Talk:List of American philosophers

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:
/
	Philosophers

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Criteria?[edit]

There's some ambiguity between "philosopher" as a profession and "philosopher" just meaning "thinker" or something similar. While I see the value in listing the first kind of philosopher, I don't see much point lumping the two together, and the second kind is fraught with vagueness. So, for example, John Cage is not a philosopher in the first sense (and possibly not even in the second sense). D. Jeffrey Wright doesn't strike me as either kind, but - because there is so much vagueness - inclusion in the second group is largely a matter of opinion. I would suggest narrowing the criteria to get a better list. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot more to philosophy than just academic philosophy. For example, transcendentalist writers were not philosophers in the rigorous academic sense, yet their contributions to philosophy were great. I am trying to integrate this article more with other articles, and, by getting more people involved, a consensus can be established. I do not want the scope of inclusion in this list to be restricted according to one or two people's decisions. JEN9841 (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own attitude is that the broader the inclusion criteria are for a list, the less interesting the list is. People like D. Jeffrey Wright are not having an impact on philosophy. John Cage neither, although you might find him mentioned in a philosophy of art paper. You might find Bach too, that doesn't make Bach a philosopher. Hairhorn (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, feel free to remove any people on the list that you feel should not be there. However, I would argue that you defer to the list as it stands for "borderline" cases. JEN9841 (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladson-Billings[edit]

Gloria Ladson-Billings has been removed form the list. She earned a PhD in Curriculum and Teacher Education, not in Philosophy "proper" nor in Philosophy of Education. There does not seem to be evidence of her publishing in journals of philosophy or philosophy of education. Her academic areas of interests that she lists on her faculty page do not include philosophy in any way. Moreover, she earned her PhD from Stanford, which has a Philosophy of Education program. Yet she did not graduate from it..--Lhakthong (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UT)

Richard Malcolm Weaver, Jr (March 3, 1910 – April 1, 1963) was an American scholar who taught English at the University of Chicago. He is primarily known as a shaper of mid- 20th century conservatism and as an authority on modern rhetoric. A solitary figure in 20th century American academic life, briefly a socialist in his youth, a lapsed leftist intellectual conservative by the time he was in graduate school, a teacher of composition, a Platonist philosopher who wrote on the problem of universals and criticized nominalism, a literary and cultural critic, and a theorist of human nature and society. Described by Young (1995: 4) as a "radical and original thinker" remembered for his books Ideas Have Consequences (a recurring phrase in conservative intellectual and political discourse) and The Ethics of Rhetoric, his writings remain influential, particularly among conservative theorists and scholars of the American South. Weaver was also associated with the "New Conservatives," a group of scholars who in the 1940s and 1950s promoted traditionalist conservatism. [From Weaver's Wikipedia Entry] 98.25.220.146 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fukuyama[edit]

I was only wondering if it would be irrelevant to add Francis Fukuyama's name to the list as well. He is a political philosopher of some sort. So I will do so, but if you think other wise, please let me know. -- And Rew 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's really more of a political scientist than a philosopher, but it's probably not a point worth belaboring. Hairhorn (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that he is more of a political scientists. And, in fact, because of this I was not certain about putting his name on the list either. But when I looked more closely at his Wikipedia page, I found terms such as "Analytic Philosophy", "American Philosophy", or "Contemporary Philosophy" that kind of implied political philosophy aspect to him as well. -- And Rew 01:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan through his publications shows not a single publication in a philosophy journal, so his status as an philosopher, analytic or otherwise, seems to me to be in doubt. Hairhorn (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the Fukuyama entry. So you may want to strike him from the list. Hairhorn (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Alan Sokal? How come he is not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.171.147 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]