Talk:Definitions of philosophy

	; Archives ;
	No archives yet.
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Philosophy Top‑importance

	Philosophy portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redundancy of this article[edit]

As I recall, long ago we had a "definition of philosophy" article, which it was decided to merge into Metaphilosophy. Is there a good reason why this article needs to exist rather than just expanding on that article? If Snowded (talk · contribs) is still around he's probably got some input as he was heavily involved in all that back then. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its a question both of notability and of the amount of content. I think both factors justify a separate treatment: there are many reliable sources that specifically concern this topic (for example, see the sources cited in the article or try searching "What is philosophy" on google scholar) and there is a lot of content to be covered. Metaphilosophy, on the other hand, covers various other topics as well, such as investigating the different philosophical methods and the value or usefulness of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just coming back from a six month break - ironically setting up a wiki :-) I'm inclined to say that this article would have value with a rewrite - that is to say more or less a list of the various definitions and their sources without commentary (the sort of thing Phlsph7 has the knowledge and energy to do. From memory there were a few articles that were in effect coatracks so it might be time for a tidy up. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article does not present a list but describes, among other things, different types of definitions together with some examples for each. The commentary is important on such an approach to explain the context and the criticism they received by other philosophers. This is how many reliable sources deal with this topic and it has the advantage of giving an actual overview instead of just a list of unrelated characterizations. I think this approach is more useful, especially given that there are so many individual definitions of philosophy: many philosophers, past and present, each have their own unique definition. But a historical section focusing more on the individual definitions without much emphasis on the critical evaluation of each one could be a valuable addition. Such a section might play the role you intended for the list. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science[edit]

Definition of philosophy 2001:4450:81BF:C400:59F4:E7E3:488:417E (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style[edit]

This article is written in a personalized language that's incompatible with an encyclopedia.

Examples:

'...This is an important achievement...' (who judges it important?)

'...the problem with such general characterizations...' (who judges it general?)

'...they are usually too vague...' (who judges it too vague?)

'...they apply not just to philosophy but also to some non-philosophical disciplines...' (who's making this claim? which non-philosophical disciplines?)

'...thereby fail to distinguish philosophy from them...' (says who?)

Thanks for the suggestions, I implemented several reformulations but I'm not sure that they are strictly speaking required. Whether attribution is required depends on how controversial a view is and is usually not necessary for widely accepted claims. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]