
#redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy
Isn't this title just a tad POV? User:RickKUser talk:RickK 05:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I don't think so. As far as academic philosophy is concerned, this list is more or less canonical. "Great" in this context doesn't mean "Totally awesome" but "Greatly influential" or "Greatly important". The adjective is used more or less as a title -- one calls Hegel a "great philosopher" regardless of whether or one agrees with him. I suppose a more NPOV name would be "Great Western Philosophers", but apart from that, calling these philosophers "great" is about as POV as calling Babe Ruth a "Hall of Famer". Does this address your concerns? User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 06:06, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC) ::This mediawiki should be restyled "Influential Western Philosophers", and it should include Søren Kierkegaard (father of existentialism...and probably the only continental philosopher besides Kant worth reading in depth), Gottlob Frege (father of analytic philosophy) and W. V. O. Quine (arguably the finest analytic philosopher of his time). Other candidates, not necessarily in order of importance, are Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, George Edward Moore, Karl Popper, Jean Jacques Rousseau...these philosophers are at least as influential as Spinoza or Leibniz who are currently on the list. User:BoNoMoJo 15:24, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC) ==Why include Whitehead?== And not Austin, Searle or Davidson? What is needed is a process of some sort for including philosophers in the list - even something inane like having an article of more than 5oo words would be better than a list that appears out of nothing. But hey, the idea of a list is excellent... User:Banno 07:54, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) :Austin, Searle, Davidson and others are also good candidates. I also a agree that some sort of rule besides intuition to make the list would be helpful. User:BoNoMoJo 18:03, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) == linked empty page for Influential Western Philosophers == I do hope someone is going to fill in Influential Western Philosophers. --User:Ssd 08:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Do we really need a "Influential western philosophers" article? Why not just link to the list of western philosophers in philosophy#western philosophy article? User:BoNoMoJo 18:03, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) == Title and scope of this series == I've been gone for a few weeks because of pending work, so I missed the change to this series, but I wanted to voice my disagreement with it. First, I believe that the series would be more useful if it listed only "great" philosophers -- that is, those philosophers whose influence was so great that it cannot be ignored by any serious student of philosophy. This is true of the original set of philosophers listed in this series -- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Wittgenstein, etc. -- but not so of many of those listed now, such as Quine and Whitehead. One can understand the history of philosophy without comprehending Whitehead, but not without Kant. Furthermore, in the case of most 20th century philosophers, it's too soon to gauge their influence. Kant's influence has extended over hundreds of years, and Plato's over thousands -- can we be sure that Quine will have the same impact? This is not to denigrate such philosophers -- the point is to slim down the list to only the greatest philosophers. In other words, this series should be a "top ten". It is my opinion that in this form it will be far more useful, because those who follow the series will have a short guide to the most important philosophical thinkers. Secondly, I still believe that "Influential" should be "Great" philosophers -- see my argument above. Comments? Opinions? User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:49, May 10, 2004 (UTC) :"Great" or "Important" is not going to happen. It's too POV. "Influential" is less so by broadening the scope of the series beyond an arbitrary "top ten" as it should. Quibbling about who is influential enough to be listed is probably unavoidable too, but the series needs to capture as many of the notable western philosophers as is practical. Perhaps "notable" works better than "influential", but the series needs to be more inclusive to avoid POV problems. User:BoNoMoJo 02:43, May 11, 2004 (UTC) ::I do not think this is really a matter of POV, because there is a broad consensus on the philosophers that should be included on the list. That is, if you took a poll among philosophers of who should be included on such a list, there would certainly be differences, but there would also be a clear pattern of which philosophers were always mentioned. These are the philosophers I believe should be included. Regardless, I feel that this list is cluttered. Why don't we set a maximum length of the list (say, 12?) and then present and discuss various versions? (We could hold a poll, perhaps.) ::As for the matter of the titling of the list, I believe that this is an instance of over-emphasizing NPOV. Every philosophical reference work lists "Great" philosophers -- why should we avoid the terminology? As I said above, calling these philosophers "great" is as POV as calling Babe Ruth a "Hall of Famer". Their greatness has been established through centuries of evaluation by professionals in the field, which is as close to NPOV as you can possibly get in philosophy. ::Either way, this is a tough issue, but an important one. Let's keep discussing it. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 03:01, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
==Series Bloat== Is it just me, or is this Article Series so bloated that it's beyond usefulness? The other series on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Article_Series are all short and sweet, and give a nice, easily scannable survey of the subject. This list just makes it looks like we're trying to cram a list of every western philosopher into every page -- it's worse than useless. There are plenty of lists on the pedia -- hell, thanks to categorization, they're automatically generated. What we need is a guide -- which is, of course, the point of an article series in the first place. So here's my proposal. We decide on the maximum length of the series -- say, 15 philosophers, though even that might be pushing it. Then we each propose philosophers to be on the list. (I'd guess that we'd end up with about 30-50 nominations.) Finally, we discuss the worthiness of the philosophers, and -- here's the important part -- vote on them. No, the method isn't a foolproof way of achieving NPOV, but the only alternative is total inclusion. It also allows the series to be self-modifying, since we can always have more votes later. Opinions? User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 23:33, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC) :Adam, I don't see how an inclusive list can be ''less'' useful than one that isn't. I made the template "bloated" (and went about pasting it wherever relevant, which took quite a lot of time) - there is no way you can condense a list titled "Influential Western Philosophers" any further without massive objections; however, one can continue to think of names that have been left out. The list was extremely POV and negligent before, and these are a few reasons why reducing to it to some 15 philosophers is extremely problematic: :*The most obvious is that there is no objective way to determine which philosophers are influential (which is itself an extremely vague term, but better than saying "great" or "famous"), because :*All "influence", importance, etc is usually judged through the relative POV of the current era and our geographical emphasis - so Aristotle was "greater" than Plato at one point, Nietzsche's status as a "philosopher" was highly contested for decades, relatively few people followed Hegel in France until Hyppolite and Kojeve (who taught many of the major contemporary French philosophers) emphasized them in the 20th century, and so on; :*It is hard to agree on what constitutes "greatness" or "influence", especially when :*Some philosophers, though extremely important, ceased to "influence" anyone a long time ago - ex. Aquinas - but no one would think to keep them out of such a list, so essentially one judges influence in some cases relative to the era or to the whole of history, which means :*We fall back on wild guesses about how much influence a certain philosopher had in his or her era, or for subsequent generations, or in their country, regardless of what contemporary relevance they have, which is something only scholars can debate and are not likely to agree on easily. :And all that means is that the safest way to establish such a list is to pick the most prominent names from every period or school. I can think of alternatives like breaking down the philosophical timeline by country, period or movement, etc but that would isolate or cause confusion over several figures, ex. Leibniz (which "movement"?). :Essentially, I'm asking: why start a controversy when there isn't one? -- User:Simonides 00:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) :It'd be a shame for Simon's work to be undone, but yeah, that does seem like quite the large list that needs to be trimmed. Voting seems like a good idea. I would cherrypick by each important period, something like 4 from the classics, 4 from the medieval era, 4 from the modern era, and 4 from contemporary times. User:Lucidish 02:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) I'm opposed to the idea not only for the work I did, but for all the reasons I mentioned above; rather, it is one and the same thing - I would not have put so much work into it if I didn't think the reasons for ignoring a lot of major philosophers were not good enough. As I mentioned, there are alternatives, such as a template similar to the sample below, but to leave out philosophers when there are no strong criteria on which to base our choices is unjust and gives newcomers the impression of Wikipedia being too close-minded. We want to encourage people to learn after all, not confirm what they already know. Anyway. Since several articles already carry two templates, I believe what we could do is create several small templates (cf. Presocratics) and for the philosopher in question, include a template like the one below PLUS the specific period/school/etc to which s/he belongs which names related philosophers. -- User:Simonides 03:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think the issue here is in the title - the question is always going to be, "influential to who?" We have three options: #Scrap the "Influential philosophers" list and focus on shorter lists of major philosophers from different schools and time periods, maybe having only a list article of major Western philosophers, which each article on a Western philosopher can link to in the See also section #Let the list get longer and longer, because as more people edit it and add their favorite philosophers, that's what's going to happen #As proposed above, set a maximum length and vote on who gets in (which will have to be done again from time to time) The third option is never going to result in a list that is NPOV, which isn't necessarily bad - it should be expected with a title like "Influential philosophers". The second option will give us a long, unmanagable, and ultimately useless list. I think the first option might be the best - we can have lots of short, managable lists broken up by school or period, and it will give each of us an easier time focusing on those areas of philosophy we are most familiar with. We can also do a major edit of the Western philosophy article (is this still what its called, or has it moved back to Philosophy?) that starts with a definition of what philosophy is supposed to be in the Western world, and then break Western philosophy down chronologically, with a short list of philosophers at the end of each time period, thereby including most everybody's ideas of who was influential. -User:Sethmahoney 17:33, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) ::The first option is similar to what I suggested, except I prefer to name schools rather than specific philosophers. The code simply has to be written so that a philosopher's page highlights both the school he started or belongs to, in the first template, and his name among the series of philosophers, in the next template. It should not get any bulkier than Template:Contemporary Philosophers. -- User:Simonides 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) :After looking at the Heraclitus page, I strongly feel that the influential Western philosophers box should be totally scrapped, in favor of a page, maybe the Western philosophy page that lists philosophers by time period. The box is HUGE! -User:Sethmahoney 19:45, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) ::I don't mind having the box scrapped totally, but citing a meagre page is not a good reason. There are long pages like Aristotle, or Ludwig Wittgenstein where the template fits in very neatly. -- User:Simonides 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::I wasn't citing the Heraclitus page as sole support of my argument, just noting that, after looking at that page, I think we should do away with the box. There are plenty of other articles, I'm sure, that the box looks overbearing on. I also fully acknowledge that there are longer articles where the box doesn't seem so obtrusive, but even on those pages its a bit much, and it is going to get biggger over time, I'm sure. Putting all that info on the Western philosophy page would not only make a good introduction to Western philosophy, but would provide a page with content to actually show how the major philosophers are linked, which is what I now think is the best solution. -User:Sethmahoney 01:57, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) ::::Yes, there are pages on which the Template looks overbearing but IMO that means the article needs work, not that the respective templates, numerous categories, external links and all other "padding" should be chucked out. Re: expansion worries, there are currently about 80 philosophers on the list, which we could trim a little; let's keep the final number steady by protecting the Template page after the trim, until we have created the new templates or agreed on some other alternative. Re:Western philosophy, your suggestion is a good one, and I think you should go ahead and include/sort/etc the current list of names regardless of what we decide on the current template. -- User:Simonides 06:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::I made a slight abbreviation already, removing the template from the pages of Thales, Heraclitus etc and replacing their names in the Template with the school. I hope this is not a problem. -- User:Simonides 06:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::I don't think that the length of an article makes any difference whatsoever, is what I was saying above. Really, the box was just way too big, for any article. It looks fine now, but we could end up having a similar problem - there are really lots of schools of philosophy, as I'm sure you're well aware, and we could end up with an even bigger problem: where do we put some philosophers? What about philosophers like Nietzsche who didn't really belong to a school? -User:Sethmahoney 18:54, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) == I like it! But... == Im concerned with this only for its potential exclusion. What are the rules for inclusion? Are the Arab and Hellenic period philosophers "Western"? Perhaps its better to separate these by time - The renaissance seems to be a good split. The category of :Category:ancient mathematicians and :Category:ancient philosophers seems to be a good way to go for the really old ones. Also, the term influential is a bit subjective, and unnecessary: ours lists of people of x ethicity, for example, dont include non-famous people anyway. Either they are encyclopedic and usually influential or they are not. Either way, time seems like a better delimiter. --User:StevertigoUser_talk:Stevertigo 00:44, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) ----
{| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;"
|-
| style="background:#ccccff" align="center" | This article is part of the Influential Western Philosophy series
|-
| align="center" style="font-size: 90%;" | Presocratics | Socrates | Platonism | Aristotle | Hellenistic | Early Medieval | Islamic | Thomism | Late Medieval | Renaissance | Continental rationalism | British empiricism | Enlightenment | German Idealism | German Romanticism | Utilitarianism | Marxism | Analytic | Phenomenology | Existentialism
|}
==Vertical Arrangement==
;;Vertical
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="margin:5px; border:3px solid;"
|style="border-bottom:3px solid; background:#efefef;"|This article is the part of the
Great Philosophers series. |- |Heraclitus |- |Socrates |- |Plato |- |Aristotle |- |Seneca the Younger |- |Augustine of Hippo |- |Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius |- |Anselm of Canterbury |- |Thomas Aquinas |- |William of Ockham |- |Thomas Hobbes |- |Michel de Montaigne |- |Rene Descartes |- |Baruch Spinoza |- |Nicolas Malebranche |- |Gottfried Leibniz |- |John Locke |- |George Berkeley |- |Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu |- |David Hume |- |Voltaire |- |Jean-Jacques Rousseau |- |Immanuel Kant |- |Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel |- |Arthur Schopenhauer |- |Karl Marx |- |Søren Kierkegaard |- |John Stuart Mill |- |Friedrich Nietzsche |- |Gottlob Frege |- |Henri Bergson |- |Alfred North Whitehead |- |Bertrand Russell |- |Ludwig Wittgenstein |- |Edmund Husserl |- |Martin Heidegger |- |Jean-Paul Sartre |- |Simone de Beauvoir |- |Theodor Adorno |- |Karl Popper |- |Emmanuel Levinas |- |Michel Foucault |- |Gilles Deleuze |- |Jean-François Lyotard |- |W. V. Quine |- |John Rawls |- |Robert Nozick |- |Hans-Georg Gadamer |} == Problem with Interwiki == Interwiki between Template:Influential western philosophers and :fi:Template:Vaikutusvaltaisimmat filosofit is bugging articles, for example: Jeremy Bentham, which has false finnish interwiki pointing to :fi:Template:Vaikutusvaltaisimmat filosofit. User:Ma'ame Michu 22:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) (French user)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Influential_Western_Philosophers:
Influential_Western_Philosophers
Influential_western_philosophers
Influential_western_philosophers
Influential Western Philosophers
#redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy
Influential western philosophers
Isn't this title just a tad POV? User:RickKUser talk:RickK 05:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I don't think so. As far as academic philosophy is concerned, this list is more or less canonical. "Great" in this context doesn't mean "Totally awesome" but "Greatly influential" or "Greatly important". The adjective is used more or less as a title -- one calls Hegel a "great philosopher" regardless of whether or one agrees with him. I suppose a more NPOV name would be "Great Western Philosophers", but apart from that, calling these philosophers "great" is about as POV as calling Babe Ruth a "Hall of Famer". Does this address your concerns? User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 06:06, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC) ::This mediawiki should be restyled "Influential Western Philosophers", and it should include Søren Kierkegaard (father of existentialism...and probably the only continental philosopher besides Kant worth reading in depth), Gottlob Frege (father of analytic philosophy) and W. V. O. Quine (arguably the finest analytic philosopher of his time). Other candidates, not necessarily in order of importance, are Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, George Edward Moore, Karl Popper, Jean Jacques Rousseau...these philosophers are at least as influential as Spinoza or Leibniz who are currently on the list. User:BoNoMoJo 15:24, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC) ==Why include Whitehead?== And not Austin, Searle or Davidson? What is needed is a process of some sort for including philosophers in the list - even something inane like having an article of more than 5oo words would be better than a list that appears out of nothing. But hey, the idea of a list is excellent... User:Banno 07:54, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) :Austin, Searle, Davidson and others are also good candidates. I also a agree that some sort of rule besides intuition to make the list would be helpful. User:BoNoMoJo 18:03, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) == linked empty page for Influential Western Philosophers == I do hope someone is going to fill in Influential Western Philosophers. --User:Ssd 08:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Do we really need a "Influential western philosophers" article? Why not just link to the list of western philosophers in philosophy#western philosophy article? User:BoNoMoJo 18:03, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) == Title and scope of this series == I've been gone for a few weeks because of pending work, so I missed the change to this series, but I wanted to voice my disagreement with it. First, I believe that the series would be more useful if it listed only "great" philosophers -- that is, those philosophers whose influence was so great that it cannot be ignored by any serious student of philosophy. This is true of the original set of philosophers listed in this series -- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Wittgenstein, etc. -- but not so of many of those listed now, such as Quine and Whitehead. One can understand the history of philosophy without comprehending Whitehead, but not without Kant. Furthermore, in the case of most 20th century philosophers, it's too soon to gauge their influence. Kant's influence has extended over hundreds of years, and Plato's over thousands -- can we be sure that Quine will have the same impact? This is not to denigrate such philosophers -- the point is to slim down the list to only the greatest philosophers. In other words, this series should be a "top ten". It is my opinion that in this form it will be far more useful, because those who follow the series will have a short guide to the most important philosophical thinkers. Secondly, I still believe that "Influential" should be "Great" philosophers -- see my argument above. Comments? Opinions? User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 20:49, May 10, 2004 (UTC) :"Great" or "Important" is not going to happen. It's too POV. "Influential" is less so by broadening the scope of the series beyond an arbitrary "top ten" as it should. Quibbling about who is influential enough to be listed is probably unavoidable too, but the series needs to capture as many of the notable western philosophers as is practical. Perhaps "notable" works better than "influential", but the series needs to be more inclusive to avoid POV problems. User:BoNoMoJo 02:43, May 11, 2004 (UTC) ::I do not think this is really a matter of POV, because there is a broad consensus on the philosophers that should be included on the list. That is, if you took a poll among philosophers of who should be included on such a list, there would certainly be differences, but there would also be a clear pattern of which philosophers were always mentioned. These are the philosophers I believe should be included. Regardless, I feel that this list is cluttered. Why don't we set a maximum length of the list (say, 12?) and then present and discuss various versions? (We could hold a poll, perhaps.) ::As for the matter of the titling of the list, I believe that this is an instance of over-emphasizing NPOV. Every philosophical reference work lists "Great" philosophers -- why should we avoid the terminology? As I said above, calling these philosophers "great" is as POV as calling Babe Ruth a "Hall of Famer". Their greatness has been established through centuries of evaluation by professionals in the field, which is as close to NPOV as you can possibly get in philosophy. ::Either way, this is a tough issue, but an important one. Let's keep discussing it. User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 03:01, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
Influential western philosophers
==Series Bloat== Is it just me, or is this Article Series so bloated that it's beyond usefulness? The other series on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/Article_Series are all short and sweet, and give a nice, easily scannable survey of the subject. This list just makes it looks like we're trying to cram a list of every western philosopher into every page -- it's worse than useless. There are plenty of lists on the pedia -- hell, thanks to categorization, they're automatically generated. What we need is a guide -- which is, of course, the point of an article series in the first place. So here's my proposal. We decide on the maximum length of the series -- say, 15 philosophers, though even that might be pushing it. Then we each propose philosophers to be on the list. (I'd guess that we'd end up with about 30-50 nominations.) Finally, we discuss the worthiness of the philosophers, and -- here's the important part -- vote on them. No, the method isn't a foolproof way of achieving NPOV, but the only alternative is total inclusion. It also allows the series to be self-modifying, since we can always have more votes later. Opinions? User:Adam Conover — User:Adam Conover User talk:Adam Conover 23:33, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC) :Adam, I don't see how an inclusive list can be ''less'' useful than one that isn't. I made the template "bloated" (and went about pasting it wherever relevant, which took quite a lot of time) - there is no way you can condense a list titled "Influential Western Philosophers" any further without massive objections; however, one can continue to think of names that have been left out. The list was extremely POV and negligent before, and these are a few reasons why reducing to it to some 15 philosophers is extremely problematic: :*The most obvious is that there is no objective way to determine which philosophers are influential (which is itself an extremely vague term, but better than saying "great" or "famous"), because :*All "influence", importance, etc is usually judged through the relative POV of the current era and our geographical emphasis - so Aristotle was "greater" than Plato at one point, Nietzsche's status as a "philosopher" was highly contested for decades, relatively few people followed Hegel in France until Hyppolite and Kojeve (who taught many of the major contemporary French philosophers) emphasized them in the 20th century, and so on; :*It is hard to agree on what constitutes "greatness" or "influence", especially when :*Some philosophers, though extremely important, ceased to "influence" anyone a long time ago - ex. Aquinas - but no one would think to keep them out of such a list, so essentially one judges influence in some cases relative to the era or to the whole of history, which means :*We fall back on wild guesses about how much influence a certain philosopher had in his or her era, or for subsequent generations, or in their country, regardless of what contemporary relevance they have, which is something only scholars can debate and are not likely to agree on easily. :And all that means is that the safest way to establish such a list is to pick the most prominent names from every period or school. I can think of alternatives like breaking down the philosophical timeline by country, period or movement, etc but that would isolate or cause confusion over several figures, ex. Leibniz (which "movement"?). :Essentially, I'm asking: why start a controversy when there isn't one? -- User:Simonides 00:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) :It'd be a shame for Simon's work to be undone, but yeah, that does seem like quite the large list that needs to be trimmed. Voting seems like a good idea. I would cherrypick by each important period, something like 4 from the classics, 4 from the medieval era, 4 from the modern era, and 4 from contemporary times. User:Lucidish 02:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) I'm opposed to the idea not only for the work I did, but for all the reasons I mentioned above; rather, it is one and the same thing - I would not have put so much work into it if I didn't think the reasons for ignoring a lot of major philosophers were not good enough. As I mentioned, there are alternatives, such as a template similar to the sample below, but to leave out philosophers when there are no strong criteria on which to base our choices is unjust and gives newcomers the impression of Wikipedia being too close-minded. We want to encourage people to learn after all, not confirm what they already know. Anyway. Since several articles already carry two templates, I believe what we could do is create several small templates (cf. Presocratics) and for the philosopher in question, include a template like the one below PLUS the specific period/school/etc to which s/he belongs which names related philosophers. -- User:Simonides 03:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think the issue here is in the title - the question is always going to be, "influential to who?" We have three options: #Scrap the "Influential philosophers" list and focus on shorter lists of major philosophers from different schools and time periods, maybe having only a list article of major Western philosophers, which each article on a Western philosopher can link to in the See also section #Let the list get longer and longer, because as more people edit it and add their favorite philosophers, that's what's going to happen #As proposed above, set a maximum length and vote on who gets in (which will have to be done again from time to time) The third option is never going to result in a list that is NPOV, which isn't necessarily bad - it should be expected with a title like "Influential philosophers". The second option will give us a long, unmanagable, and ultimately useless list. I think the first option might be the best - we can have lots of short, managable lists broken up by school or period, and it will give each of us an easier time focusing on those areas of philosophy we are most familiar with. We can also do a major edit of the Western philosophy article (is this still what its called, or has it moved back to Philosophy?) that starts with a definition of what philosophy is supposed to be in the Western world, and then break Western philosophy down chronologically, with a short list of philosophers at the end of each time period, thereby including most everybody's ideas of who was influential. -User:Sethmahoney 17:33, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) ::The first option is similar to what I suggested, except I prefer to name schools rather than specific philosophers. The code simply has to be written so that a philosopher's page highlights both the school he started or belongs to, in the first template, and his name among the series of philosophers, in the next template. It should not get any bulkier than Template:Contemporary Philosophers. -- User:Simonides 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) :After looking at the Heraclitus page, I strongly feel that the influential Western philosophers box should be totally scrapped, in favor of a page, maybe the Western philosophy page that lists philosophers by time period. The box is HUGE! -User:Sethmahoney 19:45, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) ::I don't mind having the box scrapped totally, but citing a meagre page is not a good reason. There are long pages like Aristotle, or Ludwig Wittgenstein where the template fits in very neatly. -- User:Simonides 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::I wasn't citing the Heraclitus page as sole support of my argument, just noting that, after looking at that page, I think we should do away with the box. There are plenty of other articles, I'm sure, that the box looks overbearing on. I also fully acknowledge that there are longer articles where the box doesn't seem so obtrusive, but even on those pages its a bit much, and it is going to get biggger over time, I'm sure. Putting all that info on the Western philosophy page would not only make a good introduction to Western philosophy, but would provide a page with content to actually show how the major philosophers are linked, which is what I now think is the best solution. -User:Sethmahoney 01:57, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) ::::Yes, there are pages on which the Template looks overbearing but IMO that means the article needs work, not that the respective templates, numerous categories, external links and all other "padding" should be chucked out. Re: expansion worries, there are currently about 80 philosophers on the list, which we could trim a little; let's keep the final number steady by protecting the Template page after the trim, until we have created the new templates or agreed on some other alternative. Re:Western philosophy, your suggestion is a good one, and I think you should go ahead and include/sort/etc the current list of names regardless of what we decide on the current template. -- User:Simonides 06:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::I made a slight abbreviation already, removing the template from the pages of Thales, Heraclitus etc and replacing their names in the Template with the school. I hope this is not a problem. -- User:Simonides 06:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::I don't think that the length of an article makes any difference whatsoever, is what I was saying above. Really, the box was just way too big, for any article. It looks fine now, but we could end up having a similar problem - there are really lots of schools of philosophy, as I'm sure you're well aware, and we could end up with an even bigger problem: where do we put some philosophers? What about philosophers like Nietzsche who didn't really belong to a school? -User:Sethmahoney 18:54, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) == I like it! But... == Im concerned with this only for its potential exclusion. What are the rules for inclusion? Are the Arab and Hellenic period philosophers "Western"? Perhaps its better to separate these by time - The renaissance seems to be a good split. The category of :Category:ancient mathematicians and :Category:ancient philosophers seems to be a good way to go for the really old ones. Also, the term influential is a bit subjective, and unnecessary: ours lists of people of x ethicity, for example, dont include non-famous people anyway. Either they are encyclopedic and usually influential or they are not. Either way, time seems like a better delimiter. --User:StevertigoUser_talk:Stevertigo 00:44, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) ----
Great Philosophers series. |- |Heraclitus |- |Socrates |- |Plato |- |Aristotle |- |Seneca the Younger |- |Augustine of Hippo |- |Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius |- |Anselm of Canterbury |- |Thomas Aquinas |- |William of Ockham |- |Thomas Hobbes |- |Michel de Montaigne |- |Rene Descartes |- |Baruch Spinoza |- |Nicolas Malebranche |- |Gottfried Leibniz |- |John Locke |- |George Berkeley |- |Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu |- |David Hume |- |Voltaire |- |Jean-Jacques Rousseau |- |Immanuel Kant |- |Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel |- |Arthur Schopenhauer |- |Karl Marx |- |Søren Kierkegaard |- |John Stuart Mill |- |Friedrich Nietzsche |- |Gottlob Frege |- |Henri Bergson |- |Alfred North Whitehead |- |Bertrand Russell |- |Ludwig Wittgenstein |- |Edmund Husserl |- |Martin Heidegger |- |Jean-Paul Sartre |- |Simone de Beauvoir |- |Theodor Adorno |- |Karl Popper |- |Emmanuel Levinas |- |Michel Foucault |- |Gilles Deleuze |- |Jean-François Lyotard |- |W. V. Quine |- |John Rawls |- |Robert Nozick |- |Hans-Georg Gadamer |} == Problem with Interwiki == Interwiki between Template:Influential western philosophers and :fi:Template:Vaikutusvaltaisimmat filosofit is bugging articles, for example: Jeremy Bentham, which has false finnish interwiki pointing to :fi:Template:Vaikutusvaltaisimmat filosofit. User:Ma'ame Michu 22:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) (French user)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with Influential_Western_Philosophers:
Influential_Western_Philosophers
Influential_western_philosophers
Influential_western_philosophers
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
