Talk:Axiology

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Logic / Ethics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Metaphysics
	Logic
	Ethics

This article was nominated for merging with Value theory on 27 Dec 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Omanzo693.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove advertisment?[edit]

Last sentence of the introduction "Studies of both kinds are found in Cultura: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology." looks to me like an advertisment for a journal. I would delete this myself, but I am quite a non-expert so I feel slightly uneasy about it. Kkumer (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Axiology and "value theory" entries[edit]

Both are almost synonymous, I suggest to merge those two entries. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.131.126 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure synonims. Definitely Merge! Semifinalist (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note a merge request at Talk:Value theory#Merge Request was closed as no consensus. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axiology and Robert S. Hartman[edit]

Discussions of axiology without mentioning Hartman's The Structure of Value are seriously devoid of learning. He has made a major contribution to the study and understanding of value, and ought to be given a fair display on Wikipedia. Wjkellpro 04:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was German. That would probably explain his omission. German science is generally devoid of good sense which it trades in in favor of rigor. It think it can substitute lack of insight with deduction. If there's anything to complain about, it is the absolutely sophomoric "This concept led philosophers to distinguish between judgments based on fact and judgments based on values, creating division between science and philosophy." Rubbish. Not only is fact-value dichotomy a fiction, but the division---fact goes to science, value goes to philosophy---is through and through hogwash. It's not simply a factual error, it doesn't even make sense. Incoherent. --

Axiology and Robert M. Pirsig[edit]

I wonder whether indeed Robert M. Pirsig introduced the term axiology to the general audience in his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The main topic of the book is perhaps axiology, that is the study of what is value, but I doubt that Pirsig actually uses the expression "axiology". Also, Pirsig's assumption that quality and value are the same is somewhat unorthodox, defying the common usage. --Dan 15:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Pirsig introduced the term "axiology", as ZMM's full text contains neither the substring "axiology" nor "axiol". --Dan Polansky 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value Matters: Studies in Axiology[edit]

The book Value Matters: Studies in Axiology is listed in the references section of the article. To me, it seems like an advertisement. I have read the book recently and I find it poor; I wonder whether any native English speaking person would recommend it as a source of information. --Dan Polansky 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have not read the book, Nicholas Rescher (the author) at least has a serious history of engagement with relevant aspects of the discipline. --Brianh 23:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rescher is a very respected academic. I have not read it either (but have just ordered it by interlibrary loan to take a look). The title does provide the useful service of showing that the term "axiology" has not fallen into disuse, as one editor of this article had previously claimed. -- WikiPedant 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communication section?[edit]

I question whether the section on "issues in communication studies" is really relevant for this page. I think it would be better replaced with either the history of axiology of current schools of thought on axiology.

Additionally, it doesn't really explain what axiological issues are at play, and to do so would have to take a lot of unpacking in regards to the history of communication studies and the plurality of ontological and epistemological values in communication studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydencb93 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no comment on this for a couple weeks, I plan on removing the section on communication after 1 December 2017 unless there are objections. --Haydencb93 (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify connections with deontology and values (Western philosophy)?[edit]

I know, "clarify" a philosophy article, ha. But we have extensive discussion of "values" here, but no link anywhere to the main(?) article on the topic. Or certainly an article that appears to cover a lot of the same ground. Relatedly, the final section contrasts consequentialism and "fitting-attitude theories", with an outgoing link to a stand-alone article on the former, and a complete dead-end on the latter. (The "values" article discusses FAT at greater length and in more context, note.) But the given source contains phrases like "heart of the debate between consequentialists and deontologists" -- yet no reference to the latter here, which we do have an article on.

This is going to be confusing and opaque no matter what, I suspect, but can't the confusion and opacity be organised a little better? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]