most welcome. Ig0774 09:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

wording

KSchutte and I disagree on the best wording. I am happy to accept a third opinion. The only difference is in the final clause.

Version A: "The philosophers in the scholastic Christian tradition and philosophers in the other major Abrahamic religions, such as the Jewish philosophers Saadia Gaon and Maimonides, and the Muslim philosophers Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, and Averroes, formed a confluence of traditions that had previously been largely separate."

Version B: "The philosophers in the scholastic Christian tradition and philosophers in the other major Abrahamic religions, such as the Jewish philosophers Saadia Gaon and Maimonides, and the Muslim philosophers Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, and Averroes, were intercommunicative."

Comments? Rick Norwood 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Does some mainstream source specifically mention that the Christian and other Abrahamic traditions had previously been largely separate or that the mentioned philosophers were the first to bridge a communication gap? The Rod (☎ Smith) 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice quote from The Age of Faith by Will Durant. In a paragraph on Avicenna and other Islamic scholars such as Al Jabir, he writes, "Arabic, like all medeival science, was often sullied with occultims...at the same time, however haltingly, it developed in alchemy that experimental method which is the greatest pride and tool of the modern mind. When Roger Bacon proclaimed that method to Europe, five hundred years after Jabir, he owed his illumination to the Moors of Spain, whose light had come from the Moslem East." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs) 2006-03-18 00:07:13 (UTC)

Nomination for Sophia Star

I nominated User:Kenosis for the Star of Sophia. If anyone else agrees, support the award. -- infinity0 01:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Second sentence of new intro

Ok, I've simplified the first sentence of the new intro. Here is the second sentence:

"Various schools, traditions, and methodologies of philosophy hold differing areas of focus and views about the subject and nature of philosophy, some including the fields of politics, physics, and religion."

How about:

"Various philosophical traditions have different concepts of the methods and topics properly included in philosophy. Some, for example, would include politics, physics, or religion."

Comments? Suggestions? Rick Norwood 17:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is more economical. I wanted to point out that it leaves out the notion of "focus" or "emphasis". I don't know, though, whether that really matters, especially in an intro. Probably not. Lucidish 17:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear what it means for various traditions to "have different concepts of the methods... included in philosophy". Perhaps other readers would be similarly confused. Does the following revision preserve the meaning clearly?

Various philosophical traditions use different methods and include different topics in their study. Some, for example, would include politics, physics, or religion.

The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your version looks ok to me. Rick Norwood 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I jumped in a bit hastily. I think it looks better in the order I left it than I found it, but if there is a general concensus that handling it the other way round is the way to go I have no criticism of that. I might try to (help with suggestions to) make the two paras seem to clash less. I do think if it is causing much trouble to decide on the order of these, it may be a long process - but clearly one with much less heat than some. Midgley 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the content-free statement asserting that an attempt can be made to point out some of the central features of the word philosophy, combined the remaining content about the term into one paragraph, and changed the second sentence per the above suggestion. If my change failed to preserve the meaning of that sentence, feel free to fix it. The Rod (☎ Smith) 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist fancruft

Category:Atlas_Shrugged - Why are there 8 articles on one book? In all other cases this would be fancruft and deleted immediately. Comments to Category talk:Atlas Shrugged, please. -- infinity0 23:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just nominate them for deletion if you want to get into it. Lucidish 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a request for comment. Nominating 8 articles for deltion is tedious; they could and should be merged into the main "atlas shrugged" article. But please direct all comments to Category talk:Atlas Shrugged. I've opened an RFC for it. -- infinity0 23:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged. -- infinity0 21:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Empiricism = Rationalism?

In many parts of this article, empiricism has been attributed as a part of rationalism or logical thought. However, empiricism and rationalism are opposites in a way. Empiricism deals with experimenting to see whether something is true according to the experimentations or not. Logic, however, deals with, having some basic assumptions, developing theories from these basics, without testing, only using the power of deduction and thought. --Andrelvis 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Where abouts? Lucidish 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes on Consciousness and Mind

Some of you who have an interest in the subject may wish to take a look at the recent history of changes to consciousness and Mind. I'll let you come to your own conclusions about what's necessary. Alienus 07:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks A. Could you do me a favor and post this on the

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Philosophy of Mind (I need a short-cut for this, BTW. But how does one make short-cuts?) There are probably thousnds of such artciles that need to be looked at. I don't even know about the existence of 90% of them, in all probability.--Lacatosias 07:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy of Mind. Alienus 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD objectivist fancruft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places in Atlas Shrugged - please vote. -- infinity0 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lac proposal

I had thought the Modern era section would have been compressed by now, and the rest of the material been rearranged into the "branches of philosophy" form that Lac had proposed. Has this plan been abandoned? Lucidish 00:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, here's what I've done just now.

Changed section heading "modern philosophy" to "philosophical topics", to move the article more in line with Lac's proposal. The text there still reads in a historical sort of way, but that shouldn't distract the presentation of the broader themes and ideas presented. A single paragraph in the philosophical topics section was transferred a section up into the historical section, under the subheading "modern western philosophy".
A bit of text in the rationalism-empiricism subsection misleadingly implied that Locke was a "naturalist", and Hume the first empiricist. This is obviously wrong, so I changed it.

Something problematic: the sentence "During this era, religious philosophy did not play a large role in the struggles that occupied secular philosophy" is either misleading (assuming "secular philosophy" to mean "not on the face of it pertaining to issues of God, etc") or trivially true (assuming the same to mean "completely non-religious philosophy"). Assuming the former, and assuming we take "this era" to mean "the Modern era", it counts as a counter-example that Descartes was completely religious; that God was his one of his clear and distinct solutions to the dilemmas in the Meditations. Locke's generally secular outlook on politics had great stake in religion: the man thought atheists were not to be trusted, and was at pains to advocate religious toleration on grounds that did not have to admit the fallibility of religion. The more stark example of Berkeley, already mentioned in the text, is an understatement: it is not just his disputes with Newton, but rather, absolutely anything that Berkeley said, which could not be divorced from his religious views (including his theory of vision). Malebranche is another example. It's my impression that there wasn't a genuine "cooling off" from appeals to religion until the late modern period. So I recommend the sentence be scrapped. Lucidish 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good edit, Lucidish. About the disputed sentence, I agree that, if it belongs at all, it is in the wrong place. I think that there has been a separation between religion and philosophy, but I don't think it really took hold until the 19th century or later. Today, I don't see much communication between philosophers and religious people, except to hiss at each other when the pass in the hall. Rick Norwood 13:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Made a few changes. I still don't like the paragraph, though, because I don't know whether or not Burke was as secular as is currently implied. Lucidish 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I still dislike the Rousseau-Burke sentence. Don't know what to do with it. Advice would be helpful.

Lucidish 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Whither social philosophy?

I realize this discipline is the black sheep in philosophy, but I find it very strange that it has no role at all on this page. We find here only topics of epistemology and metaphysics. Where's ethics and political theory? Lucidish 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a very strange omission. Could something perhaps be made from the already-existing "applied philosophy" section — even though it only briefly mentions ethics and pretty much just has a list of political theorists? I am not quite sure in what direction this page is moving so I don't want to muck around too much with it myself without a clearer sense of where other people think these topics belong... Ig0774 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss the stuff too much, since the article is already far too long. However, yeah, that which is (mistakenly) put in the "applied philosophy" section can be used.

The edit that I just wrote included a category shuffle to make way for an ethics/political/social philosophy subsection. The 'traditions' stuff was transferred upwards to the history section, where it beefs up the 'modern era' subsection, which was a bit flimsy anyway.Lucidish 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good edit. Its nice to finally have a little more detail on the 'social' side of philosophy. Ig0774 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Analytic and Continental

Does anyone else find this section a little silly? I understand why it is here on the page, but it seems to take up a great deal of space to say what could easily be said in a sentence or two (especially given the relative terseness of the rest of the article). Ig0774 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be shortened considerably and combined with the previous section. Rick Norwood 15:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion. I used to think it was a useless distinction, and still think it's the product of nationalistic rivalry. But the section as it is written here is actually quite helpful and illuminating, and shows that the ill-named "continental" tradition is something other than just a strawman. One thing I would like to do, and am going to do right after writing this post, is move it upwards into the history section. Lucidish 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what particular parts of it you find helpful and illuminating. Let me point to some problems I see with it as it is now:

What actually get considered is a very narrow range of the traditions that get labelled as "continental philosophy" — although admittedly Husserlian phenomenology is important to the "continental" traditions, it is hardly the end-all and be-all (one might consider the critical theory espoused by Jurgen Habermas or the rather eclectic musings of Gilles Deluze as counter-points to this). The same might be said of "analytic philosophy", since externalism is hardly an uncontroversial thesis.
The notion it gives of Husserlian "intentionality" is just plain wrong: for Husserl mental phenomena are intentional, but this is not the same as saying they have an "external" object (at least in the sense of McDowell's externalism) — the intentional object, for Husserl, is distinct from consciousness (though consciousness is not distinct from its object), but not thereby accessible to other observers nor simply a report of a physiological state (admittedly, this interpretation may apply to Husserl's later work depending on how one interprets Leibwelt). In short, intentional objects are distinct from consciousness, but may not be distinct from "the mind itself" (one can, for example, intend an idea).
Relationship to Descartes and empiricism: the relationship in "both" traditions is somewhat more ambivalent than mere "rejection". For example, Husserl's Cartesian Meditations traces phenomenology as the reopening of aspects of Descartes' thought.
The date 1950: one could quite readily point out that the majority of the works alluded to by this section (with the exceptions only of McDowell and Evans) were all written before 1950. (This is a pretty minor point...).

None of this is to say that there are not serious overlaps (particularly noteworthy being the similarities between Russell and Husserl on reference). As I see it, the need for this section arose because the distinction between "analytical" and "continental" philosophy is promulgated by philosophy departments, at least English-language philosophy departments, and so there is some need to explain this division and also how "philosophy" still designates a particular mode of research. It is this later point that I think could be developed in a couple of sentences (particularly as the rest of the article develops something about the foundations of both "analytical" and "continental" philosophy which should, hopefully, remove the idea of "continental" philosophy as a strawman). Ig0774 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of the role of psychologism and empiricism in the analytic and continental traditions is what I would find illuminating. However, this distinction is not one I'm especially sympathetic to (i.e., I find Habermas to be writing in the ordinary language tradition -- analyticity and continents be damned). After your remarks, I'm not especially confident in the accuracy of the presentation made on the wiki; though keep in mind that my remarks are that of a confused student, and not a strident critic. Lucidish 18:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree that the difference (différance anyone?) between "analytical" and "continental" philosophy is a bit a false division. It seem to me to be more a linguistic and geographical difference than a difference in methodology or subject matter. For example, Paul Ricoeur's last book makes extensive use of such "analytical" figures as Bernard Williams, G.E.M. Anscombe, J.L. Austin, etc. (Ricoeur himself is identified mainly as a "continental" thinker). The point about the rejection psychologism and empiricism as "the" philosophical method, however, is a good point and perhaps deserves some mention, maybe as a turning point for what is distinctively "contemporary" philosophy. Ig0774 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder: should the Analytic tradition section be merged with the Prominence of Logic section? I swear this is a repeat of a conversation that must have already happened, but nevertheless, I don't see any reason why the two can't be amalgamated, especially since there's already an "Analytic v contiental" subsection in the history section. Lucidish 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that these two sections are getting at different sorts of ideas. Of course the rise of "ordinary language philosophy", as discussed in the "Analytic" section is historically related to the "Prominence" section, but if we are moving to a more topical approach and a less historical one, then these ideas should probably be differentiated somehow. Ig0774 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Random Observations

What is the section "philosophical topics" trying to capture? Philosophical schools? Philosophical systems?
Interesting that neither the words "realism" nor "idealism" (nor "monism") appear in this article at all.
What does "The fundamental method of philosophy involves the systematic use of critical reasoning to evaluate arguments that defend assertions of belief or opinion" mean? i.e. how do we parse it?
ditto "mathematical logic became a central point in metaphysical arguments, a prominence that it had not enjoyed previously"
What is this trying to say: "Mathematical logic differed from Aristotelian logic in several important respects. For example, a statement with a true conclusion was considered to be a true statement, whether the hypothesis was true or not." Particularly the second sentence.
The section on the analytic tradition suggests that Freud and Einstein and "continental thinker Mikhail Bakhtin" fall into the category of analytic philosophers.
In the section on Consequentialism a paragrapph begins "Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are famous for propagating utilitarianism", then the next paragraph begins "In reaction to this view, Immanuel Kant argued …". In what sense was Kant's work a "reaction" to the view of Mill and Bentham? Dbuckner 07:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Some random responses:

That sentence in the introduction: I'm not sure it really means anything at all. I was actually fairly disappointed to see that sentence reappear in the article. That said, I believe the central point of it is that philosophy uses "reasoning" and evaluates "arguments" — this rather problematic notion arose out of a process of trying to come up with something to put there, to describe "philosophy". I can't speak to why the phrase "systematic use" is necessary or that particular qualification of "arguments". Moreover, the whole notion seems to me to deny a very important part of philosophy: making new "arguments".
Mathematical logic: I take it this phrase refers to formal logic. The first phrase seems to refer to the application of mathematical logic to philosophical problems themselves — that is using mathematical logic not only to talk about the nature of logical systems, but also to analyze the logic of non-mathematical propositons. The only sense I can make out of the other sentence is that it might refer to arriving at a true conclusion by proving that its negation is inconsistent (i.e. assuming the opposite).
The "analytical tradition" thing. I found those mentions particularly strange too. The only way I can make sense of the reference is that the paragraph itself refers mostly to "ordinary language" philosophy, the ideas of which are not limited to "analytical" philosophy. Its still rather strange to refer to Mikhail Bakhtin as a "continental thinker", but hey.
Kant and Consequentialism: Kant does explicit reject the notion that consideration of the consequences (a good reference is to the case of the inquiring murderer). In the Critique of Practical Reason he also rejects that happiness could possibly be "the highest good". Thus, he seems to reject Bentham's fundamental hypotheses. At the same time, neither of these two directly responds to Bentham — and Kant certainly couldn't have "responded" to Mill... Ig0774 09:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical topics is about just that, philosophical topics. While it may include systems and schools, it may also describe general topics (i.e., 'the prominence of logic').

Confused. "Idealism" appears in the Kant heading, in discussion of German idealism. Monism and realism don't appear, I guess, because the relative focus seems to be on epistemology instead of metaphysics. Which is not to say that that's a good thing, but just to say that that's what's in the article right now.

Parsing (as far as I can tell):

a) (The fundamental method of philosophy) involves [the systematic use of critical reasoning to (evaluate arguments that <defend assertions of belief or opinion>)].

b) Mathematical logic became (a central point in metaphysical arguments -- a prominence that it had not enjoyed previously.)

Kant was reacting to both consequentialism and hedonism. Hedonism is not mentioned explicitly, but consequentialism is, leaving little doubt as to what is being referred to. (And it was in reaction to the view, not necessarily the view as held by Mill, which as Ig points out would be impossible). I'll edit it so it's even more clear, though. Lucidish 15:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that some of this is coming back to haunt us now. I tried to get an introduction that said that logic was a subject studied by philosophy, rather than that philosophy was a subject studied by using logic. But I was shouted down.

"Realsim" and "idealism" are a little out of date, today, but they should certainly be in the historical section.

"The fundamental method of philosophy involves the systematic use of critical reasoning to evaluate arguments that defend assertions of belief or opinion" is a meaningless compromise between two sentences that actually said something -- I forget now what they were.

Mathematical logic as a subject is barely one hundred years old, so I suppose it did not enjoy anything in the time before it existed.

"Mathematical logic differed from Aristotelian logic in several important respects. For example, a statement with a true conclusion was considered to be a true statement, whether the hypothesis was true or not." I wrote this, but I did not write it well. What I should have written for the second sentence is: In Aristotelian logic, a conclusion must actually follow from the hypotheses. In mathematical logic, any implication with a true conclusion is considered true, whether the conclusion follows from the hypotheses. As an example, the statement "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is invalid in Aristotelian logic but true in mathematical logic. Rick Norwood 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What then did the Aristotelian logicians mean by 'ex falso quodlibet'? Dbuckner 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, do you mean that "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold" is a statment, or an inference. Or do you mean "If June has 30 days then ice is cold" is a statement? Dbuckner 20:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ex falsis potest sequi verum - from something false, something true may follow. Dbuckner 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rick, my impression is that the terms "idealism" and "realism" have a lot of currency in contemporary discussions, especially the latter. There are all kinds of realists at the current stage of the game, and not so many idealists. But as fads go, realism is strong. Cornell is appearantly a bee's hive of so-called "moral realists", which should show how forceful the present-day commitment seems to be. And still, idealism still finds use as a historical example of a philosophical error. Lucidish 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

'ex falso quotlibet' is the correct deduction of a true conclusion from false premises. For example, All women are mortal. Socrates is a woman. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The conclusion is true and follows from the primises, even though the minor premise is false.

In mathematical logic, a statement is a sentence that is either true or false. Thus, for example, "June has 30 days." and "Ice is cold." are both statements. Again, speaking only of mathematical logic, any two statements can be connected by "and", "or", "implies", or "=" to form a new statement (also, any statement can be negated, forming a new statement). Thus "June has 30 days implies ice is cold." is true as far as mathematical logic goes, but not true in Aristotelian logic. Also, in mathematical logic, all of the following statement forms are equivalent: A implies B; if A then B; A only if B; B if A; not A or B; not B implies not A; if not B then not A; B or not A; and so on.

An inference has a slightly different form, essentially Aristotle's Modus Ponens or Modus Tolens: for example, All A are B. x is an A. Therefore, x is a B is a valid inference.

I love this stuff. Rick Norwood 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But the question was, whether "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold" is a statement, or an inference. You used the word "therefore". On the other point, are you saying that Aristotelian logic denies that "if June has 30 days then ice is cold." is a true statement? What is your basis for this assertion? Dbuckner 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"If June...is cold." is a statement, not an inference. In logic before mathematical logic, (before roughly 1900), there was a requirement that in an implication, the conclusion must follow from the hypothesis. The statement "If June...is cold." would be considered false because it would be understoon to assert that "Ice is cold." followed logically from the premise "June has 30 days." Rick Norwood 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The prominence of logic

"With the publication of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica in 1910-1913, mathematical logic became a central point in metaphysical arguments, a prominence that it had not enjoyed previously. The steps needed to put logic on a solid mathematical basis had been begun earlier in the work of Bernard Bolzano and Gottlob Frege, but it wasn't until publication of the Principia that the philosophical world began to take notice. Mathematical logic differed from Aristotelian logic in several important respects. In Aristotelian logic, a conclusion must actually follow from the premises. In mathematical logic, any implication with a true conclusion is considered true, whether the conclusion follows from the premises or not. As an example, the statement "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is invalid in Aristotelian logic but true in mathematical logic. With the increased interest in mathematical logic came the rise in popularity for the view known as logical positivism and related theories, all of which shared a commitment to the reliability of empirical tests. Philosophers such as Rudolf Carnap and Karl Popper considered only confirmable or falsifiable claims to be genuine philosophy; anything that could not be deduced from testable claims was considered mere superstition or dogma."

1. The sentence "mathematical logic became a central point in metaphysical arguments" is badly written. A 'point' is an item or detail, rather than an entire subject area.

2. It should be "philosophical arguments" rather than "metaphysical arguments". Those who favoured a logical approach tended to eschew 'metaphysics', and to despise the word – the current wording misleadingly suggests that they did not.

3. "a prominence that it had not enjoyed previously" need to be in apposition to something – but to what? Also, given that mathematical logic did not exist previously, it is banal to say that it did not enjoy any prominence, previously.

4. "The steps needed to put logic on a solid mathematical basis had been begun earlier in the work of Bernard Bolzano and Gottlob Frege" – this is historically misleading (no mention of Boole, Peirce, Venn & the rest).

5. "The statement "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is invalid in Aristotelian logic but true in mathematical logic" – I have asked for evidence of this claim (or at least some qualification of the meaning of "Aristotelian logic").

6. "In mathematical logic, any implication with a true conclusion is considered true" – this misleadingly suggests that the same is not true of "Aristotelian logic", at least where "Aristotelian logic" includes all logic in the two thousand year period between Aristotle and Peirce. The Latin "ex falso quodlibet" should surely alert us to the medieval origin of this principle. Also, shouldn't it be "any implication with a true consequent is considered true"? It seems to confuse "consequent" with "conclusion". Note "Any inference with a true conclusion is considered valid" is not true at all. See here http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/tru-val.htm#case3

7. "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is technically (because of the word 'therefore') an inference, not a statement. It is not a valid inference in mathematical or Aristotelian logic. The corresponding statement "IF June has 30 days THEN ice is cold" is of course true (which is what the author meant, I think). And the inference "June has 30 days and if June has 30 days then ice is cold, THEREFORE ice is cold", is valid in Aristotelian logic, as well as mathematical logic (I think the author meant that it is not valid in the syllogistic – but Aristotelian logic is not restricted to the syllogistic, of course, and in any case it is not so much that it is invalid in the syllogistic, but that it does not have syllogistic form in the first place). Dbuckner 11:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point. On the talk page you (Rick) say "In mathematical logic, a statement is a sentence that is either true or false.". So why do you say "the statement "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is invalid in Aristotelian logic" in the main article (if it was you who said that)? You should have said "the statement "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is FALSE in Aristotelian logic". And, as I have already pointed out, that is not true. The distinction between formal and material implication was well understood from Ockham's time onwards. Dbuckner 11:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the paragraph on logic being poorly written, though your objection that it doesn't mention everybody is not reasonable. I'll try to help rewrite it. As to you other points, I've explained them in some detail, so I am having trouble understanding why you are repeating the questions. In particular, in mathematical logic, "June...cold." is a statement, not an inference. Both "June...therefore...cold" and "If June...then cold." are symbolized by A → B and are considered equivalent. See, for example, "Introduction to Logic" by Suppes or "Logic for Mathematicians" by Hamilton or any other basic textbook in mathematical logic. I explained the meaning of "ex falso quodlibet" and why "June...cold," is not an example of "ex falso" already. And why you cite Ockham when I'm talking about Aristotle is not clear to me. In fact, I'm not sure I understand your point in this discussion. If it is that the paragraph in question needs a rewrite, please rewrite it. Rick Norwood 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I followed your link, above, and think I now understand some of your confusion. There is a difference between the statement: June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," which is considered True, and the argument scheme Statement One: June has 30 days. Statement two: Therefore ice is cold. This is an invalid argument scheme. In words, they sound similar. In symbols, they look very different. The first, as I mention above, would look like this:

A → B

while the second would look like this:

A

_

B

Rick Norwood 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

> I followed your link, above, and think I now understand some of your > confusion. There is a difference between the statement: June has 30 days > therefore ice is cold," which is considered True, and the argument scheme > Statement One: June has 30 days. Statement two: Therefore ice is cold.

It is you who are confused. I've already said that the word 'therefore' signals an inference, not a statement. In any case, you seem incapable of seeing the difference between the two forms. I said "the question was, whether "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold" is a statement, or an inference". And you replied "If June...is cold." is a statement, not an inference! You managed to misquote even the question you were replying to!

"why you cite Ockham when I'm talking about Aristotle is not clear to me.

You were talking about 'Aristotelian logic', not 'Aristotle's logic'. The main article talks about 'Aristotelian logic' as though there was nothing in between that and Frege. E.g. 'Mathematical logic differed from Aristotelian logic in several important respects'. And you say

"In logic before mathematical logic, (before roughly 1900), there was a requirement that in an implication, the conclusion must follow from the hypothesis. The statement "If June...is cold." would be considered false because it would be understoon to assert that "Ice is cold." followed logically from the premise "June has 30 days."

I.e. you are clearly not talking about Aristotle's logic but 'logic before mathematical logic'. And the rest of what you say here is plain wrong, or confused.

"The statement "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold," is invalid in Aristotelian logic but true in mathematical logic"

You are saying a statement is invalid? Who exactly is confused? Dbuckner 21:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not writing sufficiently carefully. You are correct, I should have written "June has 30 days implies ice is cold," instead of "June has 30 days therefore ice is cold." In any case, this point has no place in the article, and isn't there any more. Rick Norwood 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We'll forgive the lack of care. But there is a deeper point. Whatever you were trying to say about traditional (i.e. pre-1900) logic, the fact remains that, in this matter, there is no difference between traditional and modern logic. The difference between material and formal implication, between conditional statements like 'if grass is green then 2+2=4" and inferences like "Man is an animal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is an animal" were well understood from medieval times onwards. There are considerable differences between the two kinds of logic, but this is not one of them. The fact that all the terms used in this part of logic are Latin (modus ponens, modus tollens, antecedent, consequent, material, formal, consequence, inference &c) tells you immediately that these ideas originated in medieval times. Dbuckner 07:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Carl Prantl and Wilhelm Risse

I notice that Wikipedia has no articles on these two major historians of logic. I don't know enough to write such articles, but somebody should tackle the job. Rick Norwood 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling. Carl with a 'K'. And a 'von' I think. Prantl was not taken very seriously by most later historians (or indeed at the time). Dbuckner 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Karl Von Prantl. I'll fix links to "Carl Prantl" in Aristotelian logic. He was wrong, but he was wrong in a way that expressed the common thinking of his time. Rick Norwood 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What common thinking? Prantl's theory that Peter of Spain's Summulae had a Byzantine origin was immediately attacked and then refuted at the end of the nineteenth century. Peirce, a contemporary, wrote that Prantl's Geschichte der Logik was 'flippant and wildly theorizing'. 'He belongs to that too well-known class of German critics who get bitten with theories deduced from general conceptions, and who fall in love with these theories because they are their own offspring and treat them as absolute certainties although the complete refutation of them is near at hand'. 'Prantl's opinions … about what he calls the Byzantine logic, about the Latin medieval logic, about the Parva Logicalia, are wild theories, utterly untenable, and in several cases easily refuted by an easy examination of the MSS'. 'There is no need of mincing words because he himself not only refers most disrespectfully to such solid students of medieval writings as Charles Thurot, Haureau and others, but frequently descends to what in English we should call the language of Billingsgate in characterising ancient opinions which he may or may not be aware are identical with those held today by analysts of logical forms whose studies are so much more exact than his that they are not to be named in the same day'. Lukaziewicz writes that Prantl's view on the fourth figure 'reveals, in my opinion, Prantl's entire ignorance of logic'.Dbuckner 07:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you know much more about von Prantl than I. That being the case, you may want to correct the following paragraph from Aristotelian logic"

"There was a tendency in this period to regard logical inference as trivial, which in turn no doubt stifled innovation in this area. Immanuel Kant thought that there was nothing else to invent after the work of Aristotle, and a famous logic historian called Karl von Prantl claimed that any logician who said anything new about logic was "confused, stupid or perverse." These examples illustrate the general tendency during the period between the 13th century and the 19th century to accept without question the work of Aristotle. He had already become known by the Scholastics (medieval Christian scholars) as "The Philosopher." The dogmatism created by the Scholastics in favor of Aristotle took a long time to disappear."

And, no, I didn't write any of that, though I did correct the spelling of the name. Rick Norwood 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Idealism and realism (response to Lucidish)

Just to make sure we are speaking the same language here: by "idealism" I understand Aristotle's belief that ideas such as "the good" and "justice" were just ideas, with no physical reality, as contrasted with "realism" which, if we take Plato literally, was his belief that "the good" and "justice" had a real existance, were in fact more real than chairs and tables. And now you are telling me that at Columbia, they are all realists, and consider idealism as a refuted philosophy. Well, actually nothing that comes out of Columbia University surprises me. But if they take this view anywhere between Columbia and Berkeley, then I am surprised. Rick Norwood 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, no no no, that's not what I mean at all. Or, at least, I meant something else by "idealism". Idealism is generally a metaphysical term used to describe views like Berkeley's, which sees ideas themselves as the only things that exist. But what I mean by realism is something similar to what you expressed. It's a term that's used to talk about those positions which attribute reality to things, beit logical objects or moral values or whatever.

Cornell, not Columbia. And not all of them believe in moral realism, there's just a little circle there who do. At least, that's what Robert Shaver wrote in one of his articles (he called them the "Cornell naturalists"; and all naturalists in the meta-ethical sense are realists).

I get the impression that in Anglo-American countries in general idealism is not looked upon very highly. Lucidish 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand how people can believe that ideas have any existence outside the mind. Since minds have been in the universe for only the blink of an eye, and will be gone in another heartbeat (compared to the eons between the big bang and the long heat death of entropy) do these people, be they Berkeleian idealists or Platonic realists, really think moral values existed before thinking beings and will survive them?

One of my favorite poems is by Crane:

"Man said to the universe, "Sir, I exist."

"However," replied the universe, "That does not create in me

"A sense of obligation."

Rick Norwood 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In Berkeley's case -- with only one very obscure and unpublishable exception -- he thought that all that there was to existence was inside of the mind. He denied the existence of anything that was not an idea. In slogan form, his views were: "To be, is to perceive, or to be perceived."

So your comments can only be directed towards realism, or at least, only toward moral realism. Moral realism is basically this view that Peter Railton has where there are moral facts which have to do with 'relational and dispositional facts' about the world. Values and morals don't end up being independent from us for their status as "real", though, because they're relational (meaning, I guess, that they have to do with our relation to the world). Lucidish 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of recent structural changes

I must say I think recent changes to the structure of this article have made it a considerably worse article. The section on the history of philosophy is only a short paragraph about modern philosophy, half of which is devoted to explain how modern philosophy differed from medieval philosophy and what occurred during the Renaissance; the other half of the paragraph consists of two sentences about Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Bacon (1561-1626). (To the right of this section is now an image of Confucius.) At that point we jump ahead to the 1950's!

Does it seem strange to anyone that a summary of the history of Western philosophy, which arguably has it's place in an article about philosophy, should not mention Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Wolff, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Bentham, Mill, Nietzsche, Peirce, James, Dewey, Frege, Wittgenstein or Sartre? It's not that it omits a few of them; it omits all of them.

Instead, what had been a nice little summary of modern philosophy in now under the heading "Philosophical topics", even though it is still more or less treated in the same chronological order. Only one section has been added that was not (as far as I can remember) in the section about modern philosophy, i.e. on ethics and political philosophy (where, strangely enough, despite the relative length of the section there isn't even a sentence about the revival of virtue ethics in the 20th century.)

I propose that the section that was originally in the summary of the history of modern philosophy (roughly from Descartes to Wittgenstein) be moved back there, thus bridging awkward gap between Bacon and the 1950's; and that under the heading of philosophical topics be placed summaries of the other major branches of philosophy (e.g. metaphysics, epistemology) along with ethics and political philosophy, with historical introductions as seems necessary in order to fill in what hasn't already been mentioned in the historical overview above. --165.123.138.170 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I realize, of course, that this isn't a history article. However, that doesn't mean that there can't be a section explaining the history of the subject matter, just like articles on the United States and the European Union have sections on the history of the U.S. and the EU respectively. The separate history articles on the History of philosophy and the History of Western philosophy should, of course, offer a more thourough and in-depth discussion of the history of philosophy (which they already do for some periods); but their existence shouldn't prevent this article from offering a (decent) overview of the history of philosophy (e.g.one without a 300 year gap in modern philosophy). Now, since there is still a section on the history of philosophy in this article, it should give a decent overview of that history. I think that would best be done by moving the sections covering Descartes to Wittgenstein back into the section about the history of philosophy. And the section under the heading of Metaphysics and Epistemology there ought to focus more on contemporary stuff, but with historical info as needed. --165.123.138.170 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a group decision to minimize the treatment of the history of philosophy down to a minimum because of concerns that it was dominating the article. The "modernism" portion is far from adequate, but I don't believe it is an injustice per se to treat it in wide strokes. Which is to agree with you that it needs improvement, but not that the material should be transplanted from 'topics'.

I don't know how Confucius snuck his way in there. These things happen. Looks like Ig dealt with that particular problem, though.

The history of philosophy as such can be understood the placement of key publications and events within the greater social and biographical context. The 'topics' section doesn't try to do that. True, it does list movements chronologically, but this is nothing but a stylistic choice.

The ethics and political philosophy sections were created by me less than 20 days ago because of a dire need to cover some of the most general topics in those areas. Virtue ethics is not an area that I have much interest or confidence in, and so (short of a few bland basics) I am ignorant of its details. If you would like to add something on it, you are welcome to. Lucidish 20:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there was need for sections on the major areas of philosophy such as ethics and political philosophy and metaphysics and epistemology. I understand what the concerns were but I don't agree with the method of resolving the problem. The section on the history of philosophy read nicely through from the ancients to Wittgenstein, but doesn't anymore. I don't think it was right to fix the problem of the lack of discussion about the major areas of philosophy by ruining an already succeful section by transplanting material from the historical section into the topical section. Rather, the article should have been expanded to meet the need.

There are different ways of writing the history of philosophy. You can write it as history or you can write it as philosophy. An example of the former would be something like writing about "the placement of key publications and events within the greater social and biographical context"; an example of the latter would be to go through the history of philosophy explaining along the way the concerns, problems and arguments of philosophers in history and sheding light on their influence on one another. This is an oversimplification, of course. However, most historians of philosophy are concerned with the latter, not the former. The section from Descartes to Wittgenstein reads like a blend of the two - and, in fact, a little bit more like the former than latter due to it's conciseness (summarizing theories and ideas extremely briefly and mentioning quite a few key writings in the history of philosophy and the reasons why they were written, but placing little emphasis on e.g. arguments and counterarguments).

I feel strongly that this section belongs in the section about the history of philosophy and the need for more discussion on different topics in philosophy should be met by expanding the article to that end. It would certainly make it a better article structurally.

Thanks for the invitiation to add something about virtue ethics. I might do that some day. --165.123.138.170 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a different understanding of what 'history of philosophy' entails. So that's where we disagree. Anyway, as you indicate, it's a term-of-art sort of thing so we can expect imprecision. I would advocate the historical view in this instance because otherwise it cuts too deeply into philosophical territory, and the philosophical topics stuff was pretty much unanimously agreed would be better covered in terms of topics.

I'll tell you what, let's pause the discussion temporarily until the 'modernism' section is made into something respectable, then, if that sucks, we can revisit the issue. Lucidish 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding female figure to modern philosophy.

Anything I might say would be superfluous. Rick Norwood 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Organon

I've moved this discussion to the Talk:Organon. Lucidish 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive 9

Moved. Poor Yorick 08:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)