
#REDIRECT Philosophy
{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;" |align=center|''This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.'' |}
#redirect Template:Philosophy
[[Image:Aristotle.jpg|right|thumb| Aristotle ]] Philosophy is the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask. These questions are increasingly numerous and over time they have been arranged into various but overlapping branches, such as * Metaphysics: What sorts of things exist? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person? What is it to be conscious? Is there a god? * Epistemology: Is knowledge possible? How do we come to know what we know? How can we know that there are other minds? * Ethics: Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are they necessarily based on value? Are they divine commands or is there something else that makes them "just right?" Is ethical analysis dependent on the situation? Is it relative or absolute? In general or particular terms, how should I live? How should we live? * Logic: What makes for good thinking? When can I say for sure that something just doesn't make sense? How can I think critically about complicated arguments? * Aesthetics: What is art? What is beauty? Is everything beautiful art? Is there a standard of taste? Is art meaningful? If so, what does it mean? What is good art? Is art for the purpose of an end, or is "art for art's sake?" What connects us to art? How does art affect us? Is some art unethical? Does art have limits? Can art corrupt societies? Can it elevate them? Do artists really know anything? For example, does an actor who plays the President of United States well know anything about being President of the United States? Is all art imitation? Is there something lost or gained in the imitative process? Is anything original? ''See list of philosophical topics for a more complete listing of topics beyond this category..'' Abstraction Belief Culture Science la:Categoria:Philosophia th:Category:ปรัชญา vi:Category:Triết học
The term philosophy derives from a combination of the Greek language words ''philos'' meaning love and ''sophia'' meaning wisdom. What philosophy is, or should be, is itself a philosophical question that philosophers have understood and treated differently through the ages. Philosophy can mean the academic exploration of various questions raised by philosophers; or to the collective works of major philosophers; it can also mean a certain critical, creative way of thinking. Philosophy, thus, has several connotations in common speech. This article will focus on philosophy as a ''field of study''. In the common usage in English-speaking countries, philosophy most often refers to the field of study which is more precisely described as Western academic philosophy and which has many traditions spanning thousands of years often classifed by time period (e.g. ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary, et al.), geography (e.g. Continental, German, French, et al.), and/or subject matter (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, skepticism, et al.). Eastern philosophy is tradition distinct and distinct field of study from Western philosophy. This article will discusses both Eastern and Western philosophy. == Philosophical topics == Philosophers ponder such concepts as existence or being, morality or Goodness and value theory, knowledge, truth, and beauty. Historically most philosophy has either centered on religious beliefs, or science. Philosophers may ask critical questions about the nature of these concepts--questions typically outside the scope of science. Several major works of post-medieval philosophy begin by asking the meaning of philosophy. Philosophers are motivated by specific questions such as: *What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as correct or false, and how do we reason? *Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know? *Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live? *What is reality, and what things can be described as real? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person? *What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday? What is Art? [[image:socrates.png|thumb|100px|left|Socrates]]In Ancient Greek philosophy, these five broad types of questions were respectively called analytical or logic, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetics. They are not the only subjects of philosophical inquiry. Aristotle, who was the first to use this classification (as he believed that to call himself a sophist (lit. ''wise one'') was immodest), also considered politics, modern-day physics, geology, biology, meteorology, and astronomy as branches of philosophical investigation. The Greeks, through the influence of Socrates and Socratic method, developed a tradition of Analysis (philosophy), that divided a subject into its components to understand it better. [[Image:laozi3.jpg|frame|right|Lao Zi ]] Other traditions did not always use such labels, or emphasize the same themes. While Hindu philosophy has similarities with Western philosophy, there was no word for ''philosophy'' in Japanese language, Korean language or Chinese language until the 19th century, despite long-established philosophical traditions. Chinese philosophy, in particular, used different categories than the Greeks. Definitions were not based on common features, but were usually metaphorical and referred to several subjects at once [http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/G001]. Boundaries between categories are not distinct in Western philosophy, however, and since at least the 19th century, Western philosophical works have usually addressed a nexus of questions rather than distinct topics. == Motives, goals and methods == The word "philosophy" is derived from the ancient Greek (''Φιλοσοφία'', ''philosophia'') which may be translated as "love of wisdom". It suggests a vocation for questioning, learning, and teaching. Philosophers are curious about the world, humanity, existence, values, understanding, and the nature of things. Philosophy can be distinguished from other disciplines by its methods of inquiry. Philosophers often frame their questions as problems or puzzles, in order to give clear examples of their doubts about a subject they find interesting, wonderful or confusing. Often these questions are about the assumptions behind a belief, or about methods by which people reason. Philosophers typically frame problems in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic, since Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell increasingly using formal systems, such as predicate calculus, and then work towards a solution based on critical reading and reasoning. Like Socrates, they search for answers through discussion, responding to the arguments of others, or careful personal contemplation. Philosophers often debate the relative merits of these methods. For example, they may ask whether philosophical "solutions" are objective, definitive, and say something informative about reality. On the other hand, they may ask whether these solutions give greater clarity or insight into the logic of language, or rather act as personal therapy. Philosophers seek justification for the answers to their questions. Language is the philosopher’s primary tool. In the Analytic philosophy, debates about philosophical method have been closely connected to debates about the relationship between philosophy and language. There is a similar concern in continental philosophy. Meta-philosophy, the "philosophy of philosophy", studies the nature of philosophical problems, philosophical solutions, and the proper method for getting from one to another. These debates are also connected to debates over language and interpretation. These debates are not ''less'' relevant to philosophy as a whole, since the nature and role of philosophy itself has always been an essential part of philosophical deliberations. The existence of fields such as pataphysics point to a lengthy debate that is beyond the scope of this article ''(see meta-philosophy)''. Philosophy may also be approached by examining the relationships between components, as in structuralism and recursionism. The nature of science is examined in general terms ''(see philosophy of science)'', and for particular sciences, ''(biophilosophy)''. == Non-academic uses of the word == Popularly, the word ''philosophy'' is often used to mean any form of assimilated knowledge. It may also refer to someone's perspective on life (as in "philosophy of life") or the basic principles behind, or method of achieving, something (as in "my philosophy about driving on highways"). This is also commonly referred to as a ''worldview''. Reacting to a tragedy ''philosophically'' might mean abstaining from passionate reactions in favour of intellectualized detachment. This usage arose from the example of Socrates, who calmly discussed the nature of the soul with his followers before consuming a deadly potion of hemlock as ordered by an Athenian jury. The Stoics followed Socrates in seeking freedom from their passions, hence the modern use of the term ''stoic'' to refer to calm fortitude. ==Philosophical traditions== Members of many societies have considered philosophical questions and built philosophic traditions based upon each other's works. The term "philosophy" in a Euro-American academia context may misleadingly refer solely to the philosophic traditions of Western civilization. This is also called ''"Western philosophy"'', especially when contrasted with ''"Eastern philosophy"'', which broadly subsumes the philosophic traditions of Asia. Both terms group together diverse, even incompatible school (discipline). Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophical traditions have influenced Western philosophers. Russian, Jewish, Islamic and recently Latin American philosophical traditions have contributed to, or been derivative of Western philosophy, yet retain a unique identity. It is convenient to divide contemporary Western academic philosophy into two traditions, since use of the term ''"Western philosophy"'' over the past century has often revealed a bias towards one or the other. [[Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg|left|thumbnail|100px|Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)]] ''Analytic philosophy'' is characterized by a precise approach to analysing the language of philosophical questions. The purpose is to lay bare any underlying conceptual confusion. This approach dominates Anglo-American philosophy, but has roots in continental Europe, where it is also practiced. The tradition of analytic philosophy began with Gottlob Frege at the turn of the twentieth-century, and was carried on by Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore and Ludwig Wittgenstein. ''Continental philosophy'' is a label for various schools, predominant in continental Europe, but also at home in many English-speaking Humanities departments, that may examine language, metaphysical approaches, political theory, perspectivalism, or various aspects of the arts and culture. One of the focuses of recent continental philosophical schools is the attempt to reconcile academic philosophy with issues that appear non-philosophical, subverting common expectations of what philosophy is meant to be. The differences between traditions are often based on their favored historical philosophers, or emphases on ideas, styles or language of writing. The subject matter and dialogues of each can be studied using methods derived from the others, and there have been significant commonalities and exchanges between them. Other philosophical traditions, such as African, are rarely considered by foreign academia. On account of the widespread emphasis on Western philosophy as a reference point, the study, preservation and dissemination of valuable but not widely known non-Western philosophical works faces many obstacles. Languages can either be a barrier or a vehicle for ideas. The question of which specific languages can be considered essential to philosophizing is a theme in the works of many recent philosophers. ===Western philosophy=== The Western philosophic tradition began with the Greek philosophy and continues to the present day. Major Western philosophers include Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus, Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury, William of Ockham, John Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Michel de Montaigne, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, George Berkeley, John Locke, David Hume, Thomas Reid, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Henri Bergson, Edmund Husserl, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and W. V. Quine. Other influential contemporary Western philosophers include Donald Davidson (now deceased), Daniel Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Jurgen Habermas, Saul Kripke, Thomas Kuhn, Thomas Nagel, Martha Nussbaum, Ayn Rand (now deceased), Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, John Rawls (now deceased), and John Searle. Western philosophy is sometimes divided into various branches of study, based on the kind of questions addressed. The most common categories are: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Some other disciplines include logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and political philosophy. For more information, see Western philosophy. ===Eastern philosophy=== Eastern philosophy follows the broad traditions that originated from, or were popular within, ancient India and China. Major Eastern philosophers include Kapila, Yajnavalkya, Gautama Buddha, Akshapada Gotama, Nagarjuna, Confucius, Lao Zi (Lao Tzu), Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar, Zhuang Zi (Chuang Tzu), Mencius, Xun Zi, Zhu Xi, Han Feizi, Wang Yangming, Dharmakirti, Adi_Sankara, Ramanuja, Narayana Guru, Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Indian philosophy is perhaps the most comparable to Western philosophy. For instance, the ancient Hindu_philosophy#Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy explores logic as some modern Analytic philosophers do; similarly the school of Carvaka was openly atheistical and empirical. However there are important differences - e.g. ancient Indian philosophy traditionally emphasized the teachings of schools or ancient texts, rather than individual philosophers, most of whom either wrote anonymously or whose names were simply not transmitted or recorded. For more information on Eastern philosophies, see Eastern philosophy. Other philosophical traditions are linked below. ==Applied philosophy== Though often seen as a wholly abstract field, philosophy is not without practical applications. The most obvious applications are those in ethics — applied ethics in particular — and in political philosophy. The political philosophies of Confucius, Kautilya, Sun Tzu, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Mahatma Gandhi, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls have shaped and been used to justify governments and their actions. Philosophy of education deserves special mention, as well; progressive education as championed by John Dewey has had a profound impact on educational practices in the United States in the twentieth century. It could be argued that some New Age philosophies, such as the "Celestine Prophecy", inadvertently educate people about human psychology and power relationships through the use of spiritual metaphor. Other important applications can be found in epistemology, which might help one to regulate one's notions of what knowledge, evidence, and justified belief are. Two useful ways that epistemology and logic can inform the real world are through the fields of journalism and police investigation. Informal logic has fantastic applications, helping citizens to be critical in reading rhetoric and in everyday discussion. Philosophy of science discusses the underpinnings of the scientific method. Aesthetics can help to interpret discussions of art. Even ontology, surely the most abstract and least practical-seeming branch of philosophy, has had important consequences for logic and computer science. In general, the various "philosophies of," such as philosophy of law, can provide workers in their respective fields with a deeper understanding of the theoretical or conceptual underpinnings of their fields. Often, philosophy is seen as an investigation into an area not understood well enough to be its own branch of knowledge. What were once merely philosophical pursuits have evolved into the modern day fields of psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics (among others). Computer science, cognitive science and artificial intelligence are modern areas of research that philosophy has played a role in developing. Moreover, a burgeoning profession devoted to applying philosophy to the problems of ordinary life has recently developed, called philosophical counseling. Many Eastern philosophies can and do help millions of people with anxiety problems through their emphasis on meditation for calming the mind and the connection between the health of the body and the health of the soul. == History == Traditionally, the history and study of the history of philosophy is divided into three areas: Ancient Greek, Medieval, and Modern. There is also now focus being put on the post-modern period, especially existentialism. Etienne Gilson, in his book ''The Unity of Philosophic Experience'', attempts to show important connections between the ideas of the medieval period and their development in the modern period; this is contrary to traditional interpretations of modern philosophy as a new era unconcerned with the past (Descartes called his ''Meditations'' an attempt to wipe the slate of philosophy clean and create a tabula rasa. Ancient Greek Philosophy is typically divided into the pre-Socratic Period, the philosophy of Plato, and the philosophy of Aristotle. Important pre-Socratic philosophers include Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus. We have little recording of what these early philosophers actually said. They wrote nothing. Among their accomplishments, however, were the idea of the one and the many and the rationalization of the existence of the immaterial. Socrates and his pupil Plato revolutionized Philosophy. Plato started the academy and taught the theory of forms, or the belief that the material world is merely a shadow of an immaterial reality. (See: Plato's allegory of the cave) A student of Plato's, Aristotle, went on to surpass his master. Aristotle was concerned with all matters of knowledge, and his Nicomachean Ethics would form the basis of all later ethical discussions. He also deepened the study of metaphysics, improving on the theory of forms suggested by Plato and creating the hylomorphic theory (ie. All things in the universe are composites of form and matter--of the immaterial universal and the material particular). The Medieval period was marked by a turning to Christian Philosophy. St. Justin Martyr was one of the earliest Christian philosophers, settling a dispute about whether Christians may read the texts of the ancient Pagan Philosophers. The first major Christian Philosopher, however, was Augustine. A convert to Christianity, he wrote his biography recounting his studies in Philosophy in his classic Confessions. He also worked tirelessly to refute ideas he saw as dangerous to Christianity; for example, the Academics, also known as the Skeptics, taught a brand of philosophy that claimed philosophy was itself useless. They believed that since we can never have empirical evidence, it is useless to try to achieve any notion of truth. Augustine, in ''Against the Academics'', argued that all men desire truth, and that it is better to try to achieve truth and fail than not try at all. He uses a parable to make his point: If you were trying to reach a certain town and came to a fork in the road, you would not give up your journey; more likely you would randomly try one of the roads or try to rationalize which was the better road. After Augustine, the Middle Ages lacked any great philosophers until Thomas Aquinas. This is not to say philosophical activity was not going on. Peter Abelard and Boethius were two men who were busily working on philosophical problems. In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas wrote and became the master of Medieval Philosophy. His Summa Theologica attempted to compile and answer in brief format all the major philosophical issues of his day. Historically, he is important for ressurecting Aristotle. Augustine and most others of this period were Platonists, Aristotle's works having been lost. However, Aquinas discovered in Aristotle many important ideas which would become central to Catholic Philosophy. Except for William of Ockham, Aquinas is considered the end of medieval philosophy. The next important movement came from Descartes, who was primarily concerned with the mind-body problem. The questions he raises would then be dealt with by Spinoza, John Locke, Liebnitz, and David Hume. The period was marked by an association with the natural sciences and rationalism. Dogmatism became unfashionable and religious philosophy declined. The many debates among these modern Philosophers caused strains in every area of philosophy, most notably metaphysics. Finally, Immanuel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason and attempted to reconcile conflicting views and establish a new groundword for studying metaphysics. His writing is very difficult to understand and there is much debate about its interpretation. However, he dubbed his philosophy a "Copernican Revolution" and, just as Aquinas is seen as the close of the Medieval period, Kant is seen as the close of the modern period. After Kant, popular schools of philosophy have centered around Existentialism and a renewed study of Ancient Greek Philosophy. Two important philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger were professors of Ancient Greek Philosophy who viewed their own theories as revitalized forms of philosophies of the ancients, especially of the pre-Socratics. Out of Existentialism has grown Phenomenology, which greatly influenced 20th Century Catholic Philosophy, especially via Pope John Paul II. While it is unclear where Philosophical discussion and experience is headed, it is now realized and admitted by most philosophers that the study of the history of philosophy is much more important than the study of history is to any other science. While a man can be a very good physicist and know very little about the history of physics, it is now impossible to be a good philosopher without knowing a great deal about the history of philosophy. ==See also== *Eastern philosophy **Buddhist philosophy **Chinese philosophy **Confucian philosophy **Hindu philosophy **Indian philosophy **Islamic philosophy **Japanese philosophy **Jain philosophy **Taoist philosophy *List of philosophers *List of philosophical topics *List of philosophies *Meta-philosophy *Western philosophy **Analytic philosophy **Ancient philosophy **British philosophy **Christian philosophy **Continental philosophy **Critical theory **Czech philosophy **English philosophy **French philosophy **German philosophy **Greek philosophy **Hungarian philosophy **History of western philosophy **Integral theory (philosophy) **Italian philosophy **Jewish philosophy **Medieval philosophy **Polish philosophy **Roman philosophy **Russian philosophy **Scandinavian philosophy **Postmodern philosophy == Bibliography == === Introductions === ==== For beginners ==== *''Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction'' by Edward Craig *''The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy (2nd Edition)'' by Jay Stevenson *''Philosophy and Living'' by Ralph Blumenau *''Sophie's World'' by Jostein Gaarder *''[http://www.philosophynow.org Philosophy Now]'' magazine *''Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy'' by Robert Solomon *''A Short History of Philosophy'' by Robert C. Solomon, Kathleen M. Higgins * ''[http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/phil/russell/ The Problems of Philosophy]'' by Bertrand Russell *''Philosophy: The Basics'' by Nigel Warburton. *Sober, E. (2001). ''Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings''. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall. *[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/What%20Philosophy%20Is.htm What Philosophy Is] *[http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html Introducing Philosophy Series] ==== Topical introductions ==== *''What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy'' by Thomas Nagel *''A Short History of Modern Philosophy'' by Roger Scruton *''World Philosophies'' by Ninian Smart *''Indian Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction'' by Sue Hamilton *''A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy'' by Oliver Leaman *''Eastern Philosophy For Beginners'' by Jim Powell, Joe Lee *''An Introduction to African Philosophy'' by Samuel Oluoch Imbo *''Philosophy in Russia: From Herzen to Lenin and Nikolai Berdyaev'' by Frederick Copleston *''Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction'' by Simon Critchley *''Complete Idiot's Guide to Eastern Philosophy'' by Jay Stevenson *''Classic Asian Philosophy: A Guide to the Essential Texts'' by OmegaX ==== Anthologies ==== *''Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida (4th Edition)'' by Forrest E. Baird *''The Story of Philosophy'' by Will Durant *''Classics of Philosophy (Vols. 1 & 2, 2nd edition)'' by Louis P. Pojman *''Classics of Philosophy: The 20th Century (Vol. 3)'' by Louis P. Pojman *''The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill'' by Edwin Arthur Burtt *''European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche'' by Monroe Beardsley *''Contemporary Analytic Philosophy: Core Readings'' by James Baillie *''Existentialism: Basic Writings (Second Edition)'' by Charles Guignon, Derk Pereboom *''The Phenomenology Reader'' by Dermot Moran, Timothy Mooney *''Medieval Islamic Philosophical Writings'' edited by Muhammad Ali Khalidi *''A Source Book in Indian Philosophy'' by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Charles A. Moore *''A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy'' by Wing-Tsit Chan *Kim, J. and Ernest Sosa, Ed. (1999). ''Metaphysics: An Anthology''. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. *''The Oxford Handbook of Free Will'' (2004) edited by Robert Kane (philosopher) === Reference works === *''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' edited by Ted Honderich *''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'' by Robert Audi *''The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (10 vols.) edited by Edward Craig, Luciano Floridi (also available online by subscription); or *''The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' edited by Edward Craig (an abridgement) *''Routledge History of Philosophy'' (10 vols.) edited by John Marenbon *''History of Philosophy'' (9 vols.) by Frederick Copleston *''A History of Western Philosophy'' (5 vols.) by W. T. Jones *''Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies'' (8 vols.), edited by Karl H. Potter et al (first 6 volumes out of print) *''Indian Philosophy'' (2 vols.) by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan *''A History of Indian Philosophy'' (5 vols.) by Surendranath Dasgupta *''History of Chinese Philosophy'' (2 vols.) by Fung Yu-lan, Derk Bodde *''Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy'' edited by Antonio S. Cua *''Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion'' by Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber, Franz-Karl Ehrhard, Kurt Friedrichs *''Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy'' by Brian Carr, Indira Mahalingam *''A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English'' by John A. Grimes *''History of Islamic Philosophy'' edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Oliver Leaman *''History of Jewish Philosophy'' edited by Daniel H. Frank, Oliver Leaman *''A History of Russian Philosophy: From the Tenth to the Twentieth Centuries'' by Valerii Aleksandrovich Kuvakin *Ayer, A. J. et al. Ed. (1994) ''A Dictionary of Philosophical Quotations''. Blackwell Reference Oxford. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd. *Blackburn, S., Ed. (1996)''The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy''. Oxford, Oxford University Press. *Mauter, T., Ed. ''The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy''. London, Penguin Books. *Runes, D., ED. (1942). ''The Dictionary of Philosophy''. New York, The Philosophical Library, Inc. *Angeles, P. A., Ed. (1992). ''The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy''. New York, Harper Perennial. *Bunnin, N. et. al.,Ed.(1996) ''The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy''. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. *Popkin, R. H. (1999). ''The Columbia History of Western Philosophy''. New York, Columbia University Press. == External links == Some of these websites contain links to online texts of philosophy, as do many related articles on Wikipedia. ===Resources=== *[http://epistemelinks.com/ EpistemeLinks.com : philosophy resources on the internet] *[http://www.erraticimpact.com/default.htm Erratic Impact: The Philosophy Research Base] *[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm Guide to Philosophy on the Internet] *[http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html Introducing Philosophy Series] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners. *[http://www.iceion.com/philo/philo.php Introduction to Philosophy (abridgement of other sources)] (currently unavailable) *[http://melbournephilosophy.com/index.shtml Melbourne Philosophy: Philosophy in Melbourne, Australia (noncommercial, variety of resources, wiki)] *[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/phil_index.html Philosophy around the Web] *[http://www.liv.ac.uk/pal/ Philosophy @ large, A webguide for the philosophy community provided by Liverpool University] *[http://www.philosophyarchive.com/ PhilosophyArchive.com : philosophy e-texts] *[http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~dey/phil/ Philosophy in Cyberspace] *[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/ Philosophical Society.com] *[http://www.rep.routledge.com/signpost-articles Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - ''Signpost articles free, others require subscription''] *[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] *[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] *[http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/philcult/ Cultural And Ethinicity In Philosophy] A sampling of philosophies in certain geographical areas. Warning: some links are not updated. ===Forums=== *[http://www.iseekthetruth.com Seekers of Truth Forums] -- A place to discuss philosophies of religion, and other such topics. *[http://www.philosophyforums.com Philosophy Forums] -- a place to discuss Philosophy with a discursive library on Philosophical topics. *[http://www.giornaledifilosofia.net Giornale di filosofia.net - The best italian webstite of philosophy with reviews, essays and interviews to the must important contemporary philosophers] *[http://ilovephilosophy.com/ I Love Philosophy] *[http://www.talkphilosophy.org Talk Philosophy] -- A place to discuss topics in all areas of philosophy from ethics to aesthetics. *[http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/ The Academy] -- a place to discuss philosophy from basic to advanced levels, with a library of introductory essays for beginners. *[http://www.philowiki.com PhiloWiki] -- the Internet's first online Wiki for the development of multiple points of view on a range of philosophical topics. *[http://www.grovesofacademe.com/ Groves of Academe] -- A discussion board covering Philosophy, Logic/Mathematics, Culture, Literature, The Arts, and Technology. *[http://free.angeltowns.com/loveofwisdom/index.htm Blueskyboris' Love Of Wisdom Debates] Ongoing debate on the veracity of the words of the greats. ===Organizations, Websites and Associations=== *[http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.htm Analytic and Continental Philosophy] *[http://philosophy.kitoba.com Columbus Philosophers] *[http://philosophy.meetup.com Philosophy Meetup] *[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/ Philosophical Society.com] *[http://www.prs.org/ The Philosophical Research Society] *[http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/index.html The American Philosophical Association] *[http://philosopher.org The Society for Philosophic Inquiry (Socrates Cafe)] *[http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/2004/default.asp The Philosophical Gourmet Report] *[http://www.trianglephilosophy.com Triangle Philosophy] *[http://www.nodogs.org/ No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed] Culture Philosophy ang:Úðwitegung bs:Filozofija cv:Философи fa:فلسفه gd:Feallsanachd hi:दर्शनशास्त्र jv:Filsafat ka:ფილოსოფია la:Philosophia lv:Filozofija li:Filosofie ms:Falsafah mn:Философи simple:Philosophy th:ปรัชญา vi:Triết học vo:Filosop
For past Talk pages please see: *Talk:Philosophy/Archive 1 *Talk:Philosophy/Archive 2 ----- == Latest edits == #Archived Talk page. #Some Wikilinks added or removed. #Clarified the section on Topics. -- User:Simonides 06:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) #The period of review on WP:FAC has ended. I have posted the transcript of the discussion. User:Vacuum 15:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) * Another Banno blooper: "Was ''"Analytic" used by Aristotle?? Don't think so."'' Anyone who's been introduced to Aristotle's work knows he usually uses "analytic/s/al" in place of "logic/al"; "logic" became a predominant usage only after Aristotle. ::Arg. That was a bad one, wasn’t it? It’s thirty years since I read the Analytics, so I’ll blame dementia… User:Banno * "Assigned to" suggests that the categories are pre-existing; changed it to "called". * Shortened the intro to Greek categorisation + they weren't the only ones to develop analysis - they developed analysis in the West, which later created the foundations for the scientific method. Apparently RK has a problem with the current definitions of Analytic and Continental philosophy, which Lucidish wrote. I don't mind seeing the definitions changed, but until he discusses them with Lucidish I prefer the current version stays or we work on them together. I'd also like to advise that contributors do not simply cut and paste from other articles. -- User:Simonides 03:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) : I don't know if my take on analytic philosophy was a "strawman" definition, as RK would have it, since what I wrote was just a recitation of what I've come to understand the analytic tradition entails. But I don't particularly mind the new formulation, either. I don't keep my eye on what's going on here very much, but I'm not comfortable with being a gatekeeper for all new modifications. I appreciate your intentions, Simon, but I'd like to be notified if you think that something has gone wrong so I can act in my own defence. Reversion needs to be avoided as a first resort. User:Lucidish 17:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Yes Lucidish, but so does wholesale deletion and re-arrangement without prior discussion. -- User:Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :So RK's edits can be re-inserted. User:Banno 22:56, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) If read all of the comments on this page. I understand there are some rather opinionated personalities involved here. Even so, it appears to me with fresh eyes that the first paragraph could use some rearranging for simple clarity. I understand the need to not sound too dogmatic about what philosophy is. But, this is an article about what philosphy is, so maybe the first sentence should be slightly more bold, given the project is itself a bold one. The main problem I see is that whole article starts off with a less than straightforward statement about philosophy. Here is the rearrangement I suggest using substantially the same words, just in a hopefully clearer arrangement: :Philosophy (a combination of the Greek language words ''philos'' meaning love and ''sophia'' meaning wisdom) aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth. There is no consensus about which approach should be taken in these pursuits, including whether philosophy requires the ancient dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach. Indeed, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy itself seems to require a meta-philosophy to adjudicate. I hope this rearrangement is true to the orginal intent and meaning. I hope it improves upon it. I removed the throat-clearing "Although it can be conceded that" phrase to get the point right away. In my opinion, the last sentence in the rearranged paragraph seems to lean toward a specific philosophical approach, and therefore I disfavor it. But, it was originally included so I left it in. I look forward to constructive feedback. --User:RyanKoppelman 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi, i added a few more links:i love philosophy, no dogs or philosophers allowed, apa, the philosophical gourmet, and prs.org. I hope you guys take advantage of them, and there is a criticism of the philosophical gourmet by the Harvard faculty if you guys can get that it would be swell. 4:00pm, April 14 2005 (PST) == Curtesy == Simonides, wasn’t it a bit rude to archive ongoing conversations? Especially when you have been demanding responses? User:Banno 20:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) :Were they ongoing? You didn't answer to any of my demands, and since my replies had been around for a while and you neither found them "interesting" nor expressed an inclination to return to them, as you wrote on my Talk page, I assumed the topics had reached some closure. Of course, if you're keen to discuss them, please cut and paste the relevant sections back here. -- User:Simonides 02:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Hey, I thought I might reply over the weekend. But since you are not interested, I won’t. In return, it would not be unreasonable for you to stop ''demanding'' replies. But that cuts to the heart of the way you interact with others on the Wiki. Have you ever though of ''requesting'', instead of demanding? ''Suggesting'', instead of advising? If there is any issue I haven’t addressed that you would like me to, just jot it down here. I’m not out to bust your balls, I just want to see a good article. User:Banno 07:32, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) :::Um, maybe it's your alleged dementia at work again, because as anyone can see you used the word "demanding" above; I simply borrowed it. It's also rather cute how you turn things around to make it sound like I'm antagonistic - maybe we ''should'' bring back the earlier sections so other users can confirm that ''something'' causing a short memory, if it isn't dementia, is at work. -- User:Simonides 08:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::I'll go an take my pills, then.User:Banno Which raises another issue. Your treatment of RK’s edits was heavy handed. No wonder he is pissed at you. Common curtesy might lead one to leave the edits to Lucid’s work to Lucid to defend, but if you think they needed immediate removal, why not explain your reasons here? You have ''demanded'' (your word) explanations for the edits of others, but fail to do so yourself. User:Banno 07:41, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) ::Hello? ::Are you ok? ::As any literate and non-blind person can see from the above section and the previous Talk page, all my edits are explained, and all the explanations time-stamped, and the time-stamps show that edits and explanations usually concur. ::Sort of curious how you don't demand that RK explain his edits, since he's done little more than cut-and-paste over chunks of text he simply deletes. ::Besides, I thought you proclaimed that all edits do not need explanation. ::(Whatever your problem, it does need to be checked.) -- User:Simonides 08:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :(Maybe we should do ourselves a favour and get rid of our frustrations elsewhere? Just a thought. You're bickering like old ladies:D - User:Sigg3.net 07:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)) ::Yep. User:Banno If read all of the comments on this page. I understand there are some rather opinionated personalities involved here. Even so, it appears to me with fresh eyes that the first paragraph could use some rearranging for simple clarity. I understand the need to not sound too dogmatic about what philosophy is. But, this is an article about what philosphy is, so maybe the first sentence should be slightly more bold, given the project is itself a bold one. The main problem I see is that whole article starts off with a less than straightforward statement about philosophy. Here is the rearrangement I suggest using substantially the same words, just in a hopefully clearer arrangement: :Philosophy (a combination of the Greek language words ''philos'' meaning love and ''sophia'' meaning wisdom) aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth. There is no consensus about which approach should be taken in these pursuits, including whether philosophy requires the ancient dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach. Indeed, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy itself seems to require a meta-philosophy to adjudicate. I hope this rearrangement is true to the orginal intent and meaning. I hope it improves upon it. I removed the throat-clearing "Although it can be conceded that" phrase to get the point right away. In my opinion, the last sentence in the rearranged paragraph seems to lean toward a specific philosophical approach, and therefore I disfavor it. But, it was originally included so I left it in. I look forward to constructive feedback. --User:RyanKoppelman 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Simonides claims of Eastern versus western traditions == RK, I think the existing introduction is better than the one you suggested. It does give a bit more breadth to the definition. I also think your definitions of continental and analytic philosophy are the better. The article adopts a divisive tone, East against West, analytic against continental. This is a misrepresentation of the situation. User:Banno 07:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) :I wonder what creates perceptions of divisiveness, accounting for non-Western POVs when the article has been written mostly by Westerners, and almost entirely ignored non-Western POVs until I showed up, or moronic comments like: "stop adding little digs at people you consider to be "in the West"" or "polemical West-bashing". "RK's definitions" were cut & paste material from other articles - surely the others can do better. -- User:Simonides 08:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::No, Simonides. By "doing better" you mean that you want to substitute your POV personal definitions, and remove Wikipedia definitions reached by consensus over the last two years by dozens of Wikipedia contributors. You still are trying to "own" this article, and we will not let you do this. User:RK :::Yawn. One again we have a serious problem with Simonides. For one, in violation of Wikipedia policy, he is still reverting nearly every single edit to this article (as well as to others that he is attempting to take ownership of.) His dozens of recent edits have destroyed the work of many previous contributors. His edits today have unilaterally reverted a number of changes I made (changes that re-introduced specific definitions that were agreed upon by the consensus of many contributors to Wikipedia) Repeated instances of this behaviour will have to lead to him being banned. User:RK :Unlike you? ''Laughs all around.'' Secondly, Simonides is again inserting his POV rants against what he incorrectly understands to be "Western society". For the last two years many people worked to develop an accurate consensus on the terms "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy", yet Simonides has deleted them, and unilaterally inserted his own (incorrect) definitions of the word. That violates both NPOV policy and Wikipedia protocol. User:RK :I didn't insert the definitions; I deleted your cut and paste job in this article, not what the others wrote in their specific articles. Thirdly, there is an inherent flaw in Simonides' way of categorizing philosophical traditions. He is confusing ways of approaching philosophical problems (such as "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy",) with bodies of an ethnic group's literature. Let me explain: Analytic philosophy refers to a way that a philosopher would approach a philosophical problem. "Islamic philosophy", "Hindu Philosophy" or "Jewish philosophy", however, does not refer to a way that one would approach such a problem. Those latter terms simply refer to the body of philosophical literature that has been created over the centuries by those respective peoples. For instance, "Jewish philosophy" simply refers to the collective body of literature on philosophy written by Jews over their history; it ''does not'' refer to a specific way of approaching philosophical problems! In fact, much of medieval rationalist Jewish philosophy is a direct predecessor to analytic philosophy, while other parts of Jewish philosophy are what we now recognize as continental philosophy. The same is true for Hindu and Islamic philosophy. There is no one "Jewish method" of philosophy, no one "Hindu method" of philosophy, etc. The very idea is ludicrous. But since Simonides is hysterically reacting against what he perceives to be persecution from "the west" he is creating out of thin air "non Western" ways of thinking. Frankly, that's racist. Human beings from all cultures and nationalities have developed the same wide array of approaches to problem solving. When we have a section on philosophical problem solving, we need to discuss the many approaches, and leave race and ethnicity out of it. User:RK 13:34, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) :Actually, you are confused between the summary of traditions and the occasional foray into a discussion of methods. Secondly, it's ethnocentric (and potentially racist - using words with care helps) to suggest that there is a default way of thinking and all cultures converge on it sooner or later/ one way or another; all this article does is account for the presence of non-Western traditions because some of them have distinct histories. -- User:Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :RK, at this late stage in your life you urgently need to do two things: :#Learn to read. :#Get your blood pressure checked. :1) will help you to avoid long hours spent battling with strawmen; :2) will smooth your relations with other users (cf. meta:RK, meta:RK/notes, meta:RK/notes_2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#RK). :Alternately you could stop returning to Wikipedia - implausible, I know. -- User:Simonides 21:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) == "How to get started in philosophy"? == Is it just me, or is the Philosophy#How to get started in philosophy section not encyclopedic? The 2nd-person address format seems rather textbook-ish--perhaps move to Wikibooks?User:Kukkurovaca|User talk:Kukkurovaca 20:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I think so too, but we could possibly trim it as well as moving the current text. -- User:Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::I've deleted that and the section befor it. I don't think either were needed. User:Banno 22:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) ==Removed passages== "Courtesy" on wikipedia includes quoting passages you have removed if they are substantial and noteworthy. -- User:Simonides 23:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ----- Some generalizations about what philosophy is Although Greek philosophy once included the sciences, contemporary philosophy does not make use of consistent, systematic experimentation and observation, though it may interpret philosophical aspects of the same. One might say philosophy is a discipline that critically examines fundamental, abstract beliefs and values, according to a philosophical method/Introduction. By "fundamental, abstract beliefs and values" one generally refers to universal traits such as existence, or to common and long-standing perspectives which large sections of society have applied in daily life, whether to specific fields like economics, or the more general one of merely living. Of course, physics and other sciences also study universal aspects of things; but they do so through consistent, systematic experimentation. Philosophy studies those aspects that can be studied without such an apparatus, aspects that may initially seem too general or abstract to merit attention. For instance, philosophers may ask what makes the "object''ness''" of an object, as distinguished from the constitution of objects, their properties and relations to other objects, and perhaps also as distinguished from minds or souls, and attempt to answer their own questions without making use of any prior scientific knowledge; physicists, on the other hand, would proceed with or dismiss such a question by resorting to an agreed, consistent and verifiable approach and notion of objects. ----- How to get started in philosophy It is a common platitude that "everybody has a philosophy, though they might not all realize it or be able to defend it". Yet "philosophy" as it is frequently used by notable philosophers is nothing like what is meant by people who say "here's my philosophy of life..." The distinction between popular and academic opinion is a starting point for many. If you're already interested in studying philosophy, your reason might be to improve the way you live or think somehow, or you simply wish to get acquainted with one of the most ancient areas of human thought. On the other hand, if you don't see what all the fuss is about, it might help to read the motivation to philosophize, which explains what motivates many people to "do philosophy," and get an Philosophical method/Introduction, which is important to understanding how philosophers think. It might also help to acquaint yourself with some considerations about just what philosophy is. Those who are new to the study of philosophy are advised to look at the articles, also linked above, on logic, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, and political philosophy as the individual treatment of these subjects are commonly used as an introduction in Western academia. Alternately one may simply study the works of major philosophers from various periods and places with the help of several guides and discussions. People who are inclined to study philosophy with others may wish to seek out organizations such as the non-profit Society for Philosophical Inquiry. ----- == Definition of analytic philosophy == First: :''Analytic philosophy'': The method of Analytic philosophy is a generalized approach to philosophy. It emphasizes a clear, precise approach with particular weight being placed upon argumentation and evidence, avoidance of ambiguity, and attention to detail. The tradition of Analytic philosophy began with Gottlob Frege at the turn of the twentieth-century and whose primary emphasis is on the analysis of language or meaning. It is characterized by its effort to clarify philosophical issues by analysis and logical rigor. Second: :''Analytic philosophy'' is predominant in Anglo-American academia, but it has roots in continental Europe and is practiced there too. It tends to emphasize the role of language, mathematics, empiricism, and logic in philosophy, and is generally skeptical of metaphysics, adopting a scientism approach. Logical positivism is one of the many schools of analytic philosophy. The second definition is inaccurate. Metaphysical plays an important part in analytic philosophy. The Tractatus, the Investigations, and innumerable other documents are about solving metaphysical problems; they are not sceptical about metaphysics, but about particular approaches to metaphysics. Analytic philosophy is prominent in Germany and Russia, so it is inaccurate to imply that it is a Anglo European phenomena. Nor is it accurate to say it adopts a scientific approach, since one of its key discussions has been to the effect that there is no such thing as a scientific approach. Nor is logical positivism worthy of special mention, as opposed to the ''meaning as use'' school or logical atomism. User:Banno 22:49, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC) :From the above passage, these are the phrases I added and want to defend: :#"is predominant in Anglo-American academia" :#adopting a scientism approach :#Logical positivism is one of the many schools of analytic philosophy. :1) could be changed to Anglo-American philosophical departments, but there is really no question that Analytic P. is the favoured approach in the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc and I believe in Scandinavian countries as well. It is prominent elsewhere too, but I would need to see some more information about whether it is given the same degree of preference in countries like Germany, Russia, etc. Whatever the case, the article is not ''denying'' that it is studied in those countries, only noting influence. ::I suppose I could live with this wording, if recognition was added that it is not peculiar to English speaking countries.User:Banno 03:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::I think the current word makes it pretty clear there are no geographic restrictions. :2) "scientistic" is different from "scientific" - if you follow the link you will see what scientistic means. Again, this word is far more concise and preferable to "It emphasizes a clear, precise approach with particular weight being placed upon argumentation and evidence, avoidance of ambiguity, and attention to detail" - a vague statement which is obviously POV, and implies that non-Analytic philosophy is consistently ''not'' "clear", "precise", does not rely on argumentation and evidence, does not avoid ambiguity, and does not pay attention to detail, all of which is untrue; in fact it is pretty ridiculous as a definition and should be removed. ::Analytic philosophy is not ‘scientistic’ (and ugly neologism, and one that does not appear in the page linked to) either. Far better to go along with the longer description. User:Banno 03:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::Let me repeat, the longer description is vague and can refer to anything besides analytic philosophy. At least one or two of the definitions under Scientism say more and say it better; one could try linking to those specific definitions. ::::The link to scientism is completely misleading. I have now given what is I think a very standard description of the method of analytic philosophers, emphasising analysis of language. User:Banno 07:47, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :3) I mentioned one of the schools because the Continental section mentions some - you are welcome to add examples, rather than remove them. ::Logical Positivism is certainly not representative of analytic philosophy – but your apprehension that it is might explain your insistence on the use of ‘scientistic’. Better not to list examples rather than use a misleading one. User:Banno 03:50, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::Logical positivism is historically one of the major schools of analytic philosophy, even if you don't think it's currently representative (an analogy might exist with Existentialism, which is not representative of Continental philosophy, but was one of its major labels at one time.) In any case, your objection is disingenuous because 1) apparently you want to insert some excerpts from Analytic philosophy, and leave others out, including the conspicuous mention of Logical Positivism as one of the schools; 2) most of Analytic philosophy that deals with the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, behaviourism etc, borders on pseudo-science. -- User:Simonides 04:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I agree about the metaphysics, because of what you said and also, again, the implication is that non-Analytic philosophies are usually not skeptical - which is false. -- User:Simonides 03:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ===catch-all distinction=== The problem is that using analytic philosophy as a catch-all simply fails to discriminate many of the features of philosophical development over the last hundred years. Popper, for instance, explicitly sought to distance himself from analytic philosophy. Quine almost certainly held similar reservations. Yet the article throws all these folk together willy-nilly. I suspect that the slogan "continental philosophy" performs a similar abomination on a different group of philosophers. It's like performing surgery with a baseball bat. The Vienna Circle formed a short-lived part of analytic philosophy, but their method is not representative; indeed, (with the possible exception of the Wittgensteins), no single school is representative of such a diverse tradition. User:Banno I would be far happier to throw away the distinction between analytic and continental philosophies, and refer directly to a few of the schools or to particular philosophers. User:Banno :I don't believe the definitions are necessary either; they arose because I mentioned the bias, which certainly exists (you seem to exhibit it). But it is enough to merely link to the main articles by saying there is a tendency among contemporary philosophers, or at least historians of philosophy, to prefer one over the other, though the divisions are relatively arbitrary. Also, if you don't mind, please leave the "misleadingly" in there - to constantly abbreviate Western Philosophy to Philosophy is, in fact, misleading; it's been the practice for hundreds of years now, I don't see why you're so eager to extend it. -- User:Simonides 09:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) You are aware that you exhibit a complimentary bias to the one you ascribe to me. Each of us shows the interests and opinions appropriate to our background. Within the article, emphasising the distinction serves only to make the bias more obvious, rather than remove it. User:Banno 10:28, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :I don't have a complementary bias, in the sense that I greatly admire Wittgenstein, Popper, etc and have some of their works. It is true that I find a lot of recent Anglo-American "philosophy" takes the subject to new heights of silliness and, as I wrote above, verges on or is pseudo-science; but the same can be said of unimaginative academics who are apparently participating in postmodern critiques. The distinction needs to be noted because, as I said, it exists, and the newcomer needs to be aware that if entries in dictionaries/ encylopediae/ etc on Continental philosophers are moot and Anglo-American philosophers slightly more comprehensive, it is not because of inherent merits. -- User:Simonides 03:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::Similarly I have respect for Sartre, Foucault and Fromm, and make use of Critical Theory in my work. Sokal affair has shown that perhaps the silliness is not confined to Analytic philosophy. User:Banno 07:50, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) :::I don't see the point of your reply, since you mostly repeated what I wrote above. Re: your bias, anyone who states (essentially) that Greek philosophy and its antecedents make the only philosophy is clearly speaking out of ignorance, in which case the bias becomes worth noting; as for Sokal, his 'hoax' is widely known but I don't believe he proved anything beyond what I noted, ie that some practitioners of philosophy don't know what they're doing - it doesn't mean that philosophy itself has been debunked. -- User:Simonides 13:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) The same criticism applies to the forced distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy. But there is more of this distinction in Philosophy than a mere link to the main articles - each has a sub-section. The article would again be improved by reference to specific philosophies or philosophers rather than to inappropriate generalisations. What is misleading is using a distinction that does little to explain, compare or contrast the ideas it enfolds. User:Banno 10:28, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) : There is no "forced distinction". It is very clearly stated that there is great overlap between them. ::Yes – Too much overlap. It would be better simply to refer directly to the schools or folk involved. User:Banno ::: I can't help but argue that there is not "too much overlap". Taoism, Buddhism, and so on, may have rough Western equivalents, but it's geo-historically accurate to call them Eastern traditions. Middle Eastern and Russian philosophies deserve their own distinction. Eurasian philosophies, perhaps. User:Lucidish 20:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::: As Lucidish has noted, there is probably just enough about each tradition to leave the reader curious without giving them the impression that everything is either intertwined or rigidly distinct. If it must be tweaked, I prefer it's made briefer, not longer. A discussion of respective methods simply does not belong here, and it should be noted that there is no such thing as a standard "philosophical method" either. Every philosopher or every school invents their own methods; that is part of the task of philosophy. -- User:Simonides 03:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) : I don't generally think that the analytic / Continental approach to labelling traditions is all that hot, and may indeed be entirely useless. But it's popular, so it's worth mentioning, and in any case your rewritten paragraph suits me fine. : The attack on logical positivism as one example of an analytic school seems to be based more on personal preferences than it is on any reason, so I can't really comment seriously. User:Lucidish 05:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I’m not attacking logical positivism; only saying that it is not exemplary. It is very misleading to site it without reference to other schools. The present text, referring to individuals, is much the better. User:Banno 07:13, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) ::: That, of course, is fine. It just seemed otherwise from your previous comments. User:Lucidish 20:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) == Syllogism == From the article: ''Philosophers typicaly frame problems in a logical manner, using syllogisms''. I have my doubts about the ''syllogisms'' parts. Don't contemporary philosophers use formal logic? User:Pjacobi 22:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I suggest re-wording to ''Philosophers typicaly frame problems in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic, since Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell increasingly using predicate logic''. == The Relevancy of Philosophy Today == While I appreciate that the article goes into some discussion of the "real world" uses of philosophy, I wonder if it really goes far enough. The "Applied Philosophy" section seems a little dry in this regard. I have considered adding a few sentences concerning how modern philosophers have had (and still have) great impact in femisim, the civil rights movement, issues regarding AIDS, the war in Iraq, etc. The danger, however, is in inadvertently propagating the "philosophy is mere opinion" myth. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. User:AdmN 01:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I think such a paragraph would be useful; the wording simply has to be careful to avoid propagating myths. If you pasted a sample here some of us could probably respond to it before you put it up. -- User:Simonides 10:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) == External Links to WWW discussion boards == IMHO external Links to WWW discussion boards are not encyclopedic. Now, two of them habe been added. The mind-brain link, with the additional malice, that in the past there were attempts to add "hidden". I.e. replacing an existing link and not changing the display text. Anyway, now adding in undisguised may be seen as an improvement. As not having contributed to the article, I won't jump on the links now. Only bring it to your attention. User:Pjacobi 18:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Perhaps not encyclopedic, but surely useful for people with questions which cannot easily be googled. -- User:DougBTX 20:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Housekeeping == This article has gotten messy. There is no standard structure. Also, I prepose that Western Philosophy have catagory, "Branches" or "Traditional Branches." There is plenty left out. What of empiricism, what of ontology, what of aesthetics? I am not learned enough to be as bold as editing the arcticle, but I hope my suggestions will have some encouragement to the effectiveness of the article. User:Dustinasby 05:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Various edits == I made several small edits to the article, the most important being: 1) Changed "is THE study of the ULTIMATE reality" to "a study of the reality" - less pretentious, less vague, more accommodating of sciences that make a similar claim. 2) Moved "(Philosophy in Greek), lover of wisdom" lower down where it was mentioned before and explained better - avoids the immediate association of Philosophy (in general) with Greek or Western tradition philosophy, and is mentioned where the translation can take more room (''philosophia'' only roughly means love of wisdom; it can also mean friend of wisdom, for example.) 3) Removed some titles from Bibliography for beginners - the books were too slanted towards a particular point of view to be suitable for beginners looking for a comprehensive and somewhat objective approach - one might as well include "introductions" by other famous philosophers which are actually part of their respective philosophies. -- User:Simonides 10:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Russell == Shouldn't Russell's history of Western Philosophy be included in the reference section? It's pretty significant, even today. == Ayn Rand censorship == Wikipedia is not a place for personal prejudice. That the word "fascist" does not appear in the Ayn Rand article is perhaps something you should take into account - if she was such then that is the place to make that point, not in a comment to an edit of philosophy. I have reverted your deletion of the Ayn Rand quotation in philosophy not only for that reason but because, in my opinion and in the opinion of (s)he who included the quotation, what she said was worthy of inclusion. That something is inadmissible because of who said it and not what was said I also find fundamentally distasteful: Here you and the fascists have something in common. User:Psb777 11:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Find room in a speaker's corner. I didn't call Ayn Rand a fascist but a neo-fascist - that you can't see the difference goes a long way in explaining anything you have to say on the matter. -- User:Simonides 21:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) Have it your own way: Wikipedia is not a place for personal prejudice. That the word "neo-fascist" does not appear in the Ayn Rand article is perhaps something you should take into account - if she was such then that is the place to make that point, not in a comment to an edit of philosophy. I have reverted your deletion of the Ayn Rand quotation in philosophy not only for that reason but because, in my opinion and in the opinion of (s)he who included the quotation, what she said was worthy of inclusion. That something is inadmissible because of who said it and not what was said I also find fundamentally distasteful: Here you and the fascists (not just the neo-fascists) have something in common. User:Psb777 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I wonder when people will realise that repeating lies/ idiocy/ etc doesn't make it less so. If anyone here has an agenda to push, it's pretty clear whom. -- User:Simonides 22:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) If it is from Ayn Rand it is unacceptable to Simonides and should be censored. See edit comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Philosophy&action=history Philosophy edit history]]. User:Psb777 22:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) "Neo" does not mean "not as bad as" or "leaning towards". It just means "new" or "revived". When you call someone a neo-X you are calling them an X. Use a dictionary. User:Psb777 22:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Someone else's talk page is not the best place to expound your whole philosophy of life. As I said, if you need to vent, go elsewhere; if not I will simply remove your posts from this page. Goodbye. Non-sequiter. User:Psb777 22:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Rand has every right to be on the page as a quote. Like Paul said, criticisms of her belong on the Ayn Rand page, with citations. Heidegger is reputed to have been a genuine fascist; but we quote him all the time. To quote someone is not the same as to agree with them.User:Lucidish 18:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Featured article candidacy== The period of review on WP:FAC has ended. Unfortunately, there were some outstanding objections, so I have posted the transcript of the discussion. If you fix and objection on this list, please cross it out. User:Vacuum 15:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) Very nicely written. User:Vacuum 16:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC) * Support. It is nicely written, (despite being at the center of frequent edit debates). User:FuncUser_talk:Func 00:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) ** if that is true, it should not be featured. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article: "A featured article should: Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." I therefore object if there are indeed frequent ongoing edit debates. User:Jeronimo 06:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) *** There have been no reverts on Philosophy in the past month, except to correct vandalism and a minor argument on which quotes to include (which was solved by moving them to Wikiquote). User:Vacuum 00:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) ** That's great. However, I still object to the article (now having read it as well). 1) There's no picture. Dozens of philosophers are mentioned, so dozens of choices. ''An article does not need a picture to be featured.'' 2) I find it strange that the five types of questions identified by the Greek are broadly discussed, while it is then said that "there are others" and "Chinese philosophers in particular had a different conception of categories from the Greeks". If they're important enough to mention, please do so. Also, it is not at all clear if this subdivision is still used in the present. 3) I miss a brief "history of philosophy" section. Most of this information is scattered throughout the article, and difficult to get a hold of . There's at least a long History of Western philosophy article, so there should be plenty of information for such a section. User:Jeronimo 06:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Support. User:Revth 08:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Support. User:ZayZayEM 12:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Objections: The length and diversity of this article merits at least another paragraph in the lead section. The Western philosophy is a list of names and not much more. User:Sverdrup 09:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Object: Sverdrup said what I was going to say. User:Filiocht 10:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Philosophical traditions == Philosophical traditions cannot be both distinct and not able to be considered distinctly. Let’s at least make some sense in the first paragraph… User:Banno 20:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) == Stanley Cavell == I removed: :Stanley Cavell, a philosopher whose interests are neither exclusively "analytic" nor "continental", describes this difference in approach by writing that "philosophy may be inherited either as a set of problems to be solved (as Anglo-American analysts do) or else as a set of texts to be read (as Europe does – except of course where it has accepted, or reaccepted, analysis). You can sense how different imperatives for training, different standards for criticism and conversation, different genres of composition, different personas of authorship, will arise from this difference in modes of inheritance." ("The Philosopher in American Life," in ''Emerson’s Transcendental Etudes'', 45-46) The actual content of this paragraph is mentioned elsewhere in the article; Cavell’s article in the Wiki is minor – it needs much more material – so I don’t see why he deserves a special mention in the main philosophy article… User:Banno 21:06, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) : I added this quotation not as a "special mention" of Cavell but because I think it a particularly nice, succinct, and unprejudiced two-sentence summary of the analytic-Continental split. It's fine with me to remove it (and of course Stanley Cavell is not name number 1 that anyone would include in an article on philosophy ''tout court''!) but the article currently doesn't do as good a job explaining the split as Cavell does. -- User:Rbellin|User talk:Rbellin 06:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) == intro == At the risk of unleashing the Daemons once again, I'd like to take another look at the intro. Look at " as a practice, aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge, or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being, and truth." Its pretty poor prose. I can't quite see where this phrasing came in; there is a tendency on the Wiki to cram as many links to related topics into the introduction as possible - it looks as if a simple sentence has grown into this monster over time, without any particular intention underlying its Creation. Time to kill the beast. I think it better not to attempt a definition, at least not inthe first paragraph; but simply to admit that the definition of philosophy itself is a philosophical issue.i do not think anything is lost by removing the diverse links that were in the first para. User:Banno 11:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Philosophy:
PhiloSophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics
Philosophy-stub
Philosophy/Archive_1
Philosophy/Archive_2
Philosophy/NEW_PHILOSOPHY
PhilosophyAndLogic
PhilosophyGirl
PhilosophyGirl
PhilosophyOfLanguage
PhilosophyOfMind
PhilosophyOfPerception
PhilosophyOfReligion
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasksBox
PhilosophyTasksBox
Philosophy_and_space_and_time
Philosophy_and_space_and_time
Philosophy_articles_(master_list)
Philosophy_articles_(master_list)
Philosophy_basic_topics
Philosophy_basic_topics
Philosophy_basic_topics
Philosophy_books
Philosophy_books
Philosophy_by_era
Philosophy_by_tradition
Philosophy_For_Children
Philosophy_in_the_Bedroom
Philosophy_naturalism
Philosophy_of_action
Philosophy_of_action
Philosophy_of_Africa
Philosophy_of_Aristotle
Philosophy_of_art
Philosophy_of_art
Philosophy_of_art
Philosophy_of_biology
Philosophy_of_biology
Philosophy_of_Buddhism
Philosophy_of_business
Philosophy_of_business
Philosophy_of_chemistry
Philosophy_of_chemistry
Philosophy_of_Common_Sense
Philosophy_of_composition
Philosophy_of_copyright
Philosophy_of_copyright
Philosophy_of_Economics
Philosophy_of_Education
Philosophy_of_education
Philosophy_of_education
Philosophy_of_history
Philosophy_of_history
Philosophy_of_knowledge
Philosophy_of_language
Philosophy_of_language
Philosophy_of_language
Philosophy_of_Law
Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy_of_Life
Philosophy_of_Life
Philosophy_of_Logic
Philosophy_of_logic
Philosophy_of_mathematics
Philosophy_of_mathematics
Philosophy_of_mathematics
Philosophy_of_mathematics/Archive_1
Philosophy_of_mind
Philosophy_of_mind
Philosophy_of_mind
Philosophy_of_Mind_(Hegel)
Philosophy_of_Mind_(Hegel)
Philosophy_of_mixed_government
Philosophy_of_music
Philosophy_of_naturalism
Philosophy_of_nature
Philosophy_of_nature
Philosophy_of_Organism
Philosophy_of_Organism
Philosophy_of_perception
Philosophy_of_perception
Philosophy_of_physics
Philosophy_of_physics
Philosophy_of_physics
Philosophy_of_psychology
Philosophy_of_psychology
Philosophy_of_Racism
Philosophy_of_Religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_Science
Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy_of_science/archive_1
Philosophy_of_Scientific/Archive_1
Philosophy_of_sex
Philosophy_of_sex
Philosophy_of_Social_Science
Philosophy_of_Social_Science
Philosophy_of_social_science
Philosophy_of_social_science
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Philosophy_of_suicide
Philosophy_of_Thermal_and_Statistical_Physics
Philosophy_of_Thermal_and_Statistical_Physics
Philosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics
Philosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics
Philosophy_of_the_life
Philosophy_of_the_life
Philosophy_of_the_mind
Philosophy_of_time
Philosophy_of_time
Philosophy_of_time/deletion
Philosophy_realism
Philosophy_stubs
PhiloSophy
#REDIRECT Philosophy
Philosophy
{| width="85%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;" |align=center|''This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.'' |}
Philosophy
#redirect Template:Philosophy
Philosophy
[[Image:Aristotle.jpg|right|thumb| Aristotle ]] Philosophy is the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask. These questions are increasingly numerous and over time they have been arranged into various but overlapping branches, such as * Metaphysics: What sorts of things exist? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person? What is it to be conscious? Is there a god? * Epistemology: Is knowledge possible? How do we come to know what we know? How can we know that there are other minds? * Ethics: Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are they necessarily based on value? Are they divine commands or is there something else that makes them "just right?" Is ethical analysis dependent on the situation? Is it relative or absolute? In general or particular terms, how should I live? How should we live? * Logic: What makes for good thinking? When can I say for sure that something just doesn't make sense? How can I think critically about complicated arguments? * Aesthetics: What is art? What is beauty? Is everything beautiful art? Is there a standard of taste? Is art meaningful? If so, what does it mean? What is good art? Is art for the purpose of an end, or is "art for art's sake?" What connects us to art? How does art affect us? Is some art unethical? Does art have limits? Can art corrupt societies? Can it elevate them? Do artists really know anything? For example, does an actor who plays the President of United States well know anything about being President of the United States? Is all art imitation? Is there something lost or gained in the imitative process? Is anything original? ''See list of philosophical topics for a more complete listing of topics beyond this category..'' Abstraction Belief Culture Science la:Categoria:Philosophia th:Category:ปรัชญา vi:Category:Triết học
Philosophy
The term philosophy derives from a combination of the Greek language words ''philos'' meaning love and ''sophia'' meaning wisdom. What philosophy is, or should be, is itself a philosophical question that philosophers have understood and treated differently through the ages. Philosophy can mean the academic exploration of various questions raised by philosophers; or to the collective works of major philosophers; it can also mean a certain critical, creative way of thinking. Philosophy, thus, has several connotations in common speech. This article will focus on philosophy as a ''field of study''. In the common usage in English-speaking countries, philosophy most often refers to the field of study which is more precisely described as Western academic philosophy and which has many traditions spanning thousands of years often classifed by time period (e.g. ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary, et al.), geography (e.g. Continental, German, French, et al.), and/or subject matter (e.g. existentialism, pragmatism, skepticism, et al.). Eastern philosophy is tradition distinct and distinct field of study from Western philosophy. This article will discusses both Eastern and Western philosophy. == Philosophical topics == Philosophers ponder such concepts as existence or being, morality or Goodness and value theory, knowledge, truth, and beauty. Historically most philosophy has either centered on religious beliefs, or science. Philosophers may ask critical questions about the nature of these concepts--questions typically outside the scope of science. Several major works of post-medieval philosophy begin by asking the meaning of philosophy. Philosophers are motivated by specific questions such as: *What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as correct or false, and how do we reason? *Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know? *Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live? *What is reality, and what things can be described as real? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person? *What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday? What is Art? [[image:socrates.png|thumb|100px|left|Socrates]]In Ancient Greek philosophy, these five broad types of questions were respectively called analytical or logic, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetics. They are not the only subjects of philosophical inquiry. Aristotle, who was the first to use this classification (as he believed that to call himself a sophist (lit. ''wise one'') was immodest), also considered politics, modern-day physics, geology, biology, meteorology, and astronomy as branches of philosophical investigation. The Greeks, through the influence of Socrates and Socratic method, developed a tradition of Analysis (philosophy), that divided a subject into its components to understand it better. [[Image:laozi3.jpg|frame|right|Lao Zi ]] Other traditions did not always use such labels, or emphasize the same themes. While Hindu philosophy has similarities with Western philosophy, there was no word for ''philosophy'' in Japanese language, Korean language or Chinese language until the 19th century, despite long-established philosophical traditions. Chinese philosophy, in particular, used different categories than the Greeks. Definitions were not based on common features, but were usually metaphorical and referred to several subjects at once [http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/G001]. Boundaries between categories are not distinct in Western philosophy, however, and since at least the 19th century, Western philosophical works have usually addressed a nexus of questions rather than distinct topics. == Motives, goals and methods == The word "philosophy" is derived from the ancient Greek (''Φιλοσοφία'', ''philosophia'') which may be translated as "love of wisdom". It suggests a vocation for questioning, learning, and teaching. Philosophers are curious about the world, humanity, existence, values, understanding, and the nature of things. Philosophy can be distinguished from other disciplines by its methods of inquiry. Philosophers often frame their questions as problems or puzzles, in order to give clear examples of their doubts about a subject they find interesting, wonderful or confusing. Often these questions are about the assumptions behind a belief, or about methods by which people reason. Philosophers typically frame problems in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic, since Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell increasingly using formal systems, such as predicate calculus, and then work towards a solution based on critical reading and reasoning. Like Socrates, they search for answers through discussion, responding to the arguments of others, or careful personal contemplation. Philosophers often debate the relative merits of these methods. For example, they may ask whether philosophical "solutions" are objective, definitive, and say something informative about reality. On the other hand, they may ask whether these solutions give greater clarity or insight into the logic of language, or rather act as personal therapy. Philosophers seek justification for the answers to their questions. Language is the philosopher’s primary tool. In the Analytic philosophy, debates about philosophical method have been closely connected to debates about the relationship between philosophy and language. There is a similar concern in continental philosophy. Meta-philosophy, the "philosophy of philosophy", studies the nature of philosophical problems, philosophical solutions, and the proper method for getting from one to another. These debates are also connected to debates over language and interpretation. These debates are not ''less'' relevant to philosophy as a whole, since the nature and role of philosophy itself has always been an essential part of philosophical deliberations. The existence of fields such as pataphysics point to a lengthy debate that is beyond the scope of this article ''(see meta-philosophy)''. Philosophy may also be approached by examining the relationships between components, as in structuralism and recursionism. The nature of science is examined in general terms ''(see philosophy of science)'', and for particular sciences, ''(biophilosophy)''. == Non-academic uses of the word == Popularly, the word ''philosophy'' is often used to mean any form of assimilated knowledge. It may also refer to someone's perspective on life (as in "philosophy of life") or the basic principles behind, or method of achieving, something (as in "my philosophy about driving on highways"). This is also commonly referred to as a ''worldview''. Reacting to a tragedy ''philosophically'' might mean abstaining from passionate reactions in favour of intellectualized detachment. This usage arose from the example of Socrates, who calmly discussed the nature of the soul with his followers before consuming a deadly potion of hemlock as ordered by an Athenian jury. The Stoics followed Socrates in seeking freedom from their passions, hence the modern use of the term ''stoic'' to refer to calm fortitude. ==Philosophical traditions== Members of many societies have considered philosophical questions and built philosophic traditions based upon each other's works. The term "philosophy" in a Euro-American academia context may misleadingly refer solely to the philosophic traditions of Western civilization. This is also called ''"Western philosophy"'', especially when contrasted with ''"Eastern philosophy"'', which broadly subsumes the philosophic traditions of Asia. Both terms group together diverse, even incompatible school (discipline). Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophical traditions have influenced Western philosophers. Russian, Jewish, Islamic and recently Latin American philosophical traditions have contributed to, or been derivative of Western philosophy, yet retain a unique identity. It is convenient to divide contemporary Western academic philosophy into two traditions, since use of the term ''"Western philosophy"'' over the past century has often revealed a bias towards one or the other. [[Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg|left|thumbnail|100px|Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)]] ''Analytic philosophy'' is characterized by a precise approach to analysing the language of philosophical questions. The purpose is to lay bare any underlying conceptual confusion. This approach dominates Anglo-American philosophy, but has roots in continental Europe, where it is also practiced. The tradition of analytic philosophy began with Gottlob Frege at the turn of the twentieth-century, and was carried on by Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore and Ludwig Wittgenstein. ''Continental philosophy'' is a label for various schools, predominant in continental Europe, but also at home in many English-speaking Humanities departments, that may examine language, metaphysical approaches, political theory, perspectivalism, or various aspects of the arts and culture. One of the focuses of recent continental philosophical schools is the attempt to reconcile academic philosophy with issues that appear non-philosophical, subverting common expectations of what philosophy is meant to be. The differences between traditions are often based on their favored historical philosophers, or emphases on ideas, styles or language of writing. The subject matter and dialogues of each can be studied using methods derived from the others, and there have been significant commonalities and exchanges between them. Other philosophical traditions, such as African, are rarely considered by foreign academia. On account of the widespread emphasis on Western philosophy as a reference point, the study, preservation and dissemination of valuable but not widely known non-Western philosophical works faces many obstacles. Languages can either be a barrier or a vehicle for ideas. The question of which specific languages can be considered essential to philosophizing is a theme in the works of many recent philosophers. ===Western philosophy=== The Western philosophic tradition began with the Greek philosophy and continues to the present day. Major Western philosophers include Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus, Augustine of Hippo, Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury, William of Ockham, John Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Michel de Montaigne, Francis Bacon, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, George Berkeley, John Locke, David Hume, Thomas Reid, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Henri Bergson, Edmund Husserl, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and W. V. Quine. Other influential contemporary Western philosophers include Donald Davidson (now deceased), Daniel Dennett, Jerry Fodor, Jurgen Habermas, Saul Kripke, Thomas Kuhn, Thomas Nagel, Martha Nussbaum, Ayn Rand (now deceased), Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, John Rawls (now deceased), and John Searle. Western philosophy is sometimes divided into various branches of study, based on the kind of questions addressed. The most common categories are: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Some other disciplines include logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and political philosophy. For more information, see Western philosophy. ===Eastern philosophy=== Eastern philosophy follows the broad traditions that originated from, or were popular within, ancient India and China. Major Eastern philosophers include Kapila, Yajnavalkya, Gautama Buddha, Akshapada Gotama, Nagarjuna, Confucius, Lao Zi (Lao Tzu), Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar, Zhuang Zi (Chuang Tzu), Mencius, Xun Zi, Zhu Xi, Han Feizi, Wang Yangming, Dharmakirti, Adi_Sankara, Ramanuja, Narayana Guru, Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Indian philosophy is perhaps the most comparable to Western philosophy. For instance, the ancient Hindu_philosophy#Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy explores logic as some modern Analytic philosophers do; similarly the school of Carvaka was openly atheistical and empirical. However there are important differences - e.g. ancient Indian philosophy traditionally emphasized the teachings of schools or ancient texts, rather than individual philosophers, most of whom either wrote anonymously or whose names were simply not transmitted or recorded. For more information on Eastern philosophies, see Eastern philosophy. Other philosophical traditions are linked below. ==Applied philosophy== Though often seen as a wholly abstract field, philosophy is not without practical applications. The most obvious applications are those in ethics — applied ethics in particular — and in political philosophy. The political philosophies of Confucius, Kautilya, Sun Tzu, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Mahatma Gandhi, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls have shaped and been used to justify governments and their actions. Philosophy of education deserves special mention, as well; progressive education as championed by John Dewey has had a profound impact on educational practices in the United States in the twentieth century. It could be argued that some New Age philosophies, such as the "Celestine Prophecy", inadvertently educate people about human psychology and power relationships through the use of spiritual metaphor. Other important applications can be found in epistemology, which might help one to regulate one's notions of what knowledge, evidence, and justified belief are. Two useful ways that epistemology and logic can inform the real world are through the fields of journalism and police investigation. Informal logic has fantastic applications, helping citizens to be critical in reading rhetoric and in everyday discussion. Philosophy of science discusses the underpinnings of the scientific method. Aesthetics can help to interpret discussions of art. Even ontology, surely the most abstract and least practical-seeming branch of philosophy, has had important consequences for logic and computer science. In general, the various "philosophies of," such as philosophy of law, can provide workers in their respective fields with a deeper understanding of the theoretical or conceptual underpinnings of their fields. Often, philosophy is seen as an investigation into an area not understood well enough to be its own branch of knowledge. What were once merely philosophical pursuits have evolved into the modern day fields of psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics (among others). Computer science, cognitive science and artificial intelligence are modern areas of research that philosophy has played a role in developing. Moreover, a burgeoning profession devoted to applying philosophy to the problems of ordinary life has recently developed, called philosophical counseling. Many Eastern philosophies can and do help millions of people with anxiety problems through their emphasis on meditation for calming the mind and the connection between the health of the body and the health of the soul. == History == Traditionally, the history and study of the history of philosophy is divided into three areas: Ancient Greek, Medieval, and Modern. There is also now focus being put on the post-modern period, especially existentialism. Etienne Gilson, in his book ''The Unity of Philosophic Experience'', attempts to show important connections between the ideas of the medieval period and their development in the modern period; this is contrary to traditional interpretations of modern philosophy as a new era unconcerned with the past (Descartes called his ''Meditations'' an attempt to wipe the slate of philosophy clean and create a tabula rasa. Ancient Greek Philosophy is typically divided into the pre-Socratic Period, the philosophy of Plato, and the philosophy of Aristotle. Important pre-Socratic philosophers include Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus. We have little recording of what these early philosophers actually said. They wrote nothing. Among their accomplishments, however, were the idea of the one and the many and the rationalization of the existence of the immaterial. Socrates and his pupil Plato revolutionized Philosophy. Plato started the academy and taught the theory of forms, or the belief that the material world is merely a shadow of an immaterial reality. (See: Plato's allegory of the cave) A student of Plato's, Aristotle, went on to surpass his master. Aristotle was concerned with all matters of knowledge, and his Nicomachean Ethics would form the basis of all later ethical discussions. He also deepened the study of metaphysics, improving on the theory of forms suggested by Plato and creating the hylomorphic theory (ie. All things in the universe are composites of form and matter--of the immaterial universal and the material particular). The Medieval period was marked by a turning to Christian Philosophy. St. Justin Martyr was one of the earliest Christian philosophers, settling a dispute about whether Christians may read the texts of the ancient Pagan Philosophers. The first major Christian Philosopher, however, was Augustine. A convert to Christianity, he wrote his biography recounting his studies in Philosophy in his classic Confessions. He also worked tirelessly to refute ideas he saw as dangerous to Christianity; for example, the Academics, also known as the Skeptics, taught a brand of philosophy that claimed philosophy was itself useless. They believed that since we can never have empirical evidence, it is useless to try to achieve any notion of truth. Augustine, in ''Against the Academics'', argued that all men desire truth, and that it is better to try to achieve truth and fail than not try at all. He uses a parable to make his point: If you were trying to reach a certain town and came to a fork in the road, you would not give up your journey; more likely you would randomly try one of the roads or try to rationalize which was the better road. After Augustine, the Middle Ages lacked any great philosophers until Thomas Aquinas. This is not to say philosophical activity was not going on. Peter Abelard and Boethius were two men who were busily working on philosophical problems. In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas wrote and became the master of Medieval Philosophy. His Summa Theologica attempted to compile and answer in brief format all the major philosophical issues of his day. Historically, he is important for ressurecting Aristotle. Augustine and most others of this period were Platonists, Aristotle's works having been lost. However, Aquinas discovered in Aristotle many important ideas which would become central to Catholic Philosophy. Except for William of Ockham, Aquinas is considered the end of medieval philosophy. The next important movement came from Descartes, who was primarily concerned with the mind-body problem. The questions he raises would then be dealt with by Spinoza, John Locke, Liebnitz, and David Hume. The period was marked by an association with the natural sciences and rationalism. Dogmatism became unfashionable and religious philosophy declined. The many debates among these modern Philosophers caused strains in every area of philosophy, most notably metaphysics. Finally, Immanuel Kant wrote his Critique of Pure Reason and attempted to reconcile conflicting views and establish a new groundword for studying metaphysics. His writing is very difficult to understand and there is much debate about its interpretation. However, he dubbed his philosophy a "Copernican Revolution" and, just as Aquinas is seen as the close of the Medieval period, Kant is seen as the close of the modern period. After Kant, popular schools of philosophy have centered around Existentialism and a renewed study of Ancient Greek Philosophy. Two important philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger were professors of Ancient Greek Philosophy who viewed their own theories as revitalized forms of philosophies of the ancients, especially of the pre-Socratics. Out of Existentialism has grown Phenomenology, which greatly influenced 20th Century Catholic Philosophy, especially via Pope John Paul II. While it is unclear where Philosophical discussion and experience is headed, it is now realized and admitted by most philosophers that the study of the history of philosophy is much more important than the study of history is to any other science. While a man can be a very good physicist and know very little about the history of physics, it is now impossible to be a good philosopher without knowing a great deal about the history of philosophy. ==See also== *Eastern philosophy **Buddhist philosophy **Chinese philosophy **Confucian philosophy **Hindu philosophy **Indian philosophy **Islamic philosophy **Japanese philosophy **Jain philosophy **Taoist philosophy *List of philosophers *List of philosophical topics *List of philosophies *Meta-philosophy *Western philosophy **Analytic philosophy **Ancient philosophy **British philosophy **Christian philosophy **Continental philosophy **Critical theory **Czech philosophy **English philosophy **French philosophy **German philosophy **Greek philosophy **Hungarian philosophy **History of western philosophy **Integral theory (philosophy) **Italian philosophy **Jewish philosophy **Medieval philosophy **Polish philosophy **Roman philosophy **Russian philosophy **Scandinavian philosophy **Postmodern philosophy == Bibliography == === Introductions === ==== For beginners ==== *''Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction'' by Edward Craig *''The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy (2nd Edition)'' by Jay Stevenson *''Philosophy and Living'' by Ralph Blumenau *''Sophie's World'' by Jostein Gaarder *''[http://www.philosophynow.org Philosophy Now]'' magazine *''Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy'' by Robert Solomon *''A Short History of Philosophy'' by Robert C. Solomon, Kathleen M. Higgins * ''[http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/phil/russell/ The Problems of Philosophy]'' by Bertrand Russell *''Philosophy: The Basics'' by Nigel Warburton. *Sober, E. (2001). ''Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings''. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall. *[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/What%20Philosophy%20Is.htm What Philosophy Is] *[http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html Introducing Philosophy Series] ==== Topical introductions ==== *''What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy'' by Thomas Nagel *''A Short History of Modern Philosophy'' by Roger Scruton *''World Philosophies'' by Ninian Smart *''Indian Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction'' by Sue Hamilton *''A Brief Introduction to Islamic Philosophy'' by Oliver Leaman *''Eastern Philosophy For Beginners'' by Jim Powell, Joe Lee *''An Introduction to African Philosophy'' by Samuel Oluoch Imbo *''Philosophy in Russia: From Herzen to Lenin and Nikolai Berdyaev'' by Frederick Copleston *''Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction'' by Simon Critchley *''Complete Idiot's Guide to Eastern Philosophy'' by Jay Stevenson *''Classic Asian Philosophy: A Guide to the Essential Texts'' by OmegaX ==== Anthologies ==== *''Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida (4th Edition)'' by Forrest E. Baird *''The Story of Philosophy'' by Will Durant *''Classics of Philosophy (Vols. 1 & 2, 2nd edition)'' by Louis P. Pojman *''Classics of Philosophy: The 20th Century (Vol. 3)'' by Louis P. Pojman *''The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill'' by Edwin Arthur Burtt *''European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche'' by Monroe Beardsley *''Contemporary Analytic Philosophy: Core Readings'' by James Baillie *''Existentialism: Basic Writings (Second Edition)'' by Charles Guignon, Derk Pereboom *''The Phenomenology Reader'' by Dermot Moran, Timothy Mooney *''Medieval Islamic Philosophical Writings'' edited by Muhammad Ali Khalidi *''A Source Book in Indian Philosophy'' by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Charles A. Moore *''A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy'' by Wing-Tsit Chan *Kim, J. and Ernest Sosa, Ed. (1999). ''Metaphysics: An Anthology''. Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. *''The Oxford Handbook of Free Will'' (2004) edited by Robert Kane (philosopher) === Reference works === *''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' edited by Ted Honderich *''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'' by Robert Audi *''The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (10 vols.) edited by Edward Craig, Luciano Floridi (also available online by subscription); or *''The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' edited by Edward Craig (an abridgement) *''Routledge History of Philosophy'' (10 vols.) edited by John Marenbon *''History of Philosophy'' (9 vols.) by Frederick Copleston *''A History of Western Philosophy'' (5 vols.) by W. T. Jones *''Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies'' (8 vols.), edited by Karl H. Potter et al (first 6 volumes out of print) *''Indian Philosophy'' (2 vols.) by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan *''A History of Indian Philosophy'' (5 vols.) by Surendranath Dasgupta *''History of Chinese Philosophy'' (2 vols.) by Fung Yu-lan, Derk Bodde *''Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy'' edited by Antonio S. Cua *''Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion'' by Ingrid Fischer-Schreiber, Franz-Karl Ehrhard, Kurt Friedrichs *''Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy'' by Brian Carr, Indira Mahalingam *''A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English'' by John A. Grimes *''History of Islamic Philosophy'' edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Oliver Leaman *''History of Jewish Philosophy'' edited by Daniel H. Frank, Oliver Leaman *''A History of Russian Philosophy: From the Tenth to the Twentieth Centuries'' by Valerii Aleksandrovich Kuvakin *Ayer, A. J. et al. Ed. (1994) ''A Dictionary of Philosophical Quotations''. Blackwell Reference Oxford. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd. *Blackburn, S., Ed. (1996)''The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy''. Oxford, Oxford University Press. *Mauter, T., Ed. ''The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy''. London, Penguin Books. *Runes, D., ED. (1942). ''The Dictionary of Philosophy''. New York, The Philosophical Library, Inc. *Angeles, P. A., Ed. (1992). ''The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy''. New York, Harper Perennial. *Bunnin, N. et. al.,Ed.(1996) ''The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy''. Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. *Popkin, R. H. (1999). ''The Columbia History of Western Philosophy''. New York, Columbia University Press. == External links == Some of these websites contain links to online texts of philosophy, as do many related articles on Wikipedia. ===Resources=== *[http://epistemelinks.com/ EpistemeLinks.com : philosophy resources on the internet] *[http://www.erraticimpact.com/default.htm Erratic Impact: The Philosophy Research Base] *[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm Guide to Philosophy on the Internet] *[http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html Introducing Philosophy Series] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners. *[http://www.iceion.com/philo/philo.php Introduction to Philosophy (abridgement of other sources)] (currently unavailable) *[http://melbournephilosophy.com/index.shtml Melbourne Philosophy: Philosophy in Melbourne, Australia (noncommercial, variety of resources, wiki)] *[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/phil_index.html Philosophy around the Web] *[http://www.liv.ac.uk/pal/ Philosophy @ large, A webguide for the philosophy community provided by Liverpool University] *[http://www.philosophyarchive.com/ PhilosophyArchive.com : philosophy e-texts] *[http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~dey/phil/ Philosophy in Cyberspace] *[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/ Philosophical Society.com] *[http://www.rep.routledge.com/signpost-articles Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - ''Signpost articles free, others require subscription''] *[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] *[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] *[http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/philcult/ Cultural And Ethinicity In Philosophy] A sampling of philosophies in certain geographical areas. Warning: some links are not updated. ===Forums=== *[http://www.iseekthetruth.com Seekers of Truth Forums] -- A place to discuss philosophies of religion, and other such topics. *[http://www.philosophyforums.com Philosophy Forums] -- a place to discuss Philosophy with a discursive library on Philosophical topics. *[http://www.giornaledifilosofia.net Giornale di filosofia.net - The best italian webstite of philosophy with reviews, essays and interviews to the must important contemporary philosophers] *[http://ilovephilosophy.com/ I Love Philosophy] *[http://www.talkphilosophy.org Talk Philosophy] -- A place to discuss topics in all areas of philosophy from ethics to aesthetics. *[http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/ The Academy] -- a place to discuss philosophy from basic to advanced levels, with a library of introductory essays for beginners. *[http://www.philowiki.com PhiloWiki] -- the Internet's first online Wiki for the development of multiple points of view on a range of philosophical topics. *[http://www.grovesofacademe.com/ Groves of Academe] -- A discussion board covering Philosophy, Logic/Mathematics, Culture, Literature, The Arts, and Technology. *[http://free.angeltowns.com/loveofwisdom/index.htm Blueskyboris' Love Of Wisdom Debates] Ongoing debate on the veracity of the words of the greats. ===Organizations, Websites and Associations=== *[http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.htm Analytic and Continental Philosophy] *[http://philosophy.kitoba.com Columbus Philosophers] *[http://philosophy.meetup.com Philosophy Meetup] *[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/ Philosophical Society.com] *[http://www.prs.org/ The Philosophical Research Society] *[http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/index.html The American Philosophical Association] *[http://philosopher.org The Society for Philosophic Inquiry (Socrates Cafe)] *[http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/2004/default.asp The Philosophical Gourmet Report] *[http://www.trianglephilosophy.com Triangle Philosophy] *[http://www.nodogs.org/ No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed] Culture Philosophy ang:Úðwitegung bs:Filozofija cv:Философи fa:فلسفه gd:Feallsanachd hi:दर्शनशास्त्र jv:Filsafat ka:ფილოსოფია la:Philosophia lv:Filozofija li:Filosofie ms:Falsafah mn:Философи simple:Philosophy th:ปรัชญา vi:Triết học vo:Filosop
Philosophy
For past Talk pages please see: *Talk:Philosophy/Archive 1 *Talk:Philosophy/Archive 2 ----- == Latest edits == #Archived Talk page. #Some Wikilinks added or removed. #Clarified the section on Topics. -- User:Simonides 06:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) #The period of review on WP:FAC has ended. I have posted the transcript of the discussion. User:Vacuum 15:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) * Another Banno blooper: "Was ''"Analytic" used by Aristotle?? Don't think so."'' Anyone who's been introduced to Aristotle's work knows he usually uses "analytic/s/al" in place of "logic/al"; "logic" became a predominant usage only after Aristotle. ::Arg. That was a bad one, wasn’t it? It’s thirty years since I read the Analytics, so I’ll blame dementia… User:Banno * "Assigned to" suggests that the categories are pre-existing; changed it to "called". * Shortened the intro to Greek categorisation + they weren't the only ones to develop analysis - they developed analysis in the West, which later created the foundations for the scientific method. Apparently RK has a problem with the current definitions of Analytic and Continental philosophy, which Lucidish wrote. I don't mind seeing the definitions changed, but until he discusses them with Lucidish I prefer the current version stays or we work on them together. I'd also like to advise that contributors do not simply cut and paste from other articles. -- User:Simonides 03:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) : I don't know if my take on analytic philosophy was a "strawman" definition, as RK would have it, since what I wrote was just a recitation of what I've come to understand the analytic tradition entails. But I don't particularly mind the new formulation, either. I don't keep my eye on what's going on here very much, but I'm not comfortable with being a gatekeeper for all new modifications. I appreciate your intentions, Simon, but I'd like to be notified if you think that something has gone wrong so I can act in my own defence. Reversion needs to be avoided as a first resort. User:Lucidish 17:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Yes Lucidish, but so does wholesale deletion and re-arrangement without prior discussion. -- User:Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :So RK's edits can be re-inserted. User:Banno 22:56, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) If read all of the comments on this page. I understand there are some rather opinionated personalities involved here. Even so, it appears to me with fresh eyes that the first paragraph could use some rearranging for simple clarity. I understand the need to not sound too dogmatic about what philosophy is. But, this is an article about what philosphy is, so maybe the first sentence should be slightly more bold, given the project is itself a bold one. The main problem I see is that whole article starts off with a less than straightforward statement about philosophy. Here is the rearrangement I suggest using substantially the same words, just in a hopefully clearer arrangement: :Philosophy (a combination of the Greek language words ''philos'' meaning love and ''sophia'' meaning wisdom) aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth. There is no consensus about which approach should be taken in these pursuits, including whether philosophy requires the ancient dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach. Indeed, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy itself seems to require a meta-philosophy to adjudicate. I hope this rearrangement is true to the orginal intent and meaning. I hope it improves upon it. I removed the throat-clearing "Although it can be conceded that" phrase to get the point right away. In my opinion, the last sentence in the rearranged paragraph seems to lean toward a specific philosophical approach, and therefore I disfavor it. But, it was originally included so I left it in. I look forward to constructive feedback. --User:RyanKoppelman 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi, i added a few more links:i love philosophy, no dogs or philosophers allowed, apa, the philosophical gourmet, and prs.org. I hope you guys take advantage of them, and there is a criticism of the philosophical gourmet by the Harvard faculty if you guys can get that it would be swell. 4:00pm, April 14 2005 (PST) == Curtesy == Simonides, wasn’t it a bit rude to archive ongoing conversations? Especially when you have been demanding responses? User:Banno 20:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) :Were they ongoing? You didn't answer to any of my demands, and since my replies had been around for a while and you neither found them "interesting" nor expressed an inclination to return to them, as you wrote on my Talk page, I assumed the topics had reached some closure. Of course, if you're keen to discuss them, please cut and paste the relevant sections back here. -- User:Simonides 02:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Hey, I thought I might reply over the weekend. But since you are not interested, I won’t. In return, it would not be unreasonable for you to stop ''demanding'' replies. But that cuts to the heart of the way you interact with others on the Wiki. Have you ever though of ''requesting'', instead of demanding? ''Suggesting'', instead of advising? If there is any issue I haven’t addressed that you would like me to, just jot it down here. I’m not out to bust your balls, I just want to see a good article. User:Banno 07:32, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) :::Um, maybe it's your alleged dementia at work again, because as anyone can see you used the word "demanding" above; I simply borrowed it. It's also rather cute how you turn things around to make it sound like I'm antagonistic - maybe we ''should'' bring back the earlier sections so other users can confirm that ''something'' causing a short memory, if it isn't dementia, is at work. -- User:Simonides 08:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::::I'll go an take my pills, then.User:Banno Which raises another issue. Your treatment of RK’s edits was heavy handed. No wonder he is pissed at you. Common curtesy might lead one to leave the edits to Lucid’s work to Lucid to defend, but if you think they needed immediate removal, why not explain your reasons here? You have ''demanded'' (your word) explanations for the edits of others, but fail to do so yourself. User:Banno 07:41, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) ::Hello? ::Are you ok? ::As any literate and non-blind person can see from the above section and the previous Talk page, all my edits are explained, and all the explanations time-stamped, and the time-stamps show that edits and explanations usually concur. ::Sort of curious how you don't demand that RK explain his edits, since he's done little more than cut-and-paste over chunks of text he simply deletes. ::Besides, I thought you proclaimed that all edits do not need explanation. ::(Whatever your problem, it does need to be checked.) -- User:Simonides 08:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :(Maybe we should do ourselves a favour and get rid of our frustrations elsewhere? Just a thought. You're bickering like old ladies:D - User:Sigg3.net 07:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)) ::Yep. User:Banno If read all of the comments on this page. I understand there are some rather opinionated personalities involved here. Even so, it appears to me with fresh eyes that the first paragraph could use some rearranging for simple clarity. I understand the need to not sound too dogmatic about what philosophy is. But, this is an article about what philosphy is, so maybe the first sentence should be slightly more bold, given the project is itself a bold one. The main problem I see is that whole article starts off with a less than straightforward statement about philosophy. Here is the rearrangement I suggest using substantially the same words, just in a hopefully clearer arrangement: :Philosophy (a combination of the Greek language words ''philos'' meaning love and ''sophia'' meaning wisdom) aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being and truth. There is no consensus about which approach should be taken in these pursuits, including whether philosophy requires the ancient dialectical, i.e., dialogical, approach. Indeed, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy itself seems to require a meta-philosophy to adjudicate. I hope this rearrangement is true to the orginal intent and meaning. I hope it improves upon it. I removed the throat-clearing "Although it can be conceded that" phrase to get the point right away. In my opinion, the last sentence in the rearranged paragraph seems to lean toward a specific philosophical approach, and therefore I disfavor it. But, it was originally included so I left it in. I look forward to constructive feedback. --User:RyanKoppelman 15:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Simonides claims of Eastern versus western traditions == RK, I think the existing introduction is better than the one you suggested. It does give a bit more breadth to the definition. I also think your definitions of continental and analytic philosophy are the better. The article adopts a divisive tone, East against West, analytic against continental. This is a misrepresentation of the situation. User:Banno 07:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) :I wonder what creates perceptions of divisiveness, accounting for non-Western POVs when the article has been written mostly by Westerners, and almost entirely ignored non-Western POVs until I showed up, or moronic comments like: "stop adding little digs at people you consider to be "in the West"" or "polemical West-bashing". "RK's definitions" were cut & paste material from other articles - surely the others can do better. -- User:Simonides 08:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::No, Simonides. By "doing better" you mean that you want to substitute your POV personal definitions, and remove Wikipedia definitions reached by consensus over the last two years by dozens of Wikipedia contributors. You still are trying to "own" this article, and we will not let you do this. User:RK :::Yawn. One again we have a serious problem with Simonides. For one, in violation of Wikipedia policy, he is still reverting nearly every single edit to this article (as well as to others that he is attempting to take ownership of.) His dozens of recent edits have destroyed the work of many previous contributors. His edits today have unilaterally reverted a number of changes I made (changes that re-introduced specific definitions that were agreed upon by the consensus of many contributors to Wikipedia) Repeated instances of this behaviour will have to lead to him being banned. User:RK :Unlike you? ''Laughs all around.'' Secondly, Simonides is again inserting his POV rants against what he incorrectly understands to be "Western society". For the last two years many people worked to develop an accurate consensus on the terms "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy", yet Simonides has deleted them, and unilaterally inserted his own (incorrect) definitions of the word. That violates both NPOV policy and Wikipedia protocol. User:RK :I didn't insert the definitions; I deleted your cut and paste job in this article, not what the others wrote in their specific articles. Thirdly, there is an inherent flaw in Simonides' way of categorizing philosophical traditions. He is confusing ways of approaching philosophical problems (such as "Analytic philosophy" and "Continental" philosophy",) with bodies of an ethnic group's literature. Let me explain: Analytic philosophy refers to a way that a philosopher would approach a philosophical problem. "Islamic philosophy", "Hindu Philosophy" or "Jewish philosophy", however, does not refer to a way that one would approach such a problem. Those latter terms simply refer to the body of philosophical literature that has been created over the centuries by those respective peoples. For instance, "Jewish philosophy" simply refers to the collective body of literature on philosophy written by Jews over their history; it ''does not'' refer to a specific way of approaching philosophical problems! In fact, much of medieval rationalist Jewish philosophy is a direct predecessor to analytic philosophy, while other parts of Jewish philosophy are what we now recognize as continental philosophy. The same is true for Hindu and Islamic philosophy. There is no one "Jewish method" of philosophy, no one "Hindu method" of philosophy, etc. The very idea is ludicrous. But since Simonides is hysterically reacting against what he perceives to be persecution from "the west" he is creating out of thin air "non Western" ways of thinking. Frankly, that's racist. Human beings from all cultures and nationalities have developed the same wide array of approaches to problem solving. When we have a section on philosophical problem solving, we need to discuss the many approaches, and leave race and ethnicity out of it. User:RK 13:34, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) :Actually, you are confused between the summary of traditions and the occasional foray into a discussion of methods. Secondly, it's ethnocentric (and potentially racist - using words with care helps) to suggest that there is a default way of thinking and all cultures converge on it sooner or later/ one way or another; all this article does is account for the presence of non-Western traditions because some of them have distinct histories. -- User:Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :RK, at this late stage in your life you urgently need to do two things: :#Learn to read. :#Get your blood pressure checked. :1) will help you to avoid long hours spent battling with strawmen; :2) will smooth your relations with other users (cf. meta:RK, meta:RK/notes, meta:RK/notes_2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#RK). :Alternately you could stop returning to Wikipedia - implausible, I know. -- User:Simonides 21:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) == "How to get started in philosophy"? == Is it just me, or is the Philosophy#How to get started in philosophy section not encyclopedic? The 2nd-person address format seems rather textbook-ish--perhaps move to Wikibooks?User:Kukkurovaca|User talk:Kukkurovaca 20:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I think so too, but we could possibly trim it as well as moving the current text. -- User:Simonides 22:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::I've deleted that and the section befor it. I don't think either were needed. User:Banno 22:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC) ==Removed passages== "Courtesy" on wikipedia includes quoting passages you have removed if they are substantial and noteworthy. -- User:Simonides 23:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ----- Some generalizations about what philosophy is Although Greek philosophy once included the sciences, contemporary philosophy does not make use of consistent, systematic experimentation and observation, though it may interpret philosophical aspects of the same. One might say philosophy is a discipline that critically examines fundamental, abstract beliefs and values, according to a philosophical method/Introduction. By "fundamental, abstract beliefs and values" one generally refers to universal traits such as existence, or to common and long-standing perspectives which large sections of society have applied in daily life, whether to specific fields like economics, or the more general one of merely living. Of course, physics and other sciences also study universal aspects of things; but they do so through consistent, systematic experimentation. Philosophy studies those aspects that can be studied without such an apparatus, aspects that may initially seem too general or abstract to merit attention. For instance, philosophers may ask what makes the "object''ness''" of an object, as distinguished from the constitution of objects, their properties and relations to other objects, and perhaps also as distinguished from minds or souls, and attempt to answer their own questions without making use of any prior scientific knowledge; physicists, on the other hand, would proceed with or dismiss such a question by resorting to an agreed, consistent and verifiable approach and notion of objects. ----- How to get started in philosophy It is a common platitude that "everybody has a philosophy, though they might not all realize it or be able to defend it". Yet "philosophy" as it is frequently used by notable philosophers is nothing like what is meant by people who say "here's my philosophy of life..." The distinction between popular and academic opinion is a starting point for many. If you're already interested in studying philosophy, your reason might be to improve the way you live or think somehow, or you simply wish to get acquainted with one of the most ancient areas of human thought. On the other hand, if you don't see what all the fuss is about, it might help to read the motivation to philosophize, which explains what motivates many people to "do philosophy," and get an Philosophical method/Introduction, which is important to understanding how philosophers think. It might also help to acquaint yourself with some considerations about just what philosophy is. Those who are new to the study of philosophy are advised to look at the articles, also linked above, on logic, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, and political philosophy as the individual treatment of these subjects are commonly used as an introduction in Western academia. Alternately one may simply study the works of major philosophers from various periods and places with the help of several guides and discussions. People who are inclined to study philosophy with others may wish to seek out organizations such as the non-profit Society for Philosophical Inquiry. ----- == Definition of analytic philosophy == First: :''Analytic philosophy'': The method of Analytic philosophy is a generalized approach to philosophy. It emphasizes a clear, precise approach with particular weight being placed upon argumentation and evidence, avoidance of ambiguity, and attention to detail. The tradition of Analytic philosophy began with Gottlob Frege at the turn of the twentieth-century and whose primary emphasis is on the analysis of language or meaning. It is characterized by its effort to clarify philosophical issues by analysis and logical rigor. Second: :''Analytic philosophy'' is predominant in Anglo-American academia, but it has roots in continental Europe and is practiced there too. It tends to emphasize the role of language, mathematics, empiricism, and logic in philosophy, and is generally skeptical of metaphysics, adopting a scientism approach. Logical positivism is one of the many schools of analytic philosophy. The second definition is inaccurate. Metaphysical plays an important part in analytic philosophy. The Tractatus, the Investigations, and innumerable other documents are about solving metaphysical problems; they are not sceptical about metaphysics, but about particular approaches to metaphysics. Analytic philosophy is prominent in Germany and Russia, so it is inaccurate to imply that it is a Anglo European phenomena. Nor is it accurate to say it adopts a scientific approach, since one of its key discussions has been to the effect that there is no such thing as a scientific approach. Nor is logical positivism worthy of special mention, as opposed to the ''meaning as use'' school or logical atomism. User:Banno 22:49, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC) :From the above passage, these are the phrases I added and want to defend: :#"is predominant in Anglo-American academia" :#adopting a scientism approach :#Logical positivism is one of the many schools of analytic philosophy. :1) could be changed to Anglo-American philosophical departments, but there is really no question that Analytic P. is the favoured approach in the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc and I believe in Scandinavian countries as well. It is prominent elsewhere too, but I would need to see some more information about whether it is given the same degree of preference in countries like Germany, Russia, etc. Whatever the case, the article is not ''denying'' that it is studied in those countries, only noting influence. ::I suppose I could live with this wording, if recognition was added that it is not peculiar to English speaking countries.User:Banno 03:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::I think the current word makes it pretty clear there are no geographic restrictions. :2) "scientistic" is different from "scientific" - if you follow the link you will see what scientistic means. Again, this word is far more concise and preferable to "It emphasizes a clear, precise approach with particular weight being placed upon argumentation and evidence, avoidance of ambiguity, and attention to detail" - a vague statement which is obviously POV, and implies that non-Analytic philosophy is consistently ''not'' "clear", "precise", does not rely on argumentation and evidence, does not avoid ambiguity, and does not pay attention to detail, all of which is untrue; in fact it is pretty ridiculous as a definition and should be removed. ::Analytic philosophy is not ‘scientistic’ (and ugly neologism, and one that does not appear in the page linked to) either. Far better to go along with the longer description. User:Banno 03:49, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::Let me repeat, the longer description is vague and can refer to anything besides analytic philosophy. At least one or two of the definitions under Scientism say more and say it better; one could try linking to those specific definitions. ::::The link to scientism is completely misleading. I have now given what is I think a very standard description of the method of analytic philosophers, emphasising analysis of language. User:Banno 07:47, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :3) I mentioned one of the schools because the Continental section mentions some - you are welcome to add examples, rather than remove them. ::Logical Positivism is certainly not representative of analytic philosophy – but your apprehension that it is might explain your insistence on the use of ‘scientistic’. Better not to list examples rather than use a misleading one. User:Banno 03:50, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :::Logical positivism is historically one of the major schools of analytic philosophy, even if you don't think it's currently representative (an analogy might exist with Existentialism, which is not representative of Continental philosophy, but was one of its major labels at one time.) In any case, your objection is disingenuous because 1) apparently you want to insert some excerpts from Analytic philosophy, and leave others out, including the conspicuous mention of Logical Positivism as one of the schools; 2) most of Analytic philosophy that deals with the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, behaviourism etc, borders on pseudo-science. -- User:Simonides 04:42, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I agree about the metaphysics, because of what you said and also, again, the implication is that non-Analytic philosophies are usually not skeptical - which is false. -- User:Simonides 03:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) ===catch-all distinction=== The problem is that using analytic philosophy as a catch-all simply fails to discriminate many of the features of philosophical development over the last hundred years. Popper, for instance, explicitly sought to distance himself from analytic philosophy. Quine almost certainly held similar reservations. Yet the article throws all these folk together willy-nilly. I suspect that the slogan "continental philosophy" performs a similar abomination on a different group of philosophers. It's like performing surgery with a baseball bat. The Vienna Circle formed a short-lived part of analytic philosophy, but their method is not representative; indeed, (with the possible exception of the Wittgensteins), no single school is representative of such a diverse tradition. User:Banno I would be far happier to throw away the distinction between analytic and continental philosophies, and refer directly to a few of the schools or to particular philosophers. User:Banno :I don't believe the definitions are necessary either; they arose because I mentioned the bias, which certainly exists (you seem to exhibit it). But it is enough to merely link to the main articles by saying there is a tendency among contemporary philosophers, or at least historians of philosophy, to prefer one over the other, though the divisions are relatively arbitrary. Also, if you don't mind, please leave the "misleadingly" in there - to constantly abbreviate Western Philosophy to Philosophy is, in fact, misleading; it's been the practice for hundreds of years now, I don't see why you're so eager to extend it. -- User:Simonides 09:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) You are aware that you exhibit a complimentary bias to the one you ascribe to me. Each of us shows the interests and opinions appropriate to our background. Within the article, emphasising the distinction serves only to make the bias more obvious, rather than remove it. User:Banno 10:28, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) :I don't have a complementary bias, in the sense that I greatly admire Wittgenstein, Popper, etc and have some of their works. It is true that I find a lot of recent Anglo-American "philosophy" takes the subject to new heights of silliness and, as I wrote above, verges on or is pseudo-science; but the same can be said of unimaginative academics who are apparently participating in postmodern critiques. The distinction needs to be noted because, as I said, it exists, and the newcomer needs to be aware that if entries in dictionaries/ encylopediae/ etc on Continental philosophers are moot and Anglo-American philosophers slightly more comprehensive, it is not because of inherent merits. -- User:Simonides 03:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::Similarly I have respect for Sartre, Foucault and Fromm, and make use of Critical Theory in my work. Sokal affair has shown that perhaps the silliness is not confined to Analytic philosophy. User:Banno 07:50, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) :::I don't see the point of your reply, since you mostly repeated what I wrote above. Re: your bias, anyone who states (essentially) that Greek philosophy and its antecedents make the only philosophy is clearly speaking out of ignorance, in which case the bias becomes worth noting; as for Sokal, his 'hoax' is widely known but I don't believe he proved anything beyond what I noted, ie that some practitioners of philosophy don't know what they're doing - it doesn't mean that philosophy itself has been debunked. -- User:Simonides 13:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) The same criticism applies to the forced distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy. But there is more of this distinction in Philosophy than a mere link to the main articles - each has a sub-section. The article would again be improved by reference to specific philosophies or philosophers rather than to inappropriate generalisations. What is misleading is using a distinction that does little to explain, compare or contrast the ideas it enfolds. User:Banno 10:28, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC) : There is no "forced distinction". It is very clearly stated that there is great overlap between them. ::Yes – Too much overlap. It would be better simply to refer directly to the schools or folk involved. User:Banno ::: I can't help but argue that there is not "too much overlap". Taoism, Buddhism, and so on, may have rough Western equivalents, but it's geo-historically accurate to call them Eastern traditions. Middle Eastern and Russian philosophies deserve their own distinction. Eurasian philosophies, perhaps. User:Lucidish 20:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::: As Lucidish has noted, there is probably just enough about each tradition to leave the reader curious without giving them the impression that everything is either intertwined or rigidly distinct. If it must be tweaked, I prefer it's made briefer, not longer. A discussion of respective methods simply does not belong here, and it should be noted that there is no such thing as a standard "philosophical method" either. Every philosopher or every school invents their own methods; that is part of the task of philosophy. -- User:Simonides 03:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) : I don't generally think that the analytic / Continental approach to labelling traditions is all that hot, and may indeed be entirely useless. But it's popular, so it's worth mentioning, and in any case your rewritten paragraph suits me fine. : The attack on logical positivism as one example of an analytic school seems to be based more on personal preferences than it is on any reason, so I can't really comment seriously. User:Lucidish 05:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) ::I’m not attacking logical positivism; only saying that it is not exemplary. It is very misleading to site it without reference to other schools. The present text, referring to individuals, is much the better. User:Banno 07:13, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) ::: That, of course, is fine. It just seemed otherwise from your previous comments. User:Lucidish 20:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) == Syllogism == From the article: ''Philosophers typicaly frame problems in a logical manner, using syllogisms''. I have my doubts about the ''syllogisms'' parts. Don't contemporary philosophers use formal logic? User:Pjacobi 22:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I suggest re-wording to ''Philosophers typicaly frame problems in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic, since Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell increasingly using predicate logic''. == The Relevancy of Philosophy Today == While I appreciate that the article goes into some discussion of the "real world" uses of philosophy, I wonder if it really goes far enough. The "Applied Philosophy" section seems a little dry in this regard. I have considered adding a few sentences concerning how modern philosophers have had (and still have) great impact in femisim, the civil rights movement, issues regarding AIDS, the war in Iraq, etc. The danger, however, is in inadvertently propagating the "philosophy is mere opinion" myth. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. User:AdmN 01:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I think such a paragraph would be useful; the wording simply has to be careful to avoid propagating myths. If you pasted a sample here some of us could probably respond to it before you put it up. -- User:Simonides 10:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) == External Links to WWW discussion boards == IMHO external Links to WWW discussion boards are not encyclopedic. Now, two of them habe been added. The mind-brain link, with the additional malice, that in the past there were attempts to add "hidden". I.e. replacing an existing link and not changing the display text. Anyway, now adding in undisguised may be seen as an improvement. As not having contributed to the article, I won't jump on the links now. Only bring it to your attention. User:Pjacobi 18:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Perhaps not encyclopedic, but surely useful for people with questions which cannot easily be googled. -- User:DougBTX 20:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Housekeeping == This article has gotten messy. There is no standard structure. Also, I prepose that Western Philosophy have catagory, "Branches" or "Traditional Branches." There is plenty left out. What of empiricism, what of ontology, what of aesthetics? I am not learned enough to be as bold as editing the arcticle, but I hope my suggestions will have some encouragement to the effectiveness of the article. User:Dustinasby 05:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Various edits == I made several small edits to the article, the most important being: 1) Changed "is THE study of the ULTIMATE reality" to "a study of the reality" - less pretentious, less vague, more accommodating of sciences that make a similar claim. 2) Moved "(Philosophy in Greek), lover of wisdom" lower down where it was mentioned before and explained better - avoids the immediate association of Philosophy (in general) with Greek or Western tradition philosophy, and is mentioned where the translation can take more room (''philosophia'' only roughly means love of wisdom; it can also mean friend of wisdom, for example.) 3) Removed some titles from Bibliography for beginners - the books were too slanted towards a particular point of view to be suitable for beginners looking for a comprehensive and somewhat objective approach - one might as well include "introductions" by other famous philosophers which are actually part of their respective philosophies. -- User:Simonides 10:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Russell == Shouldn't Russell's history of Western Philosophy be included in the reference section? It's pretty significant, even today. == Ayn Rand censorship == Wikipedia is not a place for personal prejudice. That the word "fascist" does not appear in the Ayn Rand article is perhaps something you should take into account - if she was such then that is the place to make that point, not in a comment to an edit of philosophy. I have reverted your deletion of the Ayn Rand quotation in philosophy not only for that reason but because, in my opinion and in the opinion of (s)he who included the quotation, what she said was worthy of inclusion. That something is inadmissible because of who said it and not what was said I also find fundamentally distasteful: Here you and the fascists have something in common. User:Psb777 11:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Find room in a speaker's corner. I didn't call Ayn Rand a fascist but a neo-fascist - that you can't see the difference goes a long way in explaining anything you have to say on the matter. -- User:Simonides 21:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) Have it your own way: Wikipedia is not a place for personal prejudice. That the word "neo-fascist" does not appear in the Ayn Rand article is perhaps something you should take into account - if she was such then that is the place to make that point, not in a comment to an edit of philosophy. I have reverted your deletion of the Ayn Rand quotation in philosophy not only for that reason but because, in my opinion and in the opinion of (s)he who included the quotation, what she said was worthy of inclusion. That something is inadmissible because of who said it and not what was said I also find fundamentally distasteful: Here you and the fascists (not just the neo-fascists) have something in common. User:Psb777 22:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I wonder when people will realise that repeating lies/ idiocy/ etc doesn't make it less so. If anyone here has an agenda to push, it's pretty clear whom. -- User:Simonides 22:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) If it is from Ayn Rand it is unacceptable to Simonides and should be censored. See edit comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Philosophy&action=history Philosophy edit history]]. User:Psb777 22:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) "Neo" does not mean "not as bad as" or "leaning towards". It just means "new" or "revived". When you call someone a neo-X you are calling them an X. Use a dictionary. User:Psb777 22:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Someone else's talk page is not the best place to expound your whole philosophy of life. As I said, if you need to vent, go elsewhere; if not I will simply remove your posts from this page. Goodbye. Non-sequiter. User:Psb777 22:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Rand has every right to be on the page as a quote. Like Paul said, criticisms of her belong on the Ayn Rand page, with citations. Heidegger is reputed to have been a genuine fascist; but we quote him all the time. To quote someone is not the same as to agree with them.User:Lucidish 18:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Featured article candidacy== The period of review on WP:FAC has ended. Unfortunately, there were some outstanding objections, so I have posted the transcript of the discussion. If you fix and objection on this list, please cross it out. User:Vacuum 15:28, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) Very nicely written. User:Vacuum 16:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC) * Support. It is nicely written, (despite being at the center of frequent edit debates). User:FuncUser_talk:Func 00:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) ** if that is true, it should not be featured. See Wikipedia:What is a featured article: "A featured article should: Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." I therefore object if there are indeed frequent ongoing edit debates. User:Jeronimo 06:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) *** There have been no reverts on Philosophy in the past month, except to correct vandalism and a minor argument on which quotes to include (which was solved by moving them to Wikiquote). User:Vacuum 00:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) ** That's great. However, I still object to the article (now having read it as well). 1) There's no picture. Dozens of philosophers are mentioned, so dozens of choices. ''An article does not need a picture to be featured.'' 2) I find it strange that the five types of questions identified by the Greek are broadly discussed, while it is then said that "there are others" and "Chinese philosophers in particular had a different conception of categories from the Greeks". If they're important enough to mention, please do so. Also, it is not at all clear if this subdivision is still used in the present. 3) I miss a brief "history of philosophy" section. Most of this information is scattered throughout the article, and difficult to get a hold of . There's at least a long History of Western philosophy article, so there should be plenty of information for such a section. User:Jeronimo 06:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Support. User:Revth 08:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Support. User:ZayZayEM 12:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Objections: The length and diversity of this article merits at least another paragraph in the lead section. The Western philosophy is a list of names and not much more. User:Sverdrup 09:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) * Object: Sverdrup said what I was going to say. User:Filiocht 10:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Philosophical traditions == Philosophical traditions cannot be both distinct and not able to be considered distinctly. Let’s at least make some sense in the first paragraph… User:Banno 20:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) == Stanley Cavell == I removed: :Stanley Cavell, a philosopher whose interests are neither exclusively "analytic" nor "continental", describes this difference in approach by writing that "philosophy may be inherited either as a set of problems to be solved (as Anglo-American analysts do) or else as a set of texts to be read (as Europe does – except of course where it has accepted, or reaccepted, analysis). You can sense how different imperatives for training, different standards for criticism and conversation, different genres of composition, different personas of authorship, will arise from this difference in modes of inheritance." ("The Philosopher in American Life," in ''Emerson’s Transcendental Etudes'', 45-46) The actual content of this paragraph is mentioned elsewhere in the article; Cavell’s article in the Wiki is minor – it needs much more material – so I don’t see why he deserves a special mention in the main philosophy article… User:Banno 21:06, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC) : I added this quotation not as a "special mention" of Cavell but because I think it a particularly nice, succinct, and unprejudiced two-sentence summary of the analytic-Continental split. It's fine with me to remove it (and of course Stanley Cavell is not name number 1 that anyone would include in an article on philosophy ''tout court''!) but the article currently doesn't do as good a job explaining the split as Cavell does. -- User:Rbellin|User talk:Rbellin 06:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) == intro == At the risk of unleashing the Daemons once again, I'd like to take another look at the intro. Look at " as a practice, aims at some kind of understanding, knowledge, or wisdom about fundamental matters such as reality, knowledge, meaning, value, being, and truth." Its pretty poor prose. I can't quite see where this phrasing came in; there is a tendency on the Wiki to cram as many links to related topics into the introduction as possible - it looks as if a simple sentence has grown into this monster over time, without any particular intention underlying its Creation. Time to kill the beast. I think it better not to attempt a definition, at least not inthe first paragraph; but simply to admit that the definition of philosophy itself is a philosophical issue.i do not think anything is lost by removing the diverse links that were in the first para. User:Banno 11:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Philosophy
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Philosophy:
PhiloSophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy,_Politics_and_Economics
Philosophy-stub
Philosophy/Archive_1
Philosophy/Archive_2
Philosophy/NEW_PHILOSOPHY
PhilosophyAndLogic
PhilosophyGirl
PhilosophyGirl
PhilosophyOfLanguage
PhilosophyOfMind
PhilosophyOfPerception
PhilosophyOfReligion
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasks
PhilosophyTasksBox
PhilosophyTasksBox
Philosophy_and_space_and_time
Philosophy_and_space_and_time
Philosophy_articles_(master_list)
Philosophy_articles_(master_list)
Philosophy_basic_topics
Philosophy_basic_topics
Philosophy_basic_topics
Philosophy_books
Philosophy_books
Philosophy_by_era
Philosophy_by_tradition
Philosophy_For_Children
Philosophy_in_the_Bedroom
Philosophy_naturalism
Philosophy_of_action
Philosophy_of_action
Philosophy_of_Africa
Philosophy_of_Aristotle
Philosophy_of_art
Philosophy_of_art
Philosophy_of_art
Philosophy_of_biology
Philosophy_of_biology
Philosophy_of_Buddhism
Philosophy_of_business
Philosophy_of_business
Philosophy_of_chemistry
Philosophy_of_chemistry
Philosophy_of_Common_Sense
Philosophy_of_composition
Philosophy_of_copyright
Philosophy_of_copyright
Philosophy_of_Economics
Philosophy_of_Education
Philosophy_of_education
Philosophy_of_education
Philosophy_of_history
Philosophy_of_history
Philosophy_of_knowledge
Philosophy_of_language
Philosophy_of_language
Philosophy_of_language
Philosophy_of_Law
Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy_of_law
Philosophy_of_Life
Philosophy_of_Life
Philosophy_of_Logic
Philosophy_of_logic
Philosophy_of_mathematics
Philosophy_of_mathematics
Philosophy_of_mathematics
Philosophy_of_mathematics/Archive_1
Philosophy_of_mind
Philosophy_of_mind
Philosophy_of_mind
Philosophy_of_Mind_(Hegel)
Philosophy_of_Mind_(Hegel)
Philosophy_of_mixed_government
Philosophy_of_music
Philosophy_of_naturalism
Philosophy_of_nature
Philosophy_of_nature
Philosophy_of_Organism
Philosophy_of_Organism
Philosophy_of_perception
Philosophy_of_perception
Philosophy_of_physics
Philosophy_of_physics
Philosophy_of_physics
Philosophy_of_psychology
Philosophy_of_psychology
Philosophy_of_Racism
Philosophy_of_Religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_Science
Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy_of_science
Philosophy_of_science/archive_1
Philosophy_of_Scientific/Archive_1
Philosophy_of_sex
Philosophy_of_sex
Philosophy_of_Social_Science
Philosophy_of_Social_Science
Philosophy_of_social_science
Philosophy_of_social_science
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Philosophy_of_suicide
Philosophy_of_Thermal_and_Statistical_Physics
Philosophy_of_Thermal_and_Statistical_Physics
Philosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics
Philosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics
Philosophy_of_the_life
Philosophy_of_the_life
Philosophy_of_the_mind
Philosophy_of_time
Philosophy_of_time
Philosophy_of_time/deletion
Philosophy_realism
Philosophy_stubs
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
