Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 18 January 2007

Philosophy Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL Template:Core topicTemplate:V0.5

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32

Additional archived pages:

• Talk:Philosophy/Rationality (useful reference on previous discussion, Feb 2006) Dbuckner 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Philosophy/Dec06definitions Some pretty awful definitions of philosophy that someone wanted to keep to discuss. Dbuckner 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On Unlocking the article.

The debate appears interminable, the disputants irreconcilable. I'm tempted to ban all present editors from the site for a month or two (joke!).

But instead, I'm going to unlock the page for a bit, and see what happens.

I'm going to do this partially because of my naive conviction that there is no problem that men of good will can't sort out when given the opportunity. (Men - I'm not being sexist here, since no women have taken an interest in this dispute. It might profit us to consider why.)

So have at it. But remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"

If you really think that the other guy is being a dick, talking about it on this talk page won't help. Instead, launch a RfC on the user. If they are a dick, they will have been a dick on other pages, and this gives others a chance to comment on their misbehaviour. It will also provide the admins and others with the information they may need to decide if they are worth having on the Wiki. Be aware that folk may also comment on your behaviour.

If the dispute cannot be settled, consider mediation.

If the discussion degenerates into a revert war, the page will be locked again.

Best wishes, Banno 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly setting a positive and mature tone for the rest of us. Perhaps you can provide us with additional information on how not to be dicks? After all, I could be right about an issue and still be acting like one, no? JJL 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow the golden rule. —Quiddity 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For it is, it is, a glorious thing, to be a philosopher king

Thousands of words have been expended on the page repeating endlessly one of the following:

1) All philosophy is rational. 2) Not all philosophy is rational.

More thousands of words have been expended repeating endlessly one of the following:

1) All philosophy is Western. 2) Not all philosophy is Western.

Now that the page is unlocked, how about the following compromise. Those in favor of the proposition that all philosophy is Western rationalism choose one -- whichever is most important to you. In other words, choose that all philosophy is rational, but admit rational non-Westerners such as Confucius. Or choose that all philosophy is Western, and admit non-rational Western philosophers such as Kant. Your choice. Rick Norwood 00:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kant is "non-rational"? I'm confused as to what meaning you are giving to the word "rational" here. I think those who want to include something like "rational" in the introduction mean that philosophy involves a process of giving reasons and arguments for ones positions. Kant is clearly rational in this sense. VoluntarySlave 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kant's main point is a sort of pre-Godel assertion that there are philosophical questions that cannot be answered by rational debate, but must be answered by some higher method. He asserts, for example, that the proposition "God exists" is a true proposition in philosophy, even though it cannot be arrived at by reasoned argument. Rick Norwood 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I too wondered what you meant. I don't think you have Kant quite right (and the case is quite different from Godel). I can't expound on the antinomies here, but it's worth taking another look. Kant, in fact, claims to refute arguments for God's existence. God is retained in his system, not as an entity whose existence can be known, but as a regulative principle. Kant does not advocate establishing God's existence by irrational or non-rational means (a leap of faith, for example). KD Tries Again 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

KD

Definitions of Philosohy, Chonologically

Please note that I've provided ample space where much can be written regarding Rationality as it pertains to philosophy. However, notice that I've also provided sources in which Great philosophers struggled to provide an account if it. We therefore cannot be presumptuous in announcing to the world that Rationality is its distinguishing characteristic when this is merely our own opinion.

Best regards, and assuming good faith. --Ludvikus 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that section, at the moment, is that, apart from Wittgenstein and Moore, you give most of the space to second-order philosophers and lexicographers from the 20th century.

Remember philosophy as a separate subject is 25 centuries old in both the west and the east. And though the sections is well referenced, a reference doesn't excuse such biases. No doubt the rationalists will have lots to add to the 18th century. --Lucas 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But you give no opinion but your own. Why don't paste here an opinion you like and I'll abstract it for us all, and write it. This kind of criticism of your is not constructive. We do not need you to sit there and give us mere critics. Be constructive by giving something from a philosopher you like. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me correct without too much commentary on the standard of the section:

1. "According to W. Windelband, who published his second German edition in 1893 in the German language, when the word became a techical term, it meant exactly what science means in German." "Philosophy" didn;t become a technical term in 1893. Hegel, for one, used it many years earlier (Cite: http://www.hegel.de/werke_frei/startfree.html). A good dictionary might give the earliest use. Secondly, this is tricky to follow in English. Did Windelband say that "philosophie" meant the same as "Wissenschaft"? I don't have the orig. German to hand, as it happens.

2. Wittgenstein: Not a definition, more a rhetorical question.

3. Flew's sex joke is inappropriate in this context, and it's a waste of space to give a definition the author himself rejects (if that's what "side-steps") means.

4. "A varient view holds that it is its method of enquiry (inquiry) is subject to the condition of rationality." I corrected the spelling; "enquiry" and "inquiry" - is there a Misplaced Pages policy on whether American or British English is preferred?: anyway, the sentence doesn't make sense as written; and I am not clear how it varies from "an essential characteristic is its rationality". Furthermore, the latter is not a "contemporary" view. It is how the subject has been viewed historically. KD Tries Again 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 17 07

Stepping down for a bit

The dispute was not about whether philosophy is this or that. It was about whether we follows WP:OR or not. I see it was hopeless. And I see the floodgates have opened. I don't really have the time or energy to engage this particular editor, so I am going to sit back and watch for a bit. Dbuckner 08:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Watering down of proposed opening without Citations

    Most definitions of Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom),
    are fairly controversial,
    In the West it is an important subject of its intellectual tradition,
    In general, it is concerned with enquiries and,
    sometimes, action, related to ethics, knowledge, and being.

The editor modified the opening to suit his own taste, and with conforming to any of the cited sources.

• No citation for "most";
• No reason to skip over etymology;
• Word, "important", is like telling a woman she is "nice" - it says nothing;
• Same for "In general";
• Mel Etetis version stays.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I would stay away and I will, but I just want it noted for the record that Mel had no hand in this horror. The diff says that he only slapped on a deserved cleanup notice. I'm watching this, slackjawed. Dbuckner 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. Read the History page. And he does not need you as his mouth piece. He made his modifications and left.

Your summary opinion that it's a "horror" is counterproductive.

Instead, give a cite you like, instead of your profound opinion. --Ludvikus 13:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis version stays

Unless Lucaas can cite authorities for "important", "general", etc. changes, his modifications are mere personal wims that cannot be supported. Therefore I've reverted to Mel Etitis version - again. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Mel wrote none of this. It is all your own doing (except when Lucas reverts it to his version). Check the edit history. Dbuckner 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes I made were mainly to the flow of the piece. I removed awkward words like "etymology", enough to say "from"; I replaced "conduct" with "ethics", when is the last time you heard a philosopher talk of conduct!

I also left the thing about Western but just clarified it with "In the West, it is xxx". There was no mention of rational there when I edited it so it was not I that removed it. So I followed banno's advice and didnt revert, you however, have not!

--Lucas 13:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your professor Mel Etitis can speak for himself. You give no explanation why you choose to speak for him! He came, he saw, he left his footprints, and he departed. I reverted to his version as he left it. And he is free to say whatever pleases him. Why do you feel a need to tell us what he wrote or didn't write? Isn't it enough that he did not revert to your version?

I think that you rely to much on your personal, emotional, relationship with him/her. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You are perfectly free to have a Guiness with him/her.

Please believe me, I do not in any way wish to insult, or humiliate anyone, not that there's anything wrong with that either, among consenting adults. But you and he give tremendous weight to the professorship status of your friend "Mel". To show you the point, I therefore direct your attention to his pseudo-Greek name, and feminine proclivities (by which I merely mean that he's taken to be a woman by his writings) which he unimbarrassingly announces on his User page. For me that's not at all relevant. But I do not think that to be true of you, or your othe friend(s). I think the issue of his gender concerns is bound to have you take offense. You should not, therefore, participate in credentialism - it violates Misplaced Pages policy.

Regarding your friend Mel, in my opinion his philosophical views are the most informed of anyone of you others - less than one can count on one hand. However, he makes his views known "privately," on the talk pages of you guys. And Banno respects him - so what he says, asside from his "nausea", is valuable - but he must "come out of the closet", so to speak, regarding his philosophical views. Also, he should cite from his own book, if any, that he has published. But if he hasn't published, than his views are just that - his views. If you wish to give them a high value - that's your privilege. But it is inappropriate for you to shove him down our throats as an authority merely because you believe that he's a professor at the University of Oxford. Ad hominums, and appeals to authority are related fallacies. As you may find the gender issue inappropriate, I totally agree. But you fail to see that the unverified "professorship" status you employ by reference to him is of the same irrational type of argumentation. My apology to Mel Etitis for any unitentional embarassment the misunderstanding of what I say might possibly cause among philosophers.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Dbuckner's "Mel" I mean nothing more that what he says on his User page (and we only know his, or our, gender, by what we say on Misplaced Pages):

  Secondly, the character in the dialogues is female;
  I'm male. Not important, but some people get needlessly embarrassed
  if they find that someone they've been referring to as "she" turns out to be a he.

So Mel also says he has this published work about which we know nothing but the issue of gender. And so, by his own words, I know that Mel would not take offense by a reference to him as a her.

Yours truly, She, I mean me, --Ludvikus 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The weakness of the current introduction is twofold: (1) Philosophy is described as a "subject" (odd choice of term - a subject taught in school?) which is concerned with various enquiries. Surely it just is those enquiries, i.e. Philosophy enquires about (or into)...etc. I mean, I don't think it's Misplaced Pages style to say "Biology is a subject which...", "History is a subject which..." etc. (2) Failing to use a term like "rational" (and it doesn't have to be that specific term) leaves the explanation utterly vague and general. Many novels and poems, and indeed casual conversations, constitute enquiries into knowledge, conduct etc. But they are not philosophical enquiries: there is something distinctive about philosophical enquiries, which the introduction needs to nail.* Less importantly, "(What is?)" needs to be re-phrased as something like ("What is existence?"), otherwise a literal reading suggests that philosophers are trying to find out what things in fact exist - which generally they aren't.

• Here's a suggestion: "What is distinctive about philosophical enquiries is that they proceed by argument, using logical inference, examples and other reasoning tools, in addition to rhetoric, to establish their conclusions." If you need a cite, The Philosopher's Tool-kit would do. KD Tries Again 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 17 07

Lucaas on Conduct

   Please Ludvikus do not try and tell me what conduct means,
   I have been speaking the language for some time as have most of my ancestors.
   Conduct is a strange word on this page it is not a word that appears much in philosophy,
   usually we talk of ethics or morals etc. Lucaas

Regarding conduct, that's an uninformed opinion regarding philosophical usage.

This was copied fmro your user page, you should not post it here without my permission.--Lucas 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conduct Citation

    Conduct. In ethics, any voluntary behavior, or intentional disposition to act,
    for which a person may be held responsible relative to standards of right and wrong.
    --Peter A. Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 44

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Trilogy of Philosophy

The following is by Anthony Quinton as said in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy:

         A more detailed, but still uncontroversial comprehensive, definition
  is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind
  about the  general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence),
   the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and
   and the conduct of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of these three elements...
  [numbering and emphasis added; page 666.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucaas uninformed, and personal opinions which are clearly mistaken, as shown above, make his editing unacceptable under Misplaced Pages guidelines. He should also justify his changes by citations, references, quotes. But he has not done so at all. --Ludvikus 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

stodgy intro, and Ludvites' Ad Hominem and intro

The glut of lexicographic quotes and definitions by non-entities, now in the intro and first section show the reader a secondary education standard, which, perhaps is inevitable on the web since it is a new medium. I think is is rubbish, dull, and practically unreadable (all those brackets and tautologies in quote marks).

It takes many years in philosophy to get to grips with it; that is experience, something you seem to compensate for bby having a dictionary under your arm. I proposed the section you now began (the second section of the new page). I also insisted on etymology, while no one else was, I also insisted that the intro should declare the difficulty of defining philosophy. I now try to insist that it not be taken up as some kind of religious contemplation, ivory tower philosophy, which the pseudo academic style of some current editors seems to imply and which inevitably becomse secondarly level standard.

--Lucas 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The very nature of philosophy is only one small part of its subject matter. Perhaps better to say that defining philosophy is controversial because one of the subject's own projects is to enquire critically into its own nature. Not great phrasing - maybe someone can do better. KD Tries Again 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD Jan 16 07

The current intro. is absolutely absurd. Surely we can make a positive statement about what philosophy is? I am reminded of the quote favored by scientists, "Anyone who can't explain what he does to a 12 year old is a fraud." JJL 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Too simplistic. Sure each of us could tell a 12 year old in context what it is the problem is not that but that there are too many ways to describe it. A scientist almost has the same problem unless he is naive. --Lucas 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, (NOTE - I was agreeing with JLL before Lucas interposed a message here) but it's probably not worth actually editing the page until various Users stop deleting/reverting. Something like the following could easily be supported with citations:

"Philosophy in the Western tradition, originating in Greece, is a series of related critical inquiries into the nature of reality (metaphysics), the nature of our knowledge of reality (epistemology), and the nature of ethical and aesthetic judgments. These inquiries have many sub-fields, some of which are considered below. What distinguishes Western philosophy is that these inquiries primarily proceed by argument rather than rhetoric alone, using logical inference, examples, thought experiments and other reasoning tools to establish conclusions. There are alternative traditions in Philosophy, such as (and someone else who knows the other traditions can finish that sentence...)" But it can't be that easy - can it?

KD Jan 17 07

That looks pretty good, except that it strikes me as problematic to start the article with "Western Philosophy is X, Eastern Philosophy is Y, Whatever Philosophy is Z." If we can't say anything about philosophy unqualified, presumably we shouldn't have a philosophy article at all, and this page should just point people to the pages about the separate types of philosophy. Actually, I think everything you say about Western Philosophy (except for the "originating in Greece" part) applies to non-Western philosophy too, and the references people have provided (e.g. the Quinton) don't limit their claims just to Western philosophy. I don't think anyone has given a source saying that non-Western philosophy doesn't proceed by logical argument, etc; until or unless they do, there's no reason to limit the article's claims to Western Philosophy. VoluntarySlave 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't stabilizze a definition of philosophy, all you can hope to is describe what other well known philosophers have said about it. --Lucas 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. (NOTE addressed to Voluntary Slave before Lucas interposed a message). I'd like to see something about the type of inquiry it is, at any rate. I am agnostic on what Eastern philosophy is and isn't. KD Jan 17 07

I would like to stabilise on the Slave's version - not that it might not need improvement, but experience suggests if a bunch of users agree to defend one version, it is less likely to revert. That said, our friend is a really prolific editor. 6,000 edits since he joined late last year. He seems to work all night and day. It will almost certainly end up being locked again, but Banno seems to be away at the moment. Best Dbuckner 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to sleep occasionally, and keep odd hours. Banno 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This liberalism to be all inclusive is misplaced. Philosophy is a Greek word in its origin, 99% of the sources studied are in the Western Intellectual Tradition. And you don't go to a butcher when you need brain surgery. Again, we need more than mere opinions regarding the East/West. A sense of being democratic, of fair, about history, or facts, is misplace. The East/West distinction exists, whether it suits your taste, VoluntarySlave is not here relevant. Give us a published authority.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For Lucaas:

Whatever you want, is fine with me, Lucaas, but your generalizations, which only involve your personal opinions, and tastes, are useless, and counterproductive. You did not acknowledge your mistake regarding conduct as the subject of ethics, and therefore I question your good faith. You are only interested in teaching us your personal philosophical views. I am yet waiting to see you make one small change supported by a citation. Although I have demonstrated that all published philosophers have not been able to overcome the controversy obsticle, you insist that you can do it. Get over your need to be profound and Don't be a cunt (I love women - but I protest against the sexism of Don't be a dick). --Ludvikus 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For Loudikrus:

You generalise about generalizations, surely that is even worse! I do not want to see the word "conduct" in the intro, it is a word a parent uses to a child. Dictionaries, dictinoaries everywhere, just because you go around with random opinions out of dictionaries does not give your opinons any more value. You are even worse than the dictionary since at least the dictionary has some order, the alphabet! Above I gave umpteen philosophers definitions of philosophy. You forget also that it was I who backed you on rationality. I never insited I could oversome it, in fact it was my intro that began "Philosophy is that which has almost as many definitions as there have been philosophers. However, less disputed is the etymology." Nor did it go on to give a trite definition but immediatelt oriented the reader to the area, and the main groups etc. I wish I could get over my need for the profound, but you should be able to give me the name of a doctor Ludikrus?

--Lucas 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas, it is at least possible to stabilize a web-page so that all Users have a chance to comment on the same text. It is a waste of time to review and suggest improvements to a text if it chanbges with this rapidity. I am not suggesting any one User is guilty of constantly changing it. KD Tries Again 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

And there it goes again. Another version, complete with ungrammatical sentences and misspelled words. The Russell quote is nice, but: " attempts to unify and systemitize the methods of all areas of knowledge". Er, no it doesn't. Is it really not possible to put together an improved version in the talk page rather than making inaccurate and rash rewrites immediately public? KD Tries Again 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Philosophy as "Rationally Critical Thinking"

I've supplied that phrase by giving the 2nd part of Anthony Quinton's definition.

Best regards, particularly to those who are so passionately moved by these 3 words.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) forget Quinton another non-entity --Lucas 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Sampling, and Profound Generalizations

Lucas & Lucidish are taking over again, against consensus. --Ludvikus 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Russell quote in intro

Who agreed to put Russell's quote in the intro critical answer and results etc. Who even reads Russell? I say we choose THE two ancients and go with them, that way there will be less controversy. --Lucas 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As above, the practice all day has been to change the Intro without discussion or agreement. The result each time is usually a mispelled and ungrammatical mess, which I guess is amusing. Currently it says that philosophy is its own subject - which of course is as silly as the preceding version. The reason the page was previously locked is now obvious, and it should be locked again until an agreed intro is drafted. KD Tries Again 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I quite like the Russell quote - it seems like an elegant way of saying what various editors have tried to get at by including "rational," "critical," "systematic" etc, and is in line with the descriptions of philosophy's distinctive method at Definition of philosophy. Indeed I like Rick Norwood's recent version in general, except for the bit about philosophy attempting to unify all forms of knowledge, which seems wrong (and is uncited). I'd propose trying to amalgamate the characterization's of philosophy's subject matter from Definition of philosophy; on that page we find "The most general and abstract features of the world and the categories with which we think" (which appears to be a paraphrase of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy), which I think is pretty good. VoluntarySlave 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think saying it is systematic etc. presumes that these things have not already gone through the mill of philosophy and come out looking very different. The great system builders of the 19th century, did they succeed? No, Analytic wiped the board with them, and Continental turned to the man with the hammer. Can we please not get stuck in the 18th or 19th century.

Right now the problem I agree is with "philosophy is its own subject", I know what it means but can't find a decent wording for it. --Lucas 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A recent intro for discussion

For discussion, I've arbitrarily chosen a recent version of the intro that I like; can people say what they like/dislike about it, so that we can all get a sense of what each other's current concerns are? VoluntarySlave 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "the study which attempts to unify and systemitize the methods of all areas of knowledge" is accurate. I propose replacing it with "Philosphy is the investigation of the most general and abstract features of the world and the categories with which we think, through " and then the Russell quote (we can source this to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy). The bit about philosophy being its own subject is also hard to understand. We could probably just delete this paragraph and include the reference to wikiquote in "See Also" or something. VoluntarySlave 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Other than grammatical concerns, I agree. That philosophy defines itself is interesting, but hardly essential - the same is surely true of other disciplines. Yes, I'd lose that paragraph. I'd repeat that it's very important to say something about the way philosophy answers those questions, because novels, poems, churches, politicians and exotic cults also address them. My own attempt was: "What distinguishes philosophy is that these inquiries primarily proceed by argument rather than rhetoric alone, using logical inference, examples, thought experiments and other reasoning tools to establish conclusions." Argument is surely central, unless someone can cite a notable philosopher who doesn't use it. KD Tries Again 21:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

The 2nd Q is easy: What is Philosophy is itself a philosophical question.

But the 1st is not good because of all those adjectives. Categories have always been among the most important subjects of philosophy among the recognized Greatest Philosophers. So them to qualify what philosophy is is inappropriate and controversial. Ludvikus 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 2 - it follows that to define it, you have to be a philosopher (not merely an encyclopedist, for example). Ludvikus 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It means (2), that you have to rely on what philosophers say it is.

It's like saying only a brain surgeon should operate on your brain (not a butcher). Ludvikus 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This attempted definition suffers from all the problems of the many definitions above. It uses words we cannot agree upon. It is too English and too academic. As an example, your fundamental word, "argument", yes it is important, but how many synonyms are there for this? does it occur often in the history of phil? Dialectic might be more common. Be done with trying to define it. And you think the authority of Oxford can save you, it is a quaint town in England, why leave it to some bod there to define it, this is the world wide web ! --Lucas 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now on that sentiment I couldn't agree with you more; thank you Lucas.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As an after-thought, I do have a reservation: All none-trivial philosophy has almost always (in the West at least) been done at some Ivory Tower within some Academy most likely located in a quaint college community. --Ludvikus 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, let's take the citations and facts seriously. Defining philosophy is controversial, especially regarding a profound definition. There are many definitions of philosophy, according to several authorities. Aristotle and Kant gave us the Categories. I cannot now argue the point, but it would be improper, to say the least, to use a Category to define Philosophy, a category which may, or may not be, subjected to philosophical scrutiny and found wanting. But a better argument is that most qualifications, when they are not controversial, may likely be trivial, and that's at least very poor literary style. Ludvikus 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know who "you" means in the following from Lucas: "As an example, your fundamental word, "argument", yes it is important, but how many synonyms are there for this? does it occur often in the history of phil? Dialectic might be more common. Be done with trying to define it. And you think the authority of Oxford can save you" If it's me, as I emphasized argument, then I don't know what Oxford has got to do with it. Argument is universal in philosophy (cite a philosophical work containing none); dialectic is a sub-division which is not universal. Do you have an improvement to suggest, as I don't think an intro which fails to offer any definition is going to achieve consensus? KD Tries Again 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I was referring to the proposed intro above and hence the name of this section. In that intro it refers to The Oxford Accomplice to philosophy or something like that. So it is universal, why don't you say that instead, maybe you don't cos you know it is not. As to Ludikrus in his ivory tower, you should get out more or at least read more philosophy. Academics have done an amount of philosophy, but so have many who have not been entowered, Socrates was not, Christ was not, Galileo neither. --Lucas 22:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

structure

I have no problem with the current intro, and won't mess with the intro unless it gets awful again.

Moving to the next topic, structure. I think everyone agrees that the current structure is a hodge podge. I propose changing from

1. 1 Branches of philosophy
2. 2 History of philosophy
3. 3 Western philosophy
4. 4 Eastern philosophy
5. 5 African philosophy
6. 6 Philosophical topics
7. 7 Metaphysics and epistemology
8. 8 Ethics and political philosophy
9. 9 Applied philosophy
10. 10 Confines of Philosophy
11. 11 Philosophers on Philosophy
12. 12 References
13. 13 Further reading
14. 14 See also
15. 15 External links

to

1. 1 Western Philosophy
2. 2 Non-Western Philosophy
3. 3 Philosophical Questions
4. 4 Applied philosophy
5. 5 Philosophers on Philosophy
6. 6 References
7. 7 Further reading
8. 8 See also
9. 9 External links

Feel free to modify this list. If there is anything like a consensus (if even two people agree) I'll follow the consensus. Rick Norwood 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you move on.

I have a couple reservations. But I think we should first iron-out the East/West issue. I think if we can solve this - then the rest will fall in place. I think that itself may be controversial. But I think it's better for me to wait a bit. Thank you, Rick Norwood. Ludvikus 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Russell, Bertrand, The Value of Philosophy, in Perry, James and Bratman, Michael, Introduction to Philosophy, Classical and Contemporary Readings, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN-10 0195112040 ISBN-13 978-0195112047
2. Anthony Quinton, "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, 1996

• Unassessed Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics