Talk:Philosophy/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20


Analytic vs Continental

The other area of disagreement in the article has been the analytic vs continental section. Can I ask for consensus that we limit anything in the article itself to two paragraphs or more, then take any other material to a separate article. Obviously it's a very important part of the history of our subject, but takes a lot of thought, and deserves a page to itself. This article should really be a summary of the main issues, with links to important sub-articles. Dbuckner 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue. A number of editors want to ignore as much as possible that there exists a schism and that their own philosophy be it Analytic or Continental is not philosophy in general but merely one side of a larger debate.
So anything about an article on its own gets scrutinized by both sides. If you are going with a new name, avoid the word Anglophone, Analytics do not like it. As to Continental I dont think it bothers them.
Another issue is what to call it, a divergence, a divide, a schism, a split. My own preference is for schism because I think it is of great historic importance and never happened before. It is also a Greek work and I think suits better than those anti-philosophic Roman ones like diverge etc. No word at all, would be double speak.
Perhaps there is only one page on wiki for this issue and the general philosophy page may be the only place, since it presumably has an overview that includes Analytic, Continental and Eastern philosophy. A single page for it may not work because of mobbing, this is less likely to happen (one hopes) on the general philosophy page.
Lucas
The question is, do you agree with having a couple of paras at the most on the divide itself, given (as the FT man says below) that this article is at most a summary of all the bits it has to cover? Yes or no? There was just way too much before, and that was a cause of some disagreement. I am not saying anything about content, just the balance between what goes in here, and what goes in a sub-article. There is no doubt that such an important issue deserves treatment somewhere in WP. I would just like your agreement that here is not the place for detailed treatment. Thanks. Dbuckner 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The man in fact says I'd expect to find the article covering key topics mostly in summary, with links to major topics elsewhere, if there are big topics such as "history of philosophy". These things would reassure me as to quality. The analytic continental divide is a pretty important topic in the history of philosophy (and in its present), so it should receive detailed treatment elsewhere. Is that reasonable? Dbuckner 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No I do not agree about how many letters should be in it, we do not write this article like a computer and calculate how many letters for each section. If it grows too big what usually happens is an article is made for it. So, for example, if you have stuff to add to another section go and add it, if the various editors agree later that it should have a separate article that is fine. I agree as I said above that we could copy/paste this to its own article but since it straddles two areas it actaully fits here editorially.

Also note, that most sections of this article are duplicated, redundant and perhaps out of date copies of main articles The schism and things like it might be the only reason someone might read this page, since if one wanted to know one of the other matters you would probably just click to that page.

--Lucas 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the material as it is, is quite lengthy. Some treatment is needed, but it should be limited to a few paragraphs, complete with links to wikis which can give more information. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gathering the Issues

For me what is wrong here at the moment is that we are not dealing with the random barrage of issues. Some are discussed a little, left open, others are just mentioned once, and then edits take place that pretend that these discussions are not going on at all.

So here I list some open issues:

Snake Vs Neat
I notice the snake, as is inevitable, is growing and growing. Majority in favour of the snake version: KD Tries Again, Lucidish and Dbuckner, Peter J King. Not sure where Banno, Mel Etitis, nor FT2 stand on this. Ironically, Lucidivkis wants the neat version, me too.
Ground rules
improving has been interpreted as removing blocks of work done by other editors, without adding any independent work. There are lots lots of subsections in the article that need work.
Analytic/Continental schism
numerous points made on the scope and content, additions were suggested to cover some of the philsophic differences and also a minor note on some bridges.
Marxism and Analytic
what is the relation between these two, did political climate affect philosophy department hiring? Article not clear on this. How relevant is it to the schism and not just a description of Analytic (there is a page on that already). Rewording needed.
Mathematics and Analytic
article is not clear on this, but it seems this is key to understanding why Analytic dimissed Hegel but could not drop Kant. Again how is it related to the schism? Rewording needed.
Philosophy of Religion
is this area in need of work?

It is all too often than issues are taken up here on a whim, partially discussed and then dropped. So please note, all of the above issues are open so try not to make major changes in these areas without coming here first. Minor changes like rewording are needed in some of them.

By the way, on the issue that wiki is not changing the world but documenting it, well, it is also changing the world it is called the Information revolution.

--Lucas 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


On my side, to answer the above, I don't have a content stance, at present. As said, I'm here to watch the conduct and editorship. As and when it becomes apparent that some matter is under or over represented, or mis represented, or that neutrality is not respected in some matter, for example, and I become sure of that, then that will be what sets a stance for me. Right now however, the issue is that this article is here to siummarize and document Philosophy, for a newcomer to get a fair, informative and balanced overview. I'm not convinced from many comments passed, that it's yet doing that, and I'm not convinced that all editors are furthering that objective as they might, but as to where it falls down, I'm not yet sure -- I'm just watching the debate for a bit, seeing who reverts without good explanation, who inserts what seems to be original research, whether there are emotional arguments (insults, straw men etc) being used, or practices which disrupt and make it harder for consensus and stability to be found, and generally getting a taste of the issues that are arising.
I will say that since philosophy is a well respected and well covered subject in the world, I would expect a few things. I'd expect that what this article says about some group (rationalists or empiricists or specific people's influence, or whichever) will roughly match the sort of things other credible sources say on the same subject. I'd expect that what this article describes as the history of philosophy and any splits or key points, roughly matches what other reliable sources say on the subject. I'd expect to see encouraging signs of neutral presentation and consensus. I'd expect to find the article covering key topics mostly in summary, with links to major topics elsewhere, if there are big topics such as "history of philosophy". These things would reassure me as to quality. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


And Lucaas... whilst Wikipedia might be part of the information revolution, we are still not here to change the subject of philosophy. Just to write a fair neutral summary of how it's seen by others (historically and currently). Worth bearing in mind, that. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agree, changing the mode of philosophy has never had any effect on it, from the nomadic greek mystics, to the dialecticians of the agora to the stoic's garden, on to the contemplative cell of the middle ages and further, to the public book writings of the philosophe. They are just material changes in the practice of philosophy, and have never affected the purity of crytal clear thought.
--Lucas 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Lucas - taking your points in turn: Snake Vs Neat – the thing is to take each point of the definition in turn, carefully and slowly, as I've suggested. I'm sure Mel would agree with Peter King, anyway, since both are professional philosophers. On ground rules, yes, indeed improving. On the schism, my view is that such an important event desrerves a short summary here, then an article. Also important is how analytic philosophy is characterised as against 'continental'. On Marxism vs Analytic, why would that be in philosophy article? Marxism is a combination of economic theory and ideology. This is a philosophy article. We could have a philosophy of Marxism section, but then have to balance with all other philosophy of X sections. On mathematics and analytic, that is obviously the subject of a separate article. Philosophy of Religion – not an area of mine. Not much, anyway. Dbuckner 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I would not be too sure about the two sophists you mention agreeing on a defintion of philosophy, the only thing so far they seem agree upon, is how to make money off it.
Above I did take each part of the snake in turn and each one failed.
I agree, in principle that an article is needed for the schism but think it might be better in a general topic like this since it is contentious and the Analytics tend to mob and they might attempt to devour it
To consider Marxism as not philosophy is a personal opinion and contrary to most philosophy histories I've read. Instead lets talk of Marx/Hegel, as I'm sure Hegel is more up your street (or should I say leafy-suburb). I did not suggest adding it but talk of it cos it is already in the article and tries to explain I suppose why Analytic has a certain attitude to the philosophy of Marx/Hegel that is very different to the Continental one. I think to build that here in a more neutral space and then copy it to a schism article might be an idea, then we might allow for a time those subsections to grow before moving them on.
--Lucas 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First edit: branches of philosophy

First edit since the reversion this morning. I have changed the wording around the branches of philosophy to agree better with standard definitions. I can give full citations, but this is not a substantial change. Check the diff version to see exactly what I have done. There is still the problem that we are defining the subject by its branches. This is bad in principle, and bad in the case of philosophy, where there is no complete agreement about what the branches are. But one step at a time. It is quite amazing to see this article with only 2 edits in an 8 hour period. Best. Dbuckner 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another bad thing is that the first part says what philosophy is, then says that defining philosophy is controversial. If so, why did it begin by effectively defining it? If we are to put the 'controversial' bit in at all, it should go in at the beginning. It is by no means clear to me that it is that controversial, by the way. There are plenty of sources in Definition of philosophy that suggest there is widespread agreement about the crude definition (everyone agrees that an interesting one is difficult). The source cited here is another page definitions of philosophy which consists of a number of different quotations from philosophers (some absurdly misquoted), but I don't see how these support the idea that characterising as opposed to defining it is at all controversial. There is also a distinction between characterising something, and saying something interesting (as many of the quotes do). Dbuckner 15:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me give two different quotations from that page, to illustrate my point. The first is by Maritain: "Philosophy is the science by which the natural light of reason studies the first causes or highest principles of all things – is, in other words, the science of things in their first causes, in so far as these belong to the natural order." That is an attempt at a definition, which is half Aristotle (the first causes) and half Aquinas (the natural light of reason). It would be controversial now, but there is no doubt it aims to be a definition. By contrast Russell says "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." Which is not a definition but a witty, and half ironic remark about a certain kind of philosophy. The page in question ( definitions of philosophy) mixes these two kinds of statement about philosophy in roughly equal proportion. Dbuckner 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There's never going to be agreement about anything in philosophy. But who really disputes that ethics, logic, epistemology and metaphysics are traditional philosophical topics? It's really a question of the history of philosophy more than anything else, and at least with HoP there is good reason to say that there can be right and wrong answers. This is reflected by the source material at Def.oPhil, IIRC.
My preference is to start with the positive, and then go with the negative. IE: first we mention the prototypical extension of philosophy -- the branches; and then we try to mention intensional interpretations of those branches. The reason is that we have to give the reader something right off the bat, or else they get the feeling that they're being jerked around by some "You cannot be told what The Matrix is"-styled hocus-pocus. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

--yes, but where do you think the matrik got its hocus from? Lucas

From the same place that the pile of crap known as Sophie's World got its inspiration { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I tidied up that edit of the intro alittle. I removed "study" from an early sentence and just left it open, since philosophy in general is not only an academic subject. Also I simplified the branches section, I also put ethics first, since I think in the rest of the definition and in the article in general the impression is given that it is like mathematics just a specialist topic. I also removed one mentioned of "analysis", this and its cognates are litter throughout the intro. --Lucas 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First subsections after "philosophers on pholosophy"

The first subsection after "philosophers on pholosophy", should not be this somewhat archaic area of the branches of philosophy. Who makes these branches? No one, they are just made up and shuffled around every few decades.

The worst thing about this section is the 20 questions that in Sesame street fashion even personify some of the little branches on the tree and get them to ask questions. Well was I tired when I go to the end of answering all those questions! Here it is in full:

Each branch has its own particular questions. Logic asks: How do we distinguish arguments from premises to conclusions as valid or invalid? How can we know that a statement is true or false? What kinds of questions can we answer? Aesthetics asks: What is beauty? What is art? Ethics asks: What are values? Why does man need them? Are values absolute or relative? Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions, values, or institutions? Which actions are right and which are wrong? What is happiness? Is there a normative value on which all other values depend? Are values 'in' the world (like tables and chairs) and if not, how should we understand their ontological status? Politics is the study of social organization. It asks such questions as: How should men interact in society? What is law? What is government? Do men need law and government? What is Justice? What is freedom in the political context? What is the nature of production and trade? How do they function within the various forms of government? And metaphysics asks: What is reality? What exists? Do things exist independently of perception? (See Solipsism, the idea that only perception exists.)

Can we just delete this! Anyhow can we move this section to the end or its own page. I think it does worse that a dictionary definition of the words ethics, politics, logic, etc. Presumably most people would already have a rough idea of the word meanings (apart from perhaps metaphysics and epistemology). Then again it added one of its own "normative" without explaining it.

Also who made that picture so small, I can hardly see it now, it's probably the best thing on the page!

I support the idea of deleting the redundant pages History of Western Philosophy is just a copy of History of Western Philosophy. Western Philosophy is awful. Dbuckner 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

--Lucas 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If I got angry every time someone told me something I already knew, then you'd have to call me the Incredible Hulk { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, my opinion is that the History of Philosophy and Branches of Philosophy sections should both be deleted. It makes no sense to talk about an over all History of Philosophy -- history should be a subsection of Western Philosophy and Branches a subsection of the later sections on branches of Philosophy. Also, it seems absurd to split off African Philosophy from the other subsections of non-Western philosophy. I also liked the larger picture.

All that said, as long as people are posting dozens of changes and hundreds of words every day, any attempt to make the article better will be lost in the hasty rewrites, so I'm outa here. I'll be back only if I'm needed to revert an intro that sucks. (Who was that masked man...?) Rick Norwood 00:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a possibility too of deleting the Western philosophy page, it is quite unwieldy. Also the page "History of philosophy" similarly and "History of Western Philosophy" is a third. There is alot of duplication which might incline people to read none of it, since they'd have to read the same story written badly twice or three times. --Lucas 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

At this stage I'm not going to join in the editing frenzy, but I feel that I should point out something concerning the etymology. The most relevant Greek words are exactly these: φιλός (philós: friend, or lover); σοφία (sophía: wisdom); whence we have φιλοσοφία (philosophía: philosophy, love of wisdom). There is also, incidentally, φιλόσοφος (philósophos: lover, or friend, of wisdom – therefore philosopher). Note the accents, and note the precise translations. It would be a good idea at least to get these details right, and to keep them that way. Anything else is a bad look (and we wouldn't want that for our page, would we!?). – Noetica 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodness no. Could you make the changes? I'm no good at Greek. Dbuckner 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, against my better judgement I have changed not only the etymology but also the wording and order of the first paragraph. Please leave the etymology as you now find it, folks: accurate and clear. I accept, with stoic fortitude of spirit, that my other changes will not be seen by all as the improvement I am confident they are, and I leave them to their fate (poor babes). – Noetica 10:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And a splendid change it was, I thought. If only it were all so easy. Dbuckner

Above there was a discussion of etymology now it gets a full sentence or two. In any case it is fine, except I remove the phrase "love of wisdom" since in same discssion it is not clear if also, from what Socrates says in the Symposium, it could also mean the wisdom of love. So rather than add both which might be objected to, I remove that one. --Lucas 15:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas, there is no doubt that the meaning is love of wisdom, and not wisdom of love. I have restored love of wisdom as the correct gloss on φιλοσοφία, since it could not mean anything else. Let anyone who dissents bring forward a respectable source for the alternative reading of the word, and I will agree to the alteration you want. My source is OED, backed by innumerable others. (One 27-word sentence on etymology in the article. Quite reasonable.) – Noetica 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


It's all Greek to me, ha ha!

Just a little joke there folks, thanks for playing along. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


My source is not a tertiary source (dictionaries and encyclopedias) such as the one Noetica is suggesting, it is Plato's Symposium. So until you can come up with a better source than Plato/Socrates I remove it. If you argument were convincing hydrophilia, love of water would indicate sophiaphilos as a love of wisdom. What gloss does your tertiary source give for "the wisdom of love"? sophiaphilos?--Lucas

We've been over this. You never gave me a page number. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
A page number? I referred you to Socrates' speech, its not that long. Others have called it Plato's ladder, the ascention of erotic love, in explaining what erotic love is, he goes through the usual dialectic and discovers that love is desire to permanently have the beautiful, one can reproduce oneself and have a kind of immortality, one can found new laws and also be honoured after death as a hero or poet, for Socrates these are only half way to true beauty which is wisdom. It is this wisdom of love that that gives Socrates' clearest description of what philosophy is.Lucas 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason why you are being asked for a page number is because I have read and re-read the work and do not recall anything like what you describe. I made a few very specific stabs in the dark at what you might have meant, but the selections were inadequate. If you want to make a point, then make it by giving evidence. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the speech by Socrates is fairly clear but try from 210 on within Socrates contribution to the various descriptions of what love is. He gives his idea of ultimate love as philosophy, "boundless wisdom". I thought it was a well known idea, anyhow you talked earliar only of the bit about Resource and Poverty. Sophia is also philosophy (sophistos was philosopher or wiseman) in Greek, and was loved by the sophists and teachers of Greece (ie, the guys who got paid for it, like today's academics). To distinguish philosophy from it, is where Socrates' "philo" comes in. --Lucas 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's funny that I've been watching and contributing to specialized articles on philosophy for a year, but never had philosophy in my watchlist. Seeing discussion here, maybe that was for the best! Anyhow, I corrected the accents on 'phi/los'. When listing Greek words, the standard is to list the nominative case, and the 'normal' accent. In Greek the accents for a given word move based on declension and conjugation (particularly when the ultimate and penultimate change from a short vowel to a long vowel), and they may change based on the surrounding words (e.g., beginning with smooth breathing vowel) and punctuation (e.g., word occurs before a comma). I searched the TLG (collection of existing Greek works) and found a total of 4 instances of philos with the ultimate accented and about 5500 with the normal accent on the penult. BTW, Greek lexicons such as LSJ usually mention Pythagoras as being attributed to first use of the word philosophos (lover of wisdom). Philosophia was derived later. The source for Pythagoras is likely Diogenes L. Zeusnoos 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Zeusnoos, for fixing my inadvertently misplaced accent: φίλος is of course correct. Damn! You can see that I was trying to get something that is uncontroversial wrapped up, in a tide of uncertainties. I'll try to be even more vigilant than my pedantic norms already dictate. I agree with you about φιλόσοφος preceding φιλοσοφία; it is reflected in OED and elsewhere. I think reference to this would, however, unduly complicate the etymology in the article. Finally, I take note of the common element in our wikinames, mine really being Νοητικά, of course. (Snap!) – Noetica 23:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From Jowett's translation of Symposium: ""But-who then, Diotima," I said, "are the lovers of wisdom, if they are neither the wise nor the foolish?" "A child may answer that question," she replied; "they are those who are in a mean between the two; Love is one of them. For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher: or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant." Maybe Lucas has an alternative version? KD Tries Again 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I was referring to the "ascent", a well known idea from the symposium and similar to the emergence from the cave in the Republic. You seem to ignore (or pretend not to know) these. Read on from "the correct way to approach this business" (ie, philosophy) 210a.. then the ascent is explained, this is the idea of philosophy since just saying a lover of wisdom says nothing more than the given meaning of those words, and adds very little, since a sophist or teacher might claim to love wisdom too (he's made it his profession). The ascent is the kind of love Socrates is talking about in distinction to the several other versions of love given by the other drinkers and in distinction from other intellectual activities (poetry, law, etc.). --Lucas 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am looking right at it. In which edition do you find the "wisdom of love" translation? KD Tries Again 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Sunday 21 Jan 2007

Here are the changes for today. Dbuckner 08:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And note the philosophy workshop which FT has added. Dbuckner 08:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question. The introduction says "Some philosophers have described philosophy as a form of intellectual enquiry which uses critical analysis and reasoning, as well as dialogue or introspection, to solve seemingly intractable and fundamental problems", and it cites the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. Can someone provide a reference to what is actually said in that source? It is a basic principle that the source actually support what is claimed in the article. Dbuckner 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That sentence was written on the basis of your Definition of philosophy wiki, specifically: "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy ([4]) says the method of philosophy is rational enquiry, or enquiry guided by the canons of rationality... PDP says the subject matter of philosophy is "the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action and reality"." I confess that "introspection" and "dialogue" were fanciful additions on my part, but they seemed so obvious as to be uncontroversial. Sorry if that was poetic license. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It also says "there are many ways other encyclopedias have described it". (1) The page linked to (Definition of philosophy mostly does not use encyclopedias. (2) The page shows quite clearly that there is broad agreement about how the subject is described. Namely, rational and critical enquiry about the main subject areas. The only disagreement mentioned in that article is whether philosophy is first or second order. That is an important one, I agree. Dbuckner 09:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have started a quotations page. Since FT2 is (unwisely in my view) taking us down the road of using primary sources (i.e. the writings of the great philosophers when not talking down to mere mortals) rather than secondary sources (authorative philosophers writing in introductions for mortals and beginners), it is necessary to get a balanced view of what every great philosopher has said on the matter. That will take some time and some research, and then there will be a 'citation war' when all and sundry will argue for months about which source is more authoritative. There will also be the problem of interpreting some of these difficult and profound remarks. Anyway, I'm up for it. All citation warriors welcome to add their favourite passages. Dbuckner 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite so. I'm more after trying to clarify the matter in simple terms. In terms of the article, what helps, what doesn't and how do people see it. If consensus is hard to find, sometimes a good starting point is to ask basic questions - is this the right level of detail? What are the key sections to cover? - and see what emerges. Hope that clarifies. if not then it may be I am misunderstanding something, in which case please drop a note by email or on my talk page to check. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if that came across harshly. My point was about the bit in the questionnaire which asked people what was in common with the various quotations. These quotations were not particularly representative, and it suggests there may be a kind of vote on what they have in common (whereas in fact they have very little in common). In any case, I am adding to the list on the quotations page as it may be useful. Most of them have not been on the Internet before. Best. Dbuckner 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Schism of Analytic and Continental philosophy

Peter King drew my attention to this part of the article. Read it, and the next section. Doesn't it, er, strike you as quite barmy? Grateful to FT2 for trying to create some sanity around here but, well... Dbuckner 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. And what is 'reveding'? It doesn't coincid with any word I know. --Chris 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
...and since spelling corrections hardly improve it, may I suggest we lose it? --Chris 21:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Reveding" produces 154 Google hits, of which this article is the third. We are present at the birth of a new term, gentlemen. Banno 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre comment by the new guy, Chris Steinbach, but I take it you got an interesting history lesson. By the way, what is your background, it's not history is it?

Not sure what Dbuckner's "barmy", is supposed to mean in the context of some of the bizarro in this article, but perhaps you could tell that to professors Rorty, Babich and the numerous other philosophers who have written on this issue. It uses better sources than Penguin dictionaries etc. that seem to bulk out the excuse for philosophy of the intro and other sections.

I draw your attention to two discussions by same editor on this matter above: [[1]] [[2]].

Are we to take it that "barmy" is the result of these two discussions? Is it that you have dice and a dictionary: you put the entire discussion into a random number generator, and index it to a dictionary to give you the outcome word "barmy"? hocum!

Those two discussions talk of whether or not this area is the real centre for this article, since the rest is mostly delegated to "main" pages on each area. Or if it too should at some stage be copied to an article of its own, or again because its subject matter falls under "general philosophy" should remain here.

There is a subsection called "Some historic notes..." within this "schism" section which talks of Analytic philosophy's relation to Marxism, and how Mathematics led Analytic down a different path to Continental. This Analytic subsection needs alot of work and needs to be made relevant to the schism. Unlike the ample references of the schism section, it has few, if any.

However, there are more pressing matters I believe around the whole area of this articles relation History of Philosophy History of Western Philosophy and Western Philosophy. Also the section on branches we seem to agree is much worse. --Lucas 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely, I agree! (he says as he edges his way towards the door :-) --Chris 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
well, good luck then and, by the way, thanks for your spelling contribution! Lucas 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, good luck Chris. This place is like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you'd like, but . . . . .Richiar 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Monday Jan 22 2007

Here are the changes for today. Please don't change the diff Id's, I am trying to keep a trail of all the changes on the article on a daily basis, so we can get a clear idea of the madness going on. And here are the changes for Sunday 21. Dbuckner 09:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Si Monumentum Requiris, Circumspice

Could someone translate this Medieval lingua franca for the rest of us? Ludvikus 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As my contribution for today, take a look at this example of obviously incompetent writing. Let me stress straight away that the problem is not the fact that the writing is absolutely, absolutely, horrible. That is easily corrected. The problem is (a) that it is obvious to anyone who is a reasonably competent user of English that it is very bad, and (b) it is not at all obvious to the writer that it is bad. This creates the problem that even with the utmost good faith on the part of the writer, he or she will get upset by this apparently unfair treatment – why is this brilliant and deathless prose being treated in this way? Obviously there is a cabal, a conspiracy. So, the author (in a sense justifiably, given their belief) gets angry. In turn, the competent writers get angry because the incompetent author seems to be acting unreasonably or in bad faith. Result, anarchy and chaos. Then the Wikipedia police turn up. They have been taught that all this sort of stuff is a kind of playground fight. Come on guys, stand apart, have a cup of tea, just talk it over like mature adults. So the competent writers naturally leave. The incompetent ones, sensing in some way that this process is biased in their favour, naturally stay on. The result, a natural tendency for articles to get worse.

A few years ago, when Wikipedia was in its infancy, there was the theory that by a process of continuous evolution, articles would monotonically improve over time. Ladies and gentleman, I put it to you that this article is a living refutation of that hypothesis. It started life as a not-so-bad article by Larry Sanger, five years ago. It has steadily and continuously and monotonically deteriorated. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

Many articles are quite good. That is because they are on technical subjects whose nature does not arouse the interest and passion of the stylistically challenged. The difficult ones are the big, grand subjects (philosophy, truth, and apparently physics).

Banno asked why I hang around here if it is so bad. Well, it wasn't so bad even a year ago. The popularity of Wikipedia ensures it will be a magnet for all and sundry, and this problem will get worse, and I think if people like me keep banging on long and loud enough, things will change. That is my belief. How should they change? I'm not saying we should ask for credentials, but there should be a way of showing the door pretty rapidly to obviously incompetent editors.

For a real expert's view on it, see here. Dbuckner 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm smart or lucky, but it's only taken me a few weeks to arrive at the same conclusions. And yes, this article is particularly affected because it has to be an introductory, non-technical piece. I am finding it increasingly difficult even to read this discussion. If anyone cares, though, I repeat that the third "definition" in the intro misrepresents its source (Simon Blackburn). KD Tries Again 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD

You can repeat it as many times as you like. The fact is that you're misapplying what you've read. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It would help if you could tell me how or why I'm getting it wrong. Blackburn's point is a straightforward contrast: Phil used to be like this, and now it's more like that - from which we have extracted only "like that" - resulting in a loss of the contrast and a sentence I didn't understand. I could not have guessed his original point from the sentence in the article. KD Tries Again 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD
But I did in our earlier discussion. Blackburn's point was historical, to show a shift between a foundationalist sort of view to a pragmaticist sort of view. And that's fine. But both views were salvaged from his greater point: obviously the latter is sourced, and the former is given a brusque (and perhaps inadequate) treatment by the inclusion of "fundamental problems". The former is a commonplace, requiring no special citation to Blackburn, while the latter is the most articulate and uniquely phrased item of contrast I could find, thus owing citation. There is nothing significant about a mere contrast between the two items itself as given by Blackburn, since the "others...still others" indicates contrast of views (though not mutual exclusivity, so far as I can tell, as someone else has alleged). Divorcing the single point from the greater context of his entry (i.e., his historical point) would only be objectionable if it gave a misleading picture of his intentions concerning the individual pragmatic point. Frankly I cannot see anything like that going on here. His greater historical point is not strictly necessary for the introduction to the article. That isn't to say that it shouldn't be included (we can do that if you like), it is simply to say that the observations about his greater point are moot so long as they do not affect the truth-conditions of the pragmatic point. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I understood nothing of this. Can you explain it without technical terms. And in any case, how is your average reader going to understand "Still others argue that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field.". What does it mean?? Dbuckner 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the jargon. I simply couldn't think of a better way to express the concepts needed. I just mean that Blackburn says the following:
1. "At different times there has been more or less optimism about the possibility of a pure or 'first' philosophy, taking an a priori standpoint from which other intellectual practices can be impartially assessed and subjected to logical evaluation and correction." (What I called the "foundationalist point".)
2. "The late 20th-century spirit of the subject is hostile to any such possibility, and prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry." (This is what I called "the pragmaticist point".)
Points (1 & 2) share a relationship of historical contrast. KD believes that the loss of this is being unfair to Blackburn's intent.
By my original judgment, we need to show a contrast, but not necessarily a historical contrast. I believe that the loss of this historical point is still fair to Blackburn's intent.
So myself and KD evidently have different standards of fairness, which is essentially what the conversation is about. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah so that's what it meant. Then I probably agree with it. Needs to be much better explained. Dbuckner 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Understood, and I apologize if I was slow on the uptake. I accept that there's no unfairness to Blackburn, but still feel that the general reader won't get the exact point unless we clarify the wording a little. KD Tries Again 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD
Then why don't you explaint it for the rest of us? Ludvikus 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
My fault entirely. And I wouldn't mind a change to reflect the history of it. I'm just saying I didn't feel my original wording was unfair to Blackburn. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 20:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about - and I doubt that anyone else has. Here, I'm impressed with you Dbuckner, at your perception.
But maybe this is the real source of your gibberish? Could you paraphrase for us mortals, since you say you understand? You've paraphrased before, Db. Ludvikus 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The works were

  • 1 Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (PDP),
  • 2 The Penguin Encyclopedia (PE),
  • 3 The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (OCP),
  • 4 Modern Thomistic Philosophy (MTP),
  • 5 Collins English Dictionary (CED),

I deduce that you 2 are about to define philosophy for the whole world, based on the above random selection? Are we to hold our breaths? I guess the citation which say it is a controversial task if done prfoundly is irrelevant? Or are you doing it non-profoudly? Or is it merely going to be a characterization of philosophy? --Ludvikus 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's About Power and Madness, not Truth

I don't think anyone would mind or care if Foucault were mentioned { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone mind or care in Socrates were mentioned? Why say "care"?
Because nobody cares { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The only explanation for him knowing nobody cares is because he is nobody Lucas

I understand you're anger. But do not let him provoke you. Just remember User:Banno's advice, give the men enough rope - so he can hang himself. And believe you me both Administrators Banno and Mel Etitis, as well as the original conceiver of this Wikipedia are probably watching. So this is a power game! And do not call either of them fuckwit's. Just let them prove themselves otherwise. Remember, editor's war is nothing new. Just observe the mediocrity of those who fail tom appreciate the exercise of power in practice, and truth and meaning in theory. And these are the people who will write on Hegel, right?
Just look at it simply - a concept even mediocrity must understand - Ben S. Nelson has merely expressed a peronal opinion that he does not care about The Archaelogoy of Knowledge - the man's opinions and ignorance are his prerogatives - but inconsistent with Wiki policy. --Ludvikus 01:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, you'd better figure out what you mean by 'Foucault's views', because he developed his position significantly, and especially around just that knot of issues about Power/Truth/Knowledge, in the following years. Foucault and Lyotard both retreated in significant respects from their post-'68 stance on power (desire) and truth. I am sure it's appropriate to mention Foucault at some point in the article: should ideas he himself came to regard critically be the fulcrum of the text? No. KD Tries Again 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD

gibt/gift

I have no time or desire to enter the fray, but here's another opinion on this article from someone who teaches philosophy to take or leave:

1) introduction - "Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions." What of approaches that don't fit neatly into this binary opposition? I know a number of professors of philosophy who use both in their teaching and own work (myself included). This analytic/continental thing is a moving target. It may be more sharply divided at some universities, but not all, and not in a way to be characterized as a schism that cannot be bridged. I've listened to papers displaying analytic approaches to Heidegger (usually the typical -handen stuff which is what analytics can handle) and continental approaches to Aristotle.

Here, I think, the gap was bridged by Herbert Marcuse. I also do not like the word "scism" and have asked User Lucas to give us the exact reference. Also, the split in question I believe begins with the Rationalist/Empiricist divide. --Ludvikus 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't keep up with all the comments. Marcuse is an interesting choice. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that both are taught in universities, and the profs and students tend to mix and match the 'traditions' in more creative ways these days. Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

2) Philosophers on philosophy - these quotes are distracting and should be moved to the bottom. Scrolling down, I want to see content first.

Agreed --Ludvikus 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3) Why are there two overlapping sub-articles "History of Western philosophy" and "History of Philosophy"? The Branches of Western philosophy don't really say much about why these topics are western. The brief history section could be placed before this one.

Here I think there is a more efficient approach. We should simply begin with Western philosophy and look at things historically. Then we will not need a history section. Ludvikus 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Also, no such subject/field as Eastern philosophy except at Barnes and Noble. Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, etc., are what's intended, I believe. --Ludvikus 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's inaccurate to lump these regional traditions into 'Eastern'. A recent edit by JJL attempted to remedy this by linking the Arabic philosophers in the dark ages, in places like N. Africa with the preservation of 'Western' philosophy, but this doesn't quite explain the more isolated tradition of Chinese philosophies, etc. I agree, getting rid of brief history section, then fleshing out the history that is already started may help. Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4) Greco-Roman - Plotinus, and later neoplatonists are conspicuously missing. While the medieval section rightly emphasizes the Christian and Jewish influences and centralization of philosophy around Christianity, the Greco-Roman section is missing all the Patristic philosophy material - development of philosophical concepts for the purpose of theological arguments, esp. around the nature of the trinity.

You omitted Arab/Iberian|Anatolian philosophers who rightfully belong in the West. Ludvikus 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't trying to cover all the bases in my comments. There is much more to be said about Arabic philosophy in particular - new Cambridge volume out on Alkindi et al. Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5) Medieval - Tertullian is not medieval. Compare his crude rejection of philosophy to the Greek Christians - Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil. Are they really a significant philosdophers you think? --Ludvikus 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they are in fact very important in the dev. of philosophy, particularly since they were founders of Christian philosophy through the Byzantine era. Everyone forgets that they were still reading Plato, Porphyry, Proclus and Simplicius, while the Latin West hadn't the texts. I wouldn't expect any more than a mention in an introductory article. If Hindu and Zoroastrian religious philosophies get so much real estate, why not the Christian philosophies? Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

6) Modern philosophy - "Modern philosophy is said to begin with René Descartes." - Well, said by whom? I'm not convinced he is the one true beginning. What about Francis Bacon - he's prior to Descartes in time and just as powerful an influence on empiricism. Then there's Spinoza, Hume, Kant, etc, etc. - all influential modern philosophers.

7) The next section on "Schism" is a sudden break in style and content from the historical summaries of the previous sections. This material was pasted from a deleted article as you know. As I said, the topic itself is a moving target - and this is taking up way too much space on an issue only of interest to philosophy majors and those more advanced. Best to pare it down and leave this sort of discussion toward the end. Would conversational mention of Hegel, Chomsky, Heidegger, Derrida, Searle, Rorty, etc make any sense whatsoever to a newby reader?

8) running out of steam, but the main sections - the regional distinctions - 4, 5, 6, are incongruent with the next topical sections 7, 8, 9. Unless someone readily brings up how Indian, Persian, Chinese, and African philosophy is contributing or has contributed to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, science, logic, etc (not saying they don't or couldn't, but I'm not an expert in these areas), the rest of the article is a continuation of Western philosophy and these sections look artificially pasted in the middle.

9) what's a picture of Chomsky doing in the analytic tradition section? Why not a primary representative such as Sellars, Strawson or Quine? Chomsky's more of a pop writer.

That's all. Zeusnoos 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't disagree with any of that. KD Tries Again 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Sounds reasonable. Though I should add that the quotes section should be either prosified, or dropped entirely. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You've put things very well. I disagree on relatively minor points which we can iron out later. Please feel free to make the changes with the view you've expressed above. It's my understanding that Wikipedia encourages boldness. And we all agree that things are bad as they are. However, I have one objection. If you say here that you teach Philosophy, you should give us a way of confirming that fact. Otherwise this assertion belongs on your userpage. But Welcome, and thank you for your input. --Ludvikus 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1) This is largely hearsay. A reference is needed, the article quotes from Rorty who suggests that only 10% of philosophers "bridge the schism" but it is still bridging, which means two sides. You yourself suggest you happen to do this. Of course no one is suggesting that philosophy remains static but again the referenced comment in the article suggests that in the last "few decades" this has been growing wider rather than narrowing. Also note that many such "bridges" are really something very different, as for exampe the use of Heidegger's "handen" stuff. The schism section needs to be expanded and the history sections reduced or moved to own pages. When sufficient it can be copied to its own page.

Don't worry, Lucas, you and I can show the difference later. What you should do is give me the exact source for use of the word. Remember Banno's Donald Davidson's quote - focus on what you agree - we'll deal with this issue later. It's in the details that we'll know his stand - remember - at least McCarthy is gone. If your thinking of Chomsky, we'll get to him later. --Ludvikus 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC) - What he said that there are courses tought now that weren't before. Surely you do not disagree with that? Ludvikus 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2) These quotes "philosopher on philosophy" are the closest thing the article has managed to produce that is not a copy from a Penguin dictionary or other tertiary sources. The also show the diversity so lacking from the intro.

3) I agree

4) Also this should not be Greco-Roman as far as I read it has just Greek stuff in it.

The Romans appropriated Greek philosophy but did contribute some modified Stoicism - preferred terms are Ancient Greek, Hellenistic, and either Late Hellenistic or Late Antiquity. Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

7) "A break to style", I agree the style of most of the article is very poor and dense (especially the section on Branches). You ask, "would conversational mention of Hegel, Chomsky, Heidegger, Derrida, Searle, Rorty, etc make any sense whatsoever to a newby reader?" Your point being that a newby reader is you target, are you another who writes for 12 year olds. Again this section is one of the only valid sections for an article on philosophy, the rest is all delegated to sub-articles. 8) Here I agree 100% with you Lucas - Mediocrity in disguise? Shal we ask exact age leve here? Gindergarden? Ludvikus 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) And how do you write Physics for the common man? --Ludvikus 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Schism section. It breaks out in a 'he said/he said' format, mentioning philosophers for the first time in a way that would confuse a newby. Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

9) Chomsky is a "pop writer"? And transformational grammar is what they all read on the train, yeh sure.

To clarify Lucas's sarcastic point, as I see it. (1) Chomsky is a great Revolutionary philosopher for all those who maintain Philosopy is about Language - his Trandformational Grammar is considered to be a major contribution to philosophy in the 20th century. (3) He is also an extremely important Anarchist - more cited than any other x - can someone supply the x. So he must be mentioned in this article - even if you dislike his writings. And you say you teach philosophy - at what schoolmight I ask? --Ludvikus 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
When he takes his ideas from the field of linguistics and tries to translate them into philosophy, he does so in a pop-ist way (Language and Thought, for instance). I'm not arguing that he isn't a player in philosophy of language, but he does seem to be given more prominence than expected. Zeusnoos 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

10) Agree article is a mixed bag. I think our main concern should be to bring it up to date. What is the shape of philosophy today? What are the major areas of debate in philosophy today? Who are the major living philosophers and what are their concerns? What is going on in ethics? Metaphysics? These sections need to be expanded and the history bits reduced or moved to the "history of philosophy" page. --Lucas 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lud, please inform yourself re: wiki policy on primary sources { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll get to sources later, right now we're looking for neutrality or bias and the overview?
Also please stop interspercing your comments in between his, it is already hard enough to follow who's saying what { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to accomodate you somehow. Are you still trying to define philosophy for us?Ludvikus 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I never was. read-> comprehend->post { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Other definitions of Philosophy

Ludivikus has objected that the sources used in Definition of philosophy are too limited or 'random'. There is a much larger selection of authors in Talk:Philosophy/Quotations. I prefer the secondary sources for the reasons I've stated. Please add to the sources. I'm still looking for the exact location of Cicero's remark that there is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not said it. This was before Wikipedia. Dbuckner 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, I object to the quantification. I know my logic - that some means at least one. Nevertheless, one should not say some when one only has one. --Ludvikus 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to put that in your Museum? --Ludvikus 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, what about your flip-flopping between definition and characterization. I never heard of the latter as any technical philosophical usage. Can you enlighten me? --Ludvikus 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Dbuckner 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. You confused "the process of creating characters in fiction" with the way it is used in philosophy (as in "Wittgenstein introduces his characterisation of meaning as use as follows"). Yes, probably one for the Museum.
Ok, so you forgot. You said, somewhere way above, maybe a week ago that you're not really "defining" philosophy. That all you're really doing is characterizing it. Anyway, something to that effect? Did you not write that? Do you say that it was never your position? --Ludvikus 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I do not know anything about the above quote. It's not me. The only thing you have of mine is that Lord Quinton definition of philosophy that you so proudly display on your user page. Are you aware that you got that from me? Did you leave that out of your Museum? --Ludvikus 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and tertiary sources

There seems to be some confusion around wiki policy on these sources. Currently the intro does not even use secondary sources (ie, major philosophers texts/views), but tertiary ones (Penguin dicionary and other encylopedias)

The wiki policy WP:OR suggests the following:

All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources

Now tertiary sources are not mentioned as something to "base wiki articles on" and for good reason. And even when an article is not based on secondary sources these are occasions to use primary ones, again tertiary is not even mentioned.

I suppose if all encylopedias used only tertiary sources they would float off into some strange encylopedia land without any grounding in reality and all wind-up looking strangely similar but with endless changes in grammer. --Lucas 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, Lucas, the better way to put the point is that the ultimate reference is the text of the philosopher in question, and that we should be humble in the extreme in our use of these 2ndary sources; we should be able to detect when the secondary source is not accurate, but toots the view of its school. I think otherwise, we might as well even quote crackpots Ludvikus 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure but I think you might be a little confused about wiki's use of the words primary source and secondary. In academia secondary is someone writing about a "main" philosopher. In wiki a secondary is the main philosopher. Primary is a journalistic term in wiki, it refers to the raw material of actual events, meetings, conversations, crimes etc. without any expert interpretation. Tertiary means dictionaries etc. --Lucas 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That, even I have to think about - that a book of a Philosopher is a secondary source, you say, according to Wikipedia?
If it is, I'm not buying it (a Wiki rule). Then what those in Power say something is, something is! I would rather say that what's controversial should not be interpreted by us. I think that I'm willing to live with. But I do not buy the idea that to say what the Bible says we have to ask the Priest, or Pope - even Martin Luther didn't bite into that one! Ludvikus 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you state what Wiki policy is - Original Research related?
And why did you selectively omit the part where Quinton says, "my philosophy is, the more sex the better"? Do you know what famous psycoanalyst/psychiatrist he's quoting? Was is it the one with the Orgone box? You know that he trivializes that? Is that because Lord Quinton may be an English prude when it comes to matters of sex? (Loudvikus)

--Ludvikus 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want a definition of philosophy - why not go to a Dictionary?

  philosophy \fe-la-s(e-)fe\ noun pl philosophies
  [ME philosophie, fr. OF, fr. L philosophia, fr. Gk,     fr. philosophos philosopher] (14c)
  1	a  (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
  (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology
  <a doctor of philosophy>
  (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
  b  (1) archaic : physical science
  (2) : ethics
  c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
  2	a : pursuit of wisdom
  b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative
  rather than observational means
  c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
  3	a : a system of philosophical concepts
  b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought
  <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
  4	a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
  b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
  
  (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Yours truly, Ludvikus 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Removed comments by anonymouse user from talk page"

What comments were removed, by whom, and why?

It's important to note who did what now? Ludvikus 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Quotes Ludvikus 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Typo e --Ludvikus 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and Forgery by Dbuckner's "Cabal"

Now I know for sure that you guys are Vandals and Forgers. My name has been forged to make it look like your writing's are mine. So you store your own Vandalized Forgeries in that Museum of yours, huh Dbuckner? And who's the actual forger, you Ben? Or do you do the forgery yourself?

I would find it hard to believe that it's the work of Mel, or an underling of his.
I wonder if Banno is smart enough to uncover this Vandalism? --Ludvikus 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What? { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 04:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tuesday 23 January

Here are the changes for today. Dbuckner 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources

(DBuckner, why a new section for this! There is alreayd one on this above! )

The purpose of WP:OR is to avoid any "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". The division of primary, secondary and tertiary applies mainly to history, where 'primary' means sources close to the event. These sources must be interpreted and synthesised by a secondary source (an authoritative writer) before they can be used in Wikipedia. Tertiary sources are compilations of secondary sources by writers who are not authorities in their field.

Since there is no exact equivalent of a source that witnesses a historical event in philosophy, I suggest the following interpretation.

  • A primary source in philosophy is the text of a great philosophical writer, such as Wittgenstein.
  • A secondary source is an authoritative writer (such as Kenny) explaining what Wittgenstein means.
  • A tertiary source is a compilation or copy of what secondary sources have said.

The Oxford Companion is a secondary source, because it chooses authoritative writers in their field (Kenny, Quinton, Williams &c) to write about the texts of philosophy. A tertiary source is an encyclopedia that uses these secondary sources, or a database, to compile an article. OK? Dbuckner 06:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you also going to claim the Penguin dictionary is not tertiary becasue they use sources such as a well paid philosophy lecturer in Oxford? The wiki OR policy counts these things as tertiary regardless of how they do their work. How can you claim this "Companion" which is really an encyclopedia is secondary, like an encyclopedia, it is indexed alphabetically with only short passages on each word, each entry written individually. Almost all encylopedias choose "authority writers" to write the entries (that is how they sell themselves). This is what they do normally and does not change the fact that it is tertiary. (even if to quote them is mainly done at teenage, secondary-level education). --Lucas 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the best contribution I've seen you make, Db. I sincerely thank you for it. I'm going to think about it a bit, and get back to it. Unfortunately, it seems to begin with a non-primary source, or am I mistaken? On this what source are you, Db, secondary, tertiary, ...? --Ludvikus 08:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Dbuckner 08:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's your own interpretation, of Ben's interpretation, of X's interpretation, of said Wiki Rule. And my interpretation is that it's highly inaccurate, now that I've read the actual Wiki Rule. Let me just tell you, that I have many years experience in Civil Litigation, and Administrative Law - and there these kinds of distinctions are the most rigorously defined. I've just read the rule - and your paraphrase is atrocious, and counterproductive by the distortion it presents. But I do believe in your naive sincerity. Ludvikus 08:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that's correct. But your fraud and forgery are amazing Db? How did you do that? Or are you a magician? Is Wikipedia Software so insecure against Vandalism? Who is helping you? I cannot believe you did it all by yourself. Ludvikus 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? What forgeries? Are you referring to the fact that I placed some 'diffs' on your talk page? And are you claiming that I have somehow interfered with the Wiki to make it appear as though the diffs were edited by you? If so, that is a truly preposterous allegation. Please clarify. Dbuckner 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What's are "diffs"? And what do you mean by witnessing a historical event in philosophy? Ludvikus 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample of what I'm talking about: 

  On the Continent (of Europe, Great Britain excluded) no such intense stigma was attached to the
  works of Marxs or those who supported his philosophical views. On the contrary, Marxism inspired 
  other philosophers and related schools which claimed descent from Marxist literature.
   	+ 	
  	+ 	Great Britain, on the other hand, primarily merely continued its Hegelian and
  Empiricist traditions until Betrand Russell came along. Russell's seminal work is
  Principia Mathematica, titled not accidently, to invoke the memory of Sir Isaac Newton.
  The work was founded on and inspired by his philosophical predecessor, Gottlob Frege.
  • If I assume good faith, then it's the editing of "VolutarySlave". And in all fairnes to her/him it looks like terrible but innocent editing work, which didtorts the original.
  • Otherwise it's the work of one of your Wiki friends - and who do you think it can be?
  • How is it that you cannot retrieve the actually original so-called "stream of consciousness" version with those typographical errors? Are you not surprized that it has no typographical errors which I usually make? Ludvikus 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? A'diff' is a Wiki term for the 'difference' that an editor makes when he or she makes an edit. This for example. It identifies who wrote what at a certain point in time. The diff I have just given identifies you as the editor in question. It may be that you cut and pasted some nonsense of which you were not the original author. Personally I don't distinguish between the cutting and pasting of nonsense, and original authorship. And the edit does have a number of spelling mistakes, and one horrible grammatical mistake. Dbuckner 10:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Who said what" [Db to Lud]

  Be very careful when disclaiming what you said in Wikipedia.  There is an audit trail that
  identifies exactly who wrote what, and at what time.  For   examplehere,
  here,
  and here.
  Dbuckner 08:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How come you're so kind to me - all of a sudden?
  • How come you still didn't answer me on that quiry?
  • How secure against vandalism is that "audit trial" software? It seems to me - not very much.
Ludvikus 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying what I thought you were saying. You are suggesting that I or someone else tampered with the Wikipedia audit trail to make it look as though you were the editor of something that you claim you never wrote. That is a very serious accusation and I suggest you take it up with an administrator. Banno? Mel? Your call. Dbuckner 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbuckner's Museum

  • Could you summarize the contents of your Museum which you created?
  • What does it exhibit?
  • Who is it about?
  • Who can edit it, only you, where is it, etc.?
  • How come you don't answer my question - how come your so concerned with my welfair?
  • Why do you want me to be "very careful when disclaiming what" I "said in Wikipedia"?
  • It appears that there is no "rational" explanation for your good will.
  • What would happen if I were to be careless in my disclaimers?
  • Please explain yourself, as I've asked you repeatedly. --Ludvikus 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly, I have no idea what you are on about. I mean this kindly: please seek help elsewhere. Dbuckner 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Two deletions proposed

The below represents a gross majority vote that you need not participate in as it has no legitimacy.

1. The section of quotations. They are out of place at the beginning of the article, and, if they are meant to characterise philosophy in some way, they are arbitrary and selective (there are thousands of such quotations, who is going to choose?).

  • Support. Dbuckner 08:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing against quotations, but I prefer to see them embedded in some context and not just floating at the top of an article. --Chris 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Put elsewhere, and with some sensible order. --Ludvikus 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I oppose whole-scale deletion of them but strongly support seeing some of them either in context or collected near the very end of the article. They need to be moved from where they currently sit, certainly. JJL 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but Move. Perhaps they belong in the Metaphilosophy article? Zeusnoos 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a list; not encyclopedic. 271828182 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Surely it can be kept if prosified. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support on balance, but could live with it being improved and placed elsewhere.

KD Tries Again 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD

2. The sections 'Schism of Analytic and Continental philosophy' and 'Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism'. They are horribly written and, frankly, come across as quite loopy.

  • Support. Dbuckner 08:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This section surpasses my understanding. If someone feels deeply attached to it, maybe it should be split off and re-worked. --Chris 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has been Vandalized. But it's extremely well document in the literature. It is an accounting of the division between so-called Coninental philosophy and Anglo-American philosophy. It begins with the Rationalist/Empirists division, continues with the consequences of the French Revolution and the conflict caused by the split between England and France, and opposition to revolutionary movement adocated by Karl Marx, and is severly propted forward by Lenin's rise to power and the success of the October Revolution in 1917. Also, although Marx had been marginalized in Germany, the Young Hegelians emerged. Much of all these philosophers became extremely important in Europe, but only became recognized in the 1960's in the United States. In general, on the Continent, there was not the kind of stigma attached to quoting Marx. In the United States, anyone citing anything involving Marx was liable of being labeled a Communist. I am prepared to write a clean "stub" on this - subject to development. --Ludvikus 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Make it its own page and reference it here with a brief overview of the issue. JJL 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The issue should be retained, but the current version needs strong clean-up and better placement in the article. Zeusnoos 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Much of this material is poorly-written POV original research, pasted from an article that was deleted. See the Afd here. This isn't mob-rule, it's WP consensus. 271828182 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose to the elimination of the 'Schism' section (as per Zeusnoos); support for the 'notes' section. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support deletion of historical notes. As written, it's a laughing stock. The defense posted by Ludvikus above is as bad: the Young Hegelians were contemporaries of Marx and didn't somehow emerge - when? - around 1917? Nor did they get 'recognized' in the States in the 1960s. Countless key figures in Continental philosophy were conservative/anti-Marxist/a-political/pre-Marx - Kiekregaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, to name but a handful. Get rid. There does need to be discussion of the analytic/continental divide, but as stated above the current content mainly derives from a discredited and deleted article. Easiest to start again. KD Tries Again 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD
  • This has been discussed above by the same editor (DB) (3 or 4 times?). Please do not let this forum descend into mob-rule. The formation of factions and lynch mobs is not helpful to the quality of this page and its long-term prospects. Up until this point the editing of this article was beginning to find an amount of agreement (evident in the few and cautious changes to the article, if not in the discussions)
  • We are trying to work together here on something and not just make a majority vote of various people without any idea of what voters are interested in or what experience they have. In the main for the more permanent editors here it is devisive
  • So I do not recognise this voting procedure, unless arguments are made that are sound and respect is given to one another's contributions with a view to improving the article rather than trying to draw upon the biases we have all been trained with, and the elimination of minority positions.
  • For example in the voting above Dbuckner who perhaps failed to make a case here on these issues, now hopes to draw in voters whoever they are some are unknown here as contributers to the article and discussions. They may by accident or design happen to have the same biases as himself or against him. I'm glad the history of philosophy did not go in for divisive votes; if it had, most of it would have been "deleted"

As to the substantive issues, the quotes I think if there is something to be edited in them edit them. They are remember secondary and the best sources, in contrast to the tertiary sources given in the intro these should be put next to the intro so as to show the diversity of philosophy, something to be proud of where some want to try and squeeze philosophy into one thing.

The schism issue, the only new matter here is that someone largely unknown to us here says he finds it difficult to understand. Nor did we get an idea of what was hard to understand, since the section seems fairly basic, a schism formed in philosophy in the 20th century, we give a brief history of it, some quotes (in context). What is hard to understand about it? Otherwise this comment is just silly: I don't understand so delete it! I must try that one on the quantum physics page! As to the quality of the prose and being loopy, you shift ground, your long arguments against this section above made very different points and demonstrated that you understood it quite well and did not find it loopy or badly written, the circuitous definitions in the intro are one of the few loopy things on here. It is probably the best prose on the page. Though I admit the section on Analytic needs work.

--Lucas 12:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I have been quite consistent about why I oppose this section, in its current state. Loopy, barmy, insane, barking mad, all these mean roughly the same, so please don't accuse me of shifting ground. As for working together, everyone here apart from you and the other one seems pretty like-minded. It was Prof. King who first described it as 'loopy'. You and the other one are creating an atmosphere where it is completely impossible to work constructively on this article. If you want to go out of your way to get a block or a permanent ban, well, you are going absolutely the right way about it. I lost patience a long while ago. Dbuckner 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User Lucas, you've expressed yourself most eloquently. Let me add that I support it 94.99%. I could not have done better under these circumstances. It is "Rational" in the extreme.And expresses the problem profoundly. It is to be observed that you do not use any cognates of Madness. Nor are you defensive. And notice carefully the authority being cited: Prof. King. Who is he? What does "Loopy" mean in this context? Does it not really mean that anyone who does not agree is "loopy"? Who is "you and the other one"? Are they Loopy or is the third one Loopy? Why is it that among use dedicated three serious contenders, a compromise cannot be reached? Whose stubborness is the most "irrational" and "uncritical"? What would Chomsky have to say? What would Foucault? But you cite "Prof. King"? Is he a professor? And of what subject may I ask? Can you please give us a quote from any of his published work, if any had been published? Ludvikus 14:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The schism stuff is poorly written and unnecessarily detailed. It makes a bigger issue of the schism than it should. It looks like the work of a mission poster who feels he must get his particular message out. So much of this article has suffered from the worst aspects of written-by-committee compromise language. This material needs to be worked into a coherent and brief history or state-of-the-art discussion. There is a schism page already. JJL 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct, as those of us who lived through the final days of the editor's article on the Schism, now deleted, can confirm. KD Tries Again 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD
You have shifted ground, since above discussions on this issue were quite reasoned and talked of various issues regarding it. No one suggested during that long discussion that there was anything wrong with the prose. Nor does anyone now suggest there is anything wrong with it, since what seems to have happened is that during the discussion of it above a number of points were made and ones which DBuckner found himself unable to answer.
As to the essay by R.M. Hare (and thank you for the reference), we can see how important this issue was even to him at that time. It has become of more importance here only because I've notice how certain editors, who usually profession a very reasonable attitude, seem unreasonably desperate to remove, reduce, play-down this difference. The wish is: wouldn't it be wonderful if all the world were Analytic and there were not this "other" philosophy that might destroy it. It is natural for a philosopher who looks to science as a model of intellectual pristinity, that philosophy should be presented like science as something which has some kind of "standard model", the case, as history shows is far from the truth. As to the deletion of another article this was a concerted effort by a certain editor who called in many favours from other editors who had hardly even read the article to vote.
--Lucas 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I am the "certain editor" referred to by Lucaas above, let me attempt to briefly rectify his footloose way with the record. I know it flatters his sense of importance to imagine that I, Dbuckner, and the Dog only knows who else, are part of a sinister "analytic philosophy" mob that conspired to delete his splendid article. Alas, nothing could be further from the truth. I nominated his article for deletion after reading it and being appalled by its unencyclopedic tone, POV, original research, and sweeping falsehoods. I called in absolutely no "favors", as the handful of editors I contacted via their talkpages were complete strangers, united only by their past exchanges with Lucaas over his edits. And only a few of those I contacted actually contributed to the Afd. In any event, the Afd, like all deletions, was not a vote, but a consensus based on the article and its content. And the consensus reached by various editors (some of whom are not experts on philosophy and thus presumably not "tainted" by the Awful Analytical Cabal), upheld by the deletion review, was to delete this material. And yet Lucaas keeps bringing it back into Wikipedia. I do not deny that there are differences between broad styles of philosophy which can sometimes be identified with a roughly "analytic/continental" distinction, and indeed, that some people self-identify with such terms. So Lucaas' claim above that those who disagree with his views are in denial ("wouldn't it be wonderful if all the world were Analytic") is a straw-man. The problem has always been with the content of his contributions — their persistent violations of NPOV, OR, and V. And that's why they should be deleted from this (hapless) article as well. 271828182 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
User Lucas, you've expressed yourself most eloquently. Let me add that I support it 94.99%. I could not have done better under these circumstances. It is "Rational" in the extreme. And expresses the problem most profoundly. It is to be observed that you do not use any cognates of Madness. Nor are you defensive. And notice carefully the authority being cited: Prof. King. Who is he? What does "Loopy" mean in this context? Does it not really mean that anyone who does not agree is "loopy"? Who is "you and the other one"? Are they Loopy or is the third one Loopy? Why is it that among use dedicated three serious contenders, a compromise cannot be reached? Whose stubborness is the most "irrational" and "uncritical"? What would Chomsky have to say? What would Foucault? But you cite "Prof. King"? Is he a professor? And of what subject may I ask? Can you please give us a quote from any of his published work, if any had been published? Ludvikus 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First and Second Order

I'll like to nail this one on the head. According to the current introduction, some "state that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself" whereas others think "philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field",

Is this difference the same as the difference between those like Wittgenstein who think that there are no essentially philosopical propositions ("The result of philosophy is not a number of 'philosophical propositions' [philosophische Sätze], but to make propositions clear"), and those like Aristotle who think that there are (philosophy is "knowledge about certain principles and causes")?

If the same, this should be clarified (I find the current introduction obscure, very). If they are not the same, the disagreement between 'second orderists' (e.g. Ockham, Hobbes, Locke, Wittgenstein and most early analytics) and 'first orderists' (Aristotle, Scotus, Descartes, Heidegger) is one of the most important in the whole philosophical tradition.

It's also important to the definition of philosophy. Roughly, first orderists will want to define philosophy by its subject matter (namely the set of philosophical propositions that are to be shown). Second orderists, however, deny that there are any such propositions, therefore philosophy cannot have a 'subject matter', and is therefore a method or an activity.

I suppose both schools would agree that there is a set of sentences ('Why does anything exist', 'is the soul separable from the body' &c). But the first orderists would claim these sentences express propositions which it is the task of philosophy to demonstrate to be true or false. Second orderists would say the task is to demonstrate to the first orderists that they had given no meaning to certain signs in these sentences (see Tractatus 6.53). Dbuckner 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind letting us know why you give us this? You say there is "apparent disagreement," to which discussion are you referring? I do not find this division of orders very helpful or intuitive, are you referring to the intro where the second "description" of philosophy states that it is the "examination of examination"? This is like saying it is the analysis of analysis it is certainly going up its own somewhere, but Lucidish has discussed this above as have I. I suggested it could equally be given as the "synthesis of analysis" or the "analysis of synthesis" but any short definitions like these are bound to be lacking and provoke idiosyncratic divisions like orderists. --Lucas 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have edited my original comment so it is clearer. I was referencing the "some ... other" claim in the current introduction. Dbuckner 13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
PS the concepts of first and second order are standard ones in analytic philosophy (and in logic, where have slightly different meaning). See this paper where it is used. The paper might also be of interest to you in your research on the analytic / continental division. Dbuckner 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Db: my only concern is with keeping the intro short and tidy while being clear. It would be good if that could be fixed.
To give an idea of how sharply this implicit disagreement sits (esp. within analytic philosophy), we might mention the introductions of Searle and Williams to the Blackwell Companion. Searle writes (on analytic philosophy): "The positivist's conception of science as a steady accumulation of factual knowledge, and of the task of the philosopher as the conceptual analysis of scientific method, has given way to an attitude to science that is at once more sceptical and more activist", and by "activist" he means "philosophy of science interacts more directly with scientific results" (11). (There are probably better quotes in that essay.) Williams: "Philosophical studies have often been understood, in the analytical tradition but not only there, as being higher-order, in the sense that natural science, for instance, will study natural phenomena, while the philosophy of science will study, from some particular points of view, the operations of science." (25) { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a fundamental confusion here: taking the "Divisions of Philosophy" as meaning Metaphilosophy. There are the customary distinctions such as "Philosopy of Science" - my count, based on Philosophical Analysis, by Samuel Gorovitz, 1969, pp. 125 - 156 - there are 12. But these are not definitions. Evey such division is about some other science or humanity. Do you understand me? --Ludvikus 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not speaking of definitions. I am speaking of descriptions. There is a difference. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Again: User Lucas, you've expressed yourself most eloquently. Let me add that I support it 94.99%. I could not have done better under these circumstances. It is "Rational" in the extreme. And expresses the problem most profoundly. It is to be observed that you do not use any cognates of Madness. Nor are you defensive. And notice carefully the authority being cited: Prof. King. Who is he? What does "Loopy" mean in this context? Does it not really mean that anyone who does not agree is "loopy"? Who is "you and the other one"? Are they Loopy or is the third one Loopy? Why is it that among use dedicated three serious contenders, a compromise cannot be reached? Whose stubborness is the most "irrational" and "uncritical"? What would Chomsky have to say? What would Foucault? But you cite "Prof. King"? Is he a professor? And of what subject may I ask? Can you please give us a quote from any of his published work, if any had been published? Ludvikus 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Db, got you on Order! However, there's no consesus on Metaphilosophy. If it means anything, it just means talking About Philosophy, rather than actually Talking Philosophy. And your application of the distinction here is your own Original Research. Why can't you see that? Ludvikus 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could check in Quinton's article which we have discussed, and see whether Quinton uses the term there? Dbuckner 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Gladly. Here is Lord Quinton, a.k.a. Philosopher Quinton, and here is exactly what I believe you are looking for, which he writes:
  The shortest definition, and it is quite a good one,
  is that philosophy is thinking about thinking.
  That brings out the generally second-order character of the subject,
  as reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking
  - formation of beliefs, claims to knowledge - about the world or large parts of it.
  The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ISBN 0-19-866132-0, p. 666

Hope this helps us. Ludvikus 15:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you of your own other authority, Administrator, Poet, Prof. Prof. Etitis?
Would he not say that it's rather logorrheic?
Accordingly, applying Physicist Feynman's appropriate principle, my take on it is that Baron Anthony Quinton wordy assertion simply reduces to:
  Philosophy is Epistemology

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To Four Major Dedicated Contenders

There must be a way that we can work more efficiently.

The talk page is now very repetitive - it needs a cleanup.
I assume it's sloppy pastings.
Can we, in order not to be wasteful, slow things down? --Ludvikus 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that I take the second order issue up on Ben's and my talk page. Then you and Lucas pretty much have the page to yourself. How's that. Dbuckner 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe you know Lucas much better, and longer, than you know me. So if you can establish good faith with him. Great! Best wishes to you. But that sloppy Talk page you leave to me? That puts the burden of the world on my sholders. Who do you think I am, Hercules? And I have no rappor with Ben. It's inappropriate, I think, for you, to act as his spokesman. I learned that from "human development and leadership training." But I sincerely hope you can achieve accomodations with Lucas. Good luck! But please also read my note below:
  • I think, basicly, that Db and Ben represent the Anglo-American view of philosophy, with huge support from it's Anglophone readers.
  • On the other hand, Lucas & I are trying to balance this naturally slanted view, with the other side of the West, namely, the Continent, or Europe. --Ludvikus 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah absolutely, I agree! (he says as he edges his way towards the door :-) Dbuckner 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ludvikus, I was perfectly willing to take your side during the first two weeks. I defended you against slights having to do with mental imbalance, offered you advice, and set up an RfC so that we could all discuss things politely. This period came to an end about a week ago, when my brain simply broke under the strain of your combined insults and inattentiveness. Many of your posts simply do not make sense to me, and when they do, they only reward me with a slap in the face. There is only one way to respond to that: Darmok and Jilad at Tinagra. We use the same words, but no meaning passes between us.
In the context of online discussion, inattentiveness is in many ways far worse than insults. It is simply a fact of the matter that I have, and continue to have, a committment to the presentation of pluralistic outlooks. I support the inclusion of continental philosophy, including Foucault; hell, I've gone so far as to include Zen Buddhism by arguing its affinity to Western skepticism. But you don't know that, because you don't even try to read or understand what I'm saying. You just absorbed some schemata of debates you once heard and role-play through them without considering the facts about who you're talking to or what they mean. Baby Habermas cries.
Though I suppose you can't be blamed for not knowing this. But if you knew anything about my efforts here, you would know that a year ago myself and Rick Norwood were pitted against Dean in a firestorm of e-rage and citations. But I like to think that at all times I tried to present arguments and references for my point of view, and that (barring one regrettable incident not involving Dean) I did not stoop to the bungling of natural language interpretations just to come out ahead. (Something that Lucaas is also guilty of -- yet another reason for your solidarity, I suppose). { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ben, Ben - I cannot find your recent comment - and I also stuble over your Lucidish/Beb S. Nelson distinction. Please forgive me if I do not respond. --Ludvikus 04:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to mention that I have been in the continental camp since I wrote my thesis on Heidegger more than twenty years ago. Which is why I stubbornly opposed the rubbish written about here.KD Tries Again 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD
So why don't you just improve it as you see fit - we will know if you are who you are by your work. We have to many Generals, but not enough Soldiers. Ludvikus 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No, not under present conditions. I have not been able to get simple edits and corrections accepted by Lucas, either here or on the deleted page. I will be happy to contribute when a consensus of editors to actually improve the page exists and improvements will be protected. KD Tries Again 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)KD
Why don't you write on Heiddeger -- an extremely important and optuce(sic) European philosopher who's treated in the United States like an incomprehensible metaphycian worthy of the same dismissal as Hegel - as meaningless, right? I would love to hear what you have to write on Being and Time - I'll even make it my reading for the time being?

Thank you Lucas Lucaas/Ben S. Nelson - error, sorry!!! I understand what you are saying. And I'm truly sorry for the pain I seem to have caused you. Sorry again, Ben. --Ludvikus 18:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • But notice that you are mentioned by me as One of the Four right here, above!
  • Also, I know that - and I'am going to shout this for your benefit, AND NO ONE ELSE, has been as dedicated to this Philo page as YOU - and I've mentioned this before - you've been at it since 2004. I thank you very much for your first step. I definitely, and sincerely am moved by what you say.
  • Notice also how these issues you're expressing, and I'm addressing, can easily be used against you. But I will not. I remember what you said to the Commedian, User:Quiddities, a spineless none entity who had no balls to step forward in my defense with naive User:Banno. As I intimated before, I do not give a Bristol Stool Chart shit if I'm Banno banned from Wikipedia. After all, what does Socrates mean regarding Justice and his taking of the Hemlock. In fact, I dare them to ban me for speaking the Truth. By the way, it's only us four who count - no one has survived this Struggle for survival. But who knows what mediocre minds will decide as to what is less worthy here - than the Bristol Stool Chart that was used by Administrator Mel:Etitis to respond with my Heart rather than my Head. Do you know that he went out of his way to explain on my page that his SHIT is not really SHIT? And User:Quiddities - am I shouting loud enough for you to hear me - do let us know what you interpretation is of the Bristol Stool Chart in relation to the Nature of Philosophy? Do you have any thoughts as to what Philosopher Mel Etitis means by it - or do you lack the balls to come forward. Also, tell as more about not taking Wikipedia seriously, because it's so funny? How does that pertain to Philosophy?
  • Remeber, though, that I am the one, not you (Ben), who is stigmatized. It is I, not you, who has been banned by Banno. So do you see any kind of resemblance between me and Socrates? Banno has raised the issue that I'm Ego-tripping. And I have not received any acknowledgment from Administrator User:Mel Etitis that it is he who has called me SHIT!!! So whatever you had to endure, namely my inattentiveness to you, is perhaps understandable, don't you think? Also, all these personal issues we raise here - what do you think others will say of them - "stream of consciousness," mad, insane? Again, I say, perhaps the most important Philosopher of the 20th century is Michel Foucault? You see, Anglophones use Rationality as a mark of Madness. And unfortunately, there is also the problem of the mediocre, which occasionally drops by and burdens one with unscholarly presentations.
I think this Page is the appropriate forum to iron out our personal issues to the extent that it affects our True work, namely what goes down on that wonderful Wikipedia that will hold the Philosophy Page.
Also, we must be as humble as we can regarding the views of the Great Philosophers.
Best Wishes, Ludvikus 18:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish I could accept your apology at this time. But I could only accept it if I had some indication that you really wanted to reform your behavior. Unfortunately, my name mentioned above is in the context of further misunderstanding of my position. And I was not that long ago one of those "mediocre minds", on your estimation. We can go forward, but first you have to understand me and my intentions.
The long and the short of my view is this:
a) Definitions of philosophy are exclusive. Mere descriptions of philosophy are not exclusive.
b) Inclusive statements allow for disagreement (in the context of the intro, for our purposes).
c) :. Mere descriptions allow for disagreement.
d) I personally endorse statements that philosophy is about one of the following: {problem solving, rational enquiry, reasoning}. [Because of a variety of citations.]
e) The set elaborated upon in d) is meant to be descriptive, not definitional.
f) :. The set elaborated upon in d) is meant to be compatible with other readings.
You have no idea how many times I've felt the desire to go on philosophical tangeants. But the fact is, this isn't an appropriate venue for any of that. Blogs (or academic journals) are more appropriate.
Speaking of stigmatism, I'm fairly sure that the entire faculty and student body at Psychology at Cornell would like to throw me in a muddy ditch because of my efforts elsewhere. So it goes. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea of voting on here is ridiculous and not the way to philosophy, it is obvious that science minded philosophers and Analytic ones preponder by about 8:1, to overcome this it means thinking a little harder about the issues and readng more and in a generous way.
There is a case for asking editors here to have read not only English-language philosophy but Foucault or Heidegger, Hegel and Nietzsche, etc., as well. This page is an overall philosophy page, it is not the Analytic page nor the philosophy of science page. Its editors when making general claims for the page must be familiar with philosophy in the broader sense. The issues for this page are really not Analytic, it has its own page, not Continental, it too, nor Eastern ditto, but how all of these interact or overlap, and historically form, relatte to science/religion etc. We also seem to lack here insight into Eastern philosophy.
The problem of the schism helps to understand what is going on here, each side thinks it has the idea of philosophy and each considers the other as something else, hence we get a definition in the intro which is mainly Analytic. So may I ask for some fair play and less of these divisive attempts at mobbing.

--Lucas 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again I agree with your eloquence, lucid, and rational presentation 94.99%.
We must be humbled by the fact that our task is really extremely difficult. --Ludvikus 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for not using your name Lucaas/Ben S. Nelson - I've always been slow with learing name of people I meet!!!Ludvikus 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I already replied to your latest tirade at my user talkpage. Please stop with the personal insults. I had nothing to do with the stool image; I just clarified its meaning to you (You are logorrheaic), and removed it from here because it was irrelevant here. I don't know why you posted it on my talkpage, and Dbuckner's talkpage is not my concern.
You proclaimed at Banno's talkpage that "I have an extremely strong ego". Yes, you do. Please try to take that into account a little more. --Quiddity 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Historical notes on the Analytic side of the Schism

I place here the 7 paragraphs from this section of the article.

There are many mistakes in it, as far as I know, and some rewording is required. The main question however, is what needs to be said about Analytic's relation to Marxism or Anglophone-worldview's relation to Marxism. Also why does Russell and mathematics give Analytic anything very different to other philosophy's, eg, Leibniz, Descartes and Husserl were all mathematicians as well. Lucas 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Marxism
During the latter part of the twentieth century the Cold War produced an atmosphere in which Marxism as a philosophical theme was not given the same prevalence in the U.S. as it was perhaps in Europe. At the same time during the fascist periods of Germany, Italy and Spain, Marxist may have even carried legal penalties. However, evident in the emergence of large communist parties in many European countries after the war such restrictions were ineffective.

--The above paragraph is the result of some discussion which showed that the suppression of Marxism was not only carried out in the U.S.Lucas

  • 19C politics
However, the issue goes all the way back to the ninetieth century when revolution was a constant threat to the status quo. British reaction to the French Revolution effected the growth of a more moderate Labour movement in the U.K. In Europe however, such was the promise of Marxism to the vast majority of working people that it terrified politicians and company owners.
Along with the French Revolution came major escalations in the activities of secret police. In Russia the Tzar began imprisoning leftists. Many similar actions were taken throughout Europe to quote a well known commentator of that time, "A spectre is haunting Europe".


--Sounds ok, but it needs references. Lucas

  • Red Scare and McCarthy
In the U.S. the Red Scare of 1917 to 1920, and McCarthyism, which lasted for about two decades after World War II created an atmosphere not conducive to Marxist scholars. In this environment, anyone who in anyway was discovered to be associated with, or even reading, Marxist, or Marxist related, literature, was labelled a "Communist", became suspect of his loyalty to his county, and often lost, or was unable, to acquire gainful employment. On the Continent of Europe, there were more extreme oppressions during the fascist period but then a much more open attitude after world war two.

--I believe this has been disputed on the talk page.Lucas

  • Analytic and Math/Science
Philosophy in Great Britain was largely of an Idealist or Hegelian nature. In 1911 Betrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote Principia Mathematica, the name echos that of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The work was founded upon Frege's logic. Russell had mathematical interests, and had published his thesis as his second published book entitled the Foundations of Mathematics around the turn of the century. He considered important by the major new field of Non-Euclidean geometry whereby Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not an axiom. His thesis was that Projective geometry was a priori. Five years later, when Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, a theory of physics, in which space was non-Euclidean, Russell's work proved philosophically worthless, as he himself asserted. Russel now bowed to science and accepted that the physicists were right, and that he had not been doing philosophy at all but physics. The mathematicians, and philosophers had done, that the nature of geometry, whether it had this or that set of axioms, was an empirical question to be answered by scientists.

--shows Analytic's relation toward science.Lucas

  • Analytic's view of Kant
Hegel had already show Kant's a priori necessary to be more complex issue. But for Russell, the last remaining subject which remained a priori necessary was arithmetic. And Russell turned his interest to this second division of mathematics. Russell wished to account for arithmetic. He had already absorbed the work of Weierstrass, Cantor, and Dedekind, who in the second half of the 19th century had succeeded in arithmetizing the calculus. It was at this stage that Russell was exposed to the work of Gottlob Frege who had published his work, including the Foundations of Arithmetic, in which he subscribed to the thesis that all of arithmetic is reducible to logic. Had Frege succeeded, he would have proved Kant wrong in his thesis that arithmetic was a priori, but synthetic, rather than analytic. Kant had maintained that only logic was both a priori and analytic. Russell, upon discovering a contradiction in Frege's first volume, sent I letter to Frege informing him of the discovery. Frege was devastated by the negation of his life's work. Russell, however, somewhat succeeded with his opus magnum.

--Shows the failure of the particular project but the success of the Analytic method? Lucas

Once more, Lucas, you come through extremely constructively! How do you wish us to respond? --Ludvikus 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As you ponder the point, perhaps I can make some useful observations. I recognize this as an early stub which has be edited inadequately - it's an extreme distortion of the intent. However, the skeleton is there. First of all, I believe the word "Scism" is infamatory, and unless you can cite an exact authority, you'll accused of original research. What I know of is this - in the United States the distinction I remember, around Columbia University, in New York City, was that which exists between Continental philosophy and Anglo-American philosophy. So the distinction exists. But I do not know if the word you use is subject to attack as Per. Research. Because no one else has come forward, which just use the word distinction? And we should use the Names of the 2 divisions of the West just mentioned? --Ludvikus 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The word "schism" just means split, its a good old Greek word. Given the quoted references on this the word seems approriate. It comes from a referenced source (see article), I nor the other editors, were the first to use it. Divergence or distinction, departure, divide, split, dichotomy, all do the job with varying degrees. I suppose schism gets across the idea that it is not just like a divergence between two branches of a subject, eg, between atomic physics and astrophysics, it pertains to the very issue of what is philosophy.
Now you might say there have been lots of divergent opinions in philosophy, schools etc. True, but it is not individual philosophers disagreeing with each other, it is the large-scale form of the Analytic and Continental divide that shows it to be more than just like a choice of philosophy or a phase, it is not like Continetal and Analytic disagree on something in particular that they both criticise and have read (eg, like the bible). Nor are they like cabals with certain fixed doctrines.
Also you say, "defamatory", if it were defamatory it would need someone to claim they lost a reputation through its use and that it was not true. Now who's reputation is affected by it and how do you show, in the face of the references, that it is not true? --Lucas 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What should be the focus of the Philosophy article

I note in many of the disputes that we might have different ideas about what this article should cover. I say might because we have not really discussed this and I do not know peoples views on this. I am not talking here about what the format should be, length of sections, style issues etc. but mainly the philosophy.

In my opinion the philsophy page should not be content with little isolated essays all about what Rationalism is or what Medieval philosophy is, but give an overall shape to philosophy in general, in all its guises, histories and geographies. This means focusing on differences, divergences and how the different areas work off each other, how they overlap, how they cover a different areas be it politics or mysticism. The essays on individual areas should not be little capsules explaining what some school meant (there are articles already giving this) but show how they fit the general topic of philosophy, how it might affect its relation to science, psychology, human-sciences, and also to politics, history, literature and religion.

A second question arises then, how do we distinguish this article from the History of Philosophy article. I think the hint lies in what I've been talking about, it should cover the geographic spread of philosophy and also gives the relations or lost relations to other areas (science/religion/politics) and is more concerned with how philosophy appears in the world today or in the recent past. --Lucas 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, got you. My point is that there is no such thing as World philosophy. At least not yet. Ben Nelson has produced a book who's table of contents shows that there are a plurality of philosophies covering the globe geographically. Unfortunately, no one responded to this point. At any rate, to try to write as if there were such a thing would definitely, in my opinion, constitute Original Research.
Accordingly, in my opinion, our first order of business must be our coming to terms with these Geographical distinctons. I propose that we not attempt to do the unacceptable - define World philosophy as if it exists. So the First order of business should be, what are these Geographical distinctions.
I think that we have no alternative but to begin with Western philosophy, followed by Eastern philosophy, followed by African philosophy, etc., as the 3 major distinctions.
Unfortunately, if we begin with the Western division, that may be construed as making the others inferior - which is certainly not the intent.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving a bit along, I have given one Rational justification with simply beginning with Western philosophy - this is the English language Wikipedia. So why should we begin with everything that's not English? Ludvikus 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Another justification, it reflects Reality, World domination if you will - the United States is the worlds only Superpower. It may be unjust, but Wikipedian space is to reflect this reality of domination, and not create the artificial dream of democratizing philosophy. To do so would, also, by the way, constitute Original Research. Am I understood? Ludvikus 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I did respond to your comment. I said that it would be very easy to change a plural to a singular. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus there are already pages called Western Philosophy and Anglophone philosophy already.

This idea of giving Western or worse Anglophone philosophy priority because the West happens to just about dominate certain economic and military spheres, would look very foolish in the intro, we would have to make your idea explicit or else be had for promulgating a fraud. Can you imagine it in a few years time when we have to change it? ...

(year:2016) ...Due to continuing loses of American strength in ongoing economic and military defeats and the collapse of its economy, we must now change the definition of philosophy and give you a Chinese, African or South American one instead!

How would you maintain this? check the Nasdaq every day and reqrite it accordingly? --Lucas Talk 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of discussion on Snake Vs Neat version of intro

There has been taking place here a discussion on the merits of the snake version of the intro (where a few descriptions of philosophy are appended to one another) versus those of the neat version (where it just gives the etymology and notes that it must defer any finite description of what philosophy is). The discussion took place between DBuckner, Lucidish and myself.

The outcome it seems is that

DBuckner thinks the snake is better than the neat version but that snake has some problems. It should not mention in the intro a diversity of opinion as to what philosophy is and instead should describe what is in common amongst all views (and he believes there exists a describable common position).

Lucidish thinks the snake intro is fine with minor word changes here and there. He notes that in the primary description: "analysis...&dialogue &... to solve problems", the word "dialogue" is able to cover Continental style philosophy.

Lucas, is of the opinion that the snake intro gives a too Analytic description of what philosophy is (as analysis, solving, examining) and only gives its peers, Continental and Eastern philosophy as a kind of afterthought. Also notes that the only sources given are tertiary (encyclopedias/dictionaries) and should be replaced by secondary ones (ie, references to canonical philosophers).

--Lucas 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

May I ask that the issue be put asside for the moment? I will not touch that item, and you guys may do as you please with it. I believe that it may take care of itself if we work on the structure and body of the article. So I obstain for the time being, and let you guys do whatever you agree among yourselves. Let's see what happens. Best wishes, Ludvikus 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Work - Quiddity & KD Tries again - keep it up - & conform to Dialogue on Talk Page

Best regards to you 2 from me - Assume Good Faith, Wiki Policy--Ludvikus 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Notice the following remaining structure of "Western Philosophy":
4 Metaphysics and epistemology
   * 4.1 Rationalism and empiricism
   * 4.2 Kantian philosophy and the rise of idealism
   * 4.3 American Pragmatism
   * 4.4 The prominence of logic
   * 4.5 Phenomenology and hermeneutics
   * 4.6 Existentialism
   * 4.7 The Analytic tradition

Move up accordingly - Clean up. And Thank you. It's to much work for me - I might mess up! --Ludvikus 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is missing any headings for Hegel/Marx, postmodernism, critical theory and deconstruction. Also not sure of the status of "existentialism", was it really just Sartre's attempt to approriate some very different philosophers?

I think we could remove the "prominence of logic" or merge it to another subheading, seems a little strange there and without any references to the this stated "prominence". It seems to be mainly to do with Mathematics.

What is this final section "Confines of Philosophy" except some attempt to do what the talk page does? --Lucas 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, and haven't even looked at it. Do with it as you find fit - since I'm too bussy elsewhere. Ludvikus 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is "Schism" a Neologism as used in the context here?

That the distinction within Western Philosophy made between Anglo-American philosophy and Continental philosophy is undeniable among us who know. But is there a name for it? I've repeatedly asked Lucas about this, but he has never answered me on it. It is one of the reasons I say I agree with him 94.99% rather than 100%. If non exists, can we ask our literary masters, and/or poets, to help us on this? What I'm suggesting is that we symply use these two categories in a single sentence which asserts the difference. That way, there's no accusation of Neologism. --Ludvikus 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas. I've just created the stub: Anglo-American philosophy. Click on it and check it out. See if it conforms to your intent. --Ludvikus 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you nauty, nauty man. As an Anglophone yourself, whose ancestors have spoken English for generations, I am flabbergasted that you worked so hard on Continental philosophy, but have not lifted a finger to help the ideology of your current cousins in the realm of Anglo-American philosophy. You must do so right away. Your conduct must improve accordingly. --Ludvikus 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First language is English but I'd like to be not an Anglophone philosopher or a factionist but a responsible philosopher and that means not ignoring valid arguments by either side. The paragraphs on the schism do not attempt to take sides anyhow.

Great. I love Western Philosophy. And I love everything English. And I'm happy to be an American. So I never ignore anything that's Anglo-America. How come you only use the term Anglophone. I know that it is used in Canada. But I'm unfamiliar with your use. Can you explain (again I know)?

You have a funny idea of what a neologism is, schism (as written) is older than most of the words on this page and is very far from being a neologism. Your new page leaves out other Anglos: Australia, Ireland, etc. (there is already a page called, Anglophone philosophy). I explained above the choice and references for the use of the word "schism.", simply juxtaposing the words gives a misleading impression and does not get across the reality of the situation. --Lucas 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia rules, if you employ any English word, with a special usage, to describe a collection of facts, or theories, in a unique way, you have committed a Neologim. What not say Revolution? What's you're take on that word in this context? Was the a Revolution which caused a "schism" in Europe, leading to the split of Great Britain from the Continent of Europe? Ludvikus 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
A neologism is a new word, not a new use of a word, words are used in new combinations all the time. In any case it is not a new use of schism in relation to this matter, again look to the reference given in the article (the first reference after the word appears). I presume you mean the French revolution? I'm sure you could make an argument for that, the Romans got there, but Napolean did not, so they are Christian and have straight roads, but do not like the metric system nor the Enlightenment. --Lucas 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm asking what if you called this split a "Revolution" instead of a Schism? Or what if you called it a "Clash within Western Civilization"? When you give a word a usage that's not generally easily recognized, and its your peculiar way of characterizing a set of events, haven't you created a Neologism according to Wikipedia? --Ludvikus 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Revolution implies something revolved, in history, one class or system is replaced by another, this is not what is going onin philosophy, both remain alongside each other. Analytic in the 50s was a kind of revolution in the Anglophone world but it did not take place on the Continent. "Clash" is not right because there is very little contact between the two, whereas clash implies a strong disagreement on something in particular, but they are basically disengaged from each other. When you give a word a usage it is not neologism it is just called language, you yourself have often put novel combinations of words together (see above) --Lucas Talk 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy as Cultural Politics by Richard Rorty 2007

Note, User:Dbuckner, the title implication: Philosophy = Cultural Politics. 

  Book Description
  This volume presents a selection of the philosophical papers which Richard Rorty has written
  over the past decade, and complements three previous volumes of his papers: Objectivity,
  Relativism, and Truth, Essays on Heidegger and Others, and Truth and Progress.
  Topics discussed include the changing role of philosophy in Western culture
  over the course of recent centuries, the role of the imagination in intellectual
  and moral progress, the notion of 'moral identity', the Wittgensteinian claim
  that the problems of philosophy are linguistic in nature,
  the irrelevance of cognitive science to philosophy, and the mistaken idea that philosophers
  should find the 'place' of such things as consciousness and moral value in a world
  of physical particles. The papers form a rich and distinctive collection
  which will appeal to anyone with a serious interest in philosophy
  and its relation to culture.
  About the Author
  Richard Rorty is Professor of Comparative Literature,
  Emeritus, at Stanford University.
  Product Details
   * Paperback: 218 pages
   * Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1st edition (January 8, 2007)
   * Language: English
   * ISBN-10: 0521698359
   * ISBN-13: 978-0521698351
   links added

I shall start a stub on this (2007) book by this major American philosopher. Ludvikus 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yours truly, Ludvikus 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Current "Snake" Version

I hope everyone notes that I'm not responsible for the current opening, and that I'm keeping my word of not touching it. What would User:Mel Etitis say of it? Is this what he would aprove? Is it not exactly too wordy - which he so disapproves? I wonder what would Lord Anthony Quinton say if he knew that he was the source of this Wikipedia characterization of philosophy? I wonder if Mel Etitis personally knows Philosoper Lord Quinton? 

   Philosophy concerns itself with what is the best way to live (ethics),
   what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics),
   what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology),
   and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
   [1]

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Db, poeticly ponder this: isn't the above too logorrheic?

Consider making it less so by merely dropping the words I've stricken below?
   Philosophy concerns itself with what is best the way to live (ethics),
   what sorts of things really exist and what are their true natures (metaphysics),
   what is to count as genuine knowledge (epistemology),
   and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
   [2]
What do these words add that's useful to the description of philosophy above?
  • "itself," "best," "really," "true," "genuine," & "correct", etc.
  • Have I not merely made it less wordy, as Evil genius/poet/author, User:Mel Etitis would wish, had he been here helping us, rather than pontificating from Above or Below?
  • Do you comprehend my Rationality, Leader of the Pack of 4?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 09:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The snake as used previously on this page refers not to this innocent preamble but the definition/description of philosophy given in the intro, as:

intellectual inquiry and the use of critical analysis and reasoning, as well as dialogue or introspection, to solve intractable and fundamental problems. Others state that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself. Still others argue that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field.

--Lucas Talk 12:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wed January 24

Here are the changes for yesterday. Dbuckner 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Db, & wishing you a nice & productive day. --Ludvikus 08:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on this page

Good morning. I will no longer be working on this page, or on the article itself, until the Wikipedia administration do something about the disruptive editor problem (specifically Ludvikus). However, apparently some administrators do not believe there is a problem at all. If you think there is problem, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. (FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article). Many thanks. Dbuckner 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PS you might all be interested in this little gem: Anglo-American philosophy. Dbuckner 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd as soon any comments were left on this page; it's more appropriate, and also they will then be easy to read by anyone in future, and left on this article for future reference. Fragmenting the discussion doesn't help, and I am watching this page as it is. Thanks :)
As a relatively new observer to the dispute, however heated the dispute may be (and it's clearly gone on months rather than weeks now, long enough to be protected before) it would be unhelpful to dive in with assumption and propose "an answer" on day 1. However, thoughtfulness is not mute. It's been that protection is warranted again (in my mind), and I'd seriously urge good editing practices be followed in discussion, in order to avoid what seems an inevitable path otherwise. Other comments are made below. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I have seen enough evidence now to feel that page protection is appropriate for this article, in order to have a chance to addressing the present edit war on the article.

The present approach is making a number editors feel their time is wasted, or creating an unpleasant editing environment, and is certainly unproductive. There seems to be a consensus (which should be noted, is contested by a minority of editors) that the edits of one person are largely responsible for this situation. As a neutral party seeking to address all edit disputes on this page, I would urge all editors to continue to seek working together, and any who have in the past not complied with policy to begin doing so.

The present protection will, with luck, allow focus to remain on building consensus here, or focus upon appropriate dispute resolution process should that prove impossible, rather than being unfairly stressed and distracted over the article contents and edit war.

Sources for this protection: Banno, Dbuckner, Richiar, Mel Etitis (comment that editor is unresponsive to consensus and concerns) and Quiddity (initial request for assistance on the article).

Sample evidence of edit warring in recent article history: (Own observations), December protection log, and current (ongoing) edit history.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I don't agree with the approach that you have shown to this dispute. Mel Etitis assessment is fundamentally correct. He says "I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do; editors like [him] are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines.". I repeat: there is nothing one can do with editors like this. I don't believe that any process of dialogue or mediation can solve the current problem. It can't solve the problem that not everyone is capable of writing encyclopedias, and that certain people cannot, for whatever reason, be persuaded out of that they are capable. So I'm not getting directly involved in this process. I appreciate your efforts to put a workshop together, but I don't believe that has worked (look at it), nor will it work. The only solution is a community ban on this individual. (Actually there are two individuals). You see I am making a stand on this, and the only reason I have stuck so long with this is to make that stand. Dbuckner 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
As a newcomer to the dispute, it's not my personal choice to dive in with an immediate assessment who's right, who's wrong, but to watch a while. Perhaps when I'm a little more embedded in my adminship shoes I will dive into action in less than 6 days from first hearing of the dispute, but I don't feel that would be good judgement on my part for this article, given the specific technical complexities of the subject and my lack of knowledge of the edit history. Looked at neutrally, as a newcomer, large volume editing is not in itself proof the edits were incorrect, and multiple parties in this dispute have visibly reverted each other -- the fact that there is a consensus of opinion of misconduct does not, in itself, prove where fault lies either (although it can be suggestive). It's important to gain a little understanding before judging, and to see consensus-seeking goes a further time before deciding "what I think", especially if it's a long-standing edit war with much background history to it. I accept this can be frustrating to editors who have seen it all unfold and need no further proof (and I've been there too), and I'm familiar with the particular problems posed by single-agenda editors from my own less than enjoyable experience. But my personal choice is to briefly test the waters for myself before judging, because whether or not the matter may seem obvious, history shows that assumption by the ignorant can often lead to error. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well put some spectacles on (sorry). Just skim down the talk page, and look at some of the edits I have identified. You don't need any knowledge of philosophy to see these are incompetently written. You are not helping things at all by taking this position. In fact you have been here some time with the workshop you set up. That time would have been more productively spent in looking at the talk page and assessing who's saying what. I'm not having anything to do with this unless you appreciate this situation for what it actually is, namely a very incompetent but also arrogant editor who has no idea quite how incompetent he actually is. Dbuckner 11:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's okay - no offence taken. Sadly, very often disputes are made up of two sides, not one - numbers and volume don't always tell the full picture (the last edit war I was watching, the 'numbers' were all socks for example and though rational-seeming, were all in fact imposing subtle misinformation and accusing the lone and genuinely neutral editor of bias). Edit wars aren't always simple and this isn't a subject I can immediately judge the rights and wrongs. Step by step is my choice, for me. Sometimes trying a simple approach to see what happens can defuse a dispute which came about through misunderstanding or became entrenched. If thats possible then it's more desirable than direct enforcement action. If it fails then enforcement is easy. Also, if it does fail, then the reality of things usually show themselves fairly quickly, under that approach, because everyone else is trying to collaborate. That's why I favor it. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your measured approach is clearly appropriate, FT2, and I appreciate your attempts to handle this in a professional, disinterested manner. I am unhappy to see the page locked again but the vast number of edits to the page itself and to this Talk page have indeed made progress very difficult. Regrettably, I have to largely agree with Dbuckner who identifies the source of the problem as a particular person (and to a lesser extent a second person). To my mind the writing style is less of an issue--as that could be edited--than having a "mission poster(s)" who believes he or she is not only right but that what he or she has to say is so important that it must be said. I have largely hung back from editing due to the atmosphere here (including what are now repeated page locks). I am not a philosopher and so the loss of my limited knowledge in this area is of much less concern than the fact that so many of those who care about and are deeply knowledgeable about the subject are being frustrated and demoralized, which would have many undesirable effects...including leaving the page to the most tenacious posters, who may then promote decidedly minority views on the subject. A consensus on the importance of having a consensus is what's needed among the editors here, and if educational efforts work, that's great. The user at the center of this controversy does remind us to not overlook certain important issues and so brings a certain balance to the page's perspective. However, under current circumstances the benefits are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages. JJL 14:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely right. It is the unwavering belief in something that 'must be said', combined with the inability to say it in any coherent manner, that is the root of the problem. Also, as JJL says, it is demoralizing other editors. We had the good fortune for 2 truly world-class editors turn up earlier this month. Sadly, the antics of the two L's has confirmed all their prejudices about Wikipedia and I am deeply afraid we are going to lose them. A bit more prompt action would have prevented this at the very beginning. Dbuckner 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully they will notice the other side of the debate, which gives good cause for trust in the approach. The article was protected. It was given time for discussion and then unprotected, followed by reprotection. There is a measured involvement of a gradually increasing number of outside neutral editors who are intent upon seeing the matter cleaned up, and an appropriate means of escalation to a point that it will be cleaned up. The matter will quite likely resolve itself as a result, and that is how it should be. It's hard to work consensually without admitting some disruption, the important test is, when an article is not working, can it be brought back "into the fold". In other words, it's less that there's a problem developed in the article, and more that there isn't a problem dealing with the problem. I hope this insight will be of some reassurance. Obviously that said it is preferable that over time, we can better learn how to avoid or minimize such situations in the first place. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think one must say here, and pardon the cliché, that it takes two to tango, and I see the same lust to control or to say something or not say something in the vigilance of some of the above editors. What you seem to miss is that you very behaviour, that attempts to ensure that all that is said conforms, presumably, to the same kind of training to which you have submitted yourselves. The more you try to impose this discipline of "what must not be said," the more passionate the other tries to get across what "must be said", even if it meant very little to that person in the first place. I dont think it is avaoidable, it is part of dialectic but please do not play naive and pretend that you are any more calm, rational or cold-hearted about the matter.--Lucas Talk 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Small note: the /Workshop subpage has not itself hit any heavy dispute. Instead it's gathering quite a range of clarifying views on the subject and the article, of all kinds, which is exactly its function. I'd ask people to contribute there at least, even if they do not feel this page here is producing helpful debate. Many thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Could you, User:Dbuckner, explain to me what is meant here by the Bristol Stool Chart? Are you not realy merely trying to provoke me, here and now, and have me violate Wikipedia policy? Is this your Rational behavior? Is this a matter of Philosophy, or your Power game?
You say you are impartial, Administrator FT2. I think now I would like you to take immediate appropriate action. Please click on the Bristol Stool Chart. Can you explain to me this Wikipedia rating system? Does Jimbo Wales know of it? Will you inform him of it, or shall I do it?
Will it be in the newpapers? Can you see the Headlines? Wikipedia's uses the Bristol Stool Chart? Jimbo Wales condones the practice? Do you not have the obligation to protect the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia?
Is this the way a dedicated editor is to be treated? Can you see that I have worked successfully on several hundred articles since August of 2006?
I sincerely hope that you will take immediate action against this inflammatory and provocative act against me personally.
I assume good faith on your part, and that you will do the right thing. Yours truly, Ludvikus 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I think the said editor has actually improved alot in his contributions here compared to some time ago. There is a ways to go but certain provocative and offensive language by another editor on here does not help, and only seems to exacerbate the poor editing style. So it is perhaps a good idea that after a ban on one, the other should depart for a time. --Lucas Talk 12:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


With respect, most people choose to ignore such comments. Your extreme over-reaction, and "demand to admin" to "do something" by exaggerated speech (your comments about newspapers, Jimbo Wales, the reputation of Wikipedia, demands for immediate action &c) does not encourage a perception of you as thoughtful about your best conduct in the debate:

  1. I am not likely to be drawn into this as a disputant, nor am I likely to choose to be placed between yourself and Dbuckner as a person in the middle of the dispute. Cordially, I opt out of this specific side-dispute.
  2. I also do not see the matter as being in the category of issue which you describe. The future of Wikipedia does not hang upon this reference, and I do not concur with your view that heavy duty intervention would help.
  3. I will note, as a neutral observer, the comment is indeed (to my mind) uncivil, in the sense of WP:CIVIL. For that, I note for Dbuckner that he should in future avoid using uncivil terms to address other editors.
  4. That said, there has been incivility by both sides in this debate. Various terms have been used before now, and also, disruptive conduct itself is a fairly notable kind of incivility as well, as is completely ignoring consensus that your editing approach causes serious concern and distress to a fair number of apparently independent editors. (If these editors were all incorrect in their approach, then calmness by both sides and following the dispute resolution process would have been more supportive in any case.)
  5. Persistently and wilfully editing in a way which you are well aware will cause significant stress to your fellow-editors, and is viewed by many as tendentious and disruptive, and then complaining at the (fairly mild) terms in which you are described by them as a result, strikes me in part at least as somewhat of a problem you yourself could have avoided, by taking seriously the communal standards of consensus-seeking and Wikiqette which many people had repeatedly asked you to for a long time.

Last, please don't quote (3) without also and equally quoting (2), (4) and (5) which balance it. It wouldn't represent my view fairly to do that. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have to support the comments of DBuckner and JLL above, except that I find myself almost equally troubled by the actions of two editors, not just one. It's worth noting, perhaps, that Lucas, following the justified deletion[[3]] of a page on Analytic/Continental Philosophy, which he had stubbornly defended, moved some the insupportable content to this article (at 1.8) and has now created another article to harbor more of the deleted content[[4]]. One cannot accede to his demands to improve and edit this material because even uncontroversial points - e.g. that "philosophy" means love of wisdom and not wisdom of love - will be hotly debated for days, and likely end up with the correction still not being accepted. Few of us can spare the time required for this.
I understand that FT2 claims no technical knowledge of philosophy, but I think anyone with reasonable general knowledge could take a look at 1.8.1. in the article (I regret this is protected) and recognize almost immediately that the standard falls light years short of anything acceptable.
Right now, I can't foresee how things will play out with the Workshop page. We'll see when we get to the point of a dispute. I must say, with all respect, that it seems a laborious way to circumvent what is simply disruption. If competent editors were permitted to edit, it wouldn't be necessary. KD Tries Again 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)KD
I entirely agree with the comments about the workshop. It was at once too much and too little. For those who are used to working under constraints such as planning through the main points of articles, striking the difficult balance between the material one would like to include and limiting the amount of space (which is the real art of editing), the workshop was teaching grandma to suck eggs, and was . For those who do not care for such careful discipline, it was far too little. On the point that there are two editors, I agree also. But one thing at a time. On the point about "anyone with reasonable general knowledge" being able to spot the problem, I agree again. Couldn't there be some process or committee that passes judgment on general competence of writing as writing. I would be happy to offer advice on problem editors in other areas: I don't know much physics, but I could quickly spot bad writing on physics. Dbuckner 15:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was going to propose. There is a Forum for Encyclopedic Standards where this might be done. I am a member, and I left a comment on FT2's talk page about it. The purpose of the Forum is to develop standards and policy on this very issue. And I think that if we apply the approach of the rigorous method that our philosphy professors are trained in, and with their kind assistance, we might be able to do that. I am willing to take that on as a project-er, excuse me a minute-I have to go double up on my Prozac just at the moment. Richiar 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's ok, take your time, get your Prozac. I'll just ask everyone to waite.
  • Administrator User:Mel Etitis, would you please hold everything until the men gets his Prozac, as he requests?
  • I'm certainly willing to accomodate the man.
  • And User:Quiddity, would you kindly take note of the man's request in the compilations on your User Space, as is your custom?
  • How about you, User:Dbuckner, will you take careful note of the matter in your so-called "Musium"?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry gentlemen if I neglected you, but I myself, simply had to get something to eat.
    • Dear User Ben S. Nelson, will you hold on while the man gets his Prozac - as he requests?
    • And how about you, Administrator User:Banno - may the man get his Prozac, as he asks? If I'm repetitive, Banno, it's because I'm worried you might not notice the issue - just as you have done with the "Bristol Stool Chart" and "Don't be a dick" matter? Where, again, does that come from? Is that a page you've created yourself? I cannot seem to find it now. Would you please accommodate me on this item? Where is it again?
    • And I do not want to omit, User:Peter J King - you've expressed yourself as an authority on mental health - would you please step forward now and express yourself on the issues at hand?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear FT2,

  • I submit that you fail to distinguish, at this time, between conduct before User:Banno's 48 hour ban, and conduct after. I believe that if you do so, you will find that it is User:Dbuckner who is the primary, if not the exclusive, agent of the alleged disruption.
  • Or are you saying that it is Wikipedia policy to punish an editor twice for the same offense?
  • One act in question is the use of the Bristol Stool Chart - which is naturally construed as shouting "SHIT" at an editor - to evaluate an editor.
  • May I ask - should that not be the only disruption to be considered now?
  • Could you be more specific as to what other alleged disruptive uncivility you have found?
Respectfully submitted, Ludvikus 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Western Front (film)

All Quiet on the Western Front

  • Request: Archive Page - This Page
  • As the Editor's War Bombardments have subsided, I think this Page should be archived.
  • I would Baldly do it myself - but Archiving is something I have not yet learned.
  • Anyone willing and able to do so, please step up to the plate - for a possible Home Run --Ludvikus 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not assert, we argue

We are, after all, philosophers. We do not, we flatter ourselves, simply assert: we argue. To argue is to put forward reasons for believing things. And what is the point of putting forward reasons for believing things if those reasons are not decisive? (Iwagen) Dbuckner 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We can therefore be sure that however cold or contemptuously critical may be the attitude of those who judge a science not by its nature but by is accidental effects, we shall always return to metaphysics as to a beloved one with whom we have had a quarrel. (Kant) Dbuckner 12:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad to hear from you, Db!
  • First of all I do acknowledge that distinction - I even give it a higher name: Dialogue!
  • However, it is going on "behind closed doors", so to speak: on your Talk Page.
  • But unfortunate, the only Authority you use is Mel.
  • As for me, I have my vast library of the actual World-class philosophers at my finger tips.
  • Mel's opinion regarding the "analytic synthetic distinction" is uninformed.
  • That distinction go back to the ancient Greeks.
  • But its modern roots are in that genius Kant!
  • Now I ask you - look into your heart - are you not the best public relations man? Is there not an effort going on now to silence my voice? I think you are sincere - I can give you that much. But why don't you perform some Cartesian skepticism on your own mind, in the privacy of your own home, and think things over right before you go to sleep, ok?
  • Suppose, just suppose, I, and Lucas, are right (those two), and your 'Cabal of seven or so (which you conveniently (and I might add innocently) listed on your Home page as a "Safe House", are wrong, who will be harmed, when that movement for a Community Ban against me succeeds?
  • Are you not placing me precisely in the role of Socrates? Except, thank heave, that I do not need to drink Hemlock? It is hard to resist gloating over it. And I tell you why. Because I care, first of all, what's going on my own mind - just as Descartes would have us do. And you should also read carefully the Mediocre Wiki article. It does not matter, ultimately, what you, or anyone else thinks, because I have learned to listen honestly to myself - my own mind.
  • Look at how I'm stigmatized: Banno banned for 48 hours, shit level between 6 and 7 on Mel's Richter scale, labeled Madman/Insane by Philosopher Peter J King, and that Prozac man with the image of the "beating a dead horse" on his home page? Am I corrupting the youth? No. I'm justy ----- what?
  • Even you have announce that you fear for your life because of me, correct? Do you remember? And you even whent so far as to discredit me on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as some sort of a trouble maker, right.
  • And I do so glee over my predicament. And do you want to know why? Because you have placed me precisely in the position of Jesus Christ, that wonderful Jew. But you cannot actually crucify my on that Cross at Calvary.
  • This Cyberspace - where the whole world can listen. And how many men get to be painlessly subjected to such crucification as you are attempting.
  • That's the martyrdom Lucaas sees. He was Jesus before me - and now I've taken the role away from him.
  • It not only reading all kind of books, but also acknowledging who's who.
  • Whatever Mel say about the Philosophy page - calling it a joke, etc. - nevertheless IT IS HIS CREATION! He is THE EVIL GENIUS, and you have been his instrument in the commission of his act.
  • So he was the DISRUPTER and cause of me being Stained with the Stigma of the ban by Banno.
  • It's all about POWER - NOT REASON or ARGUMENT. Can't you see and admit that?
  • And that Philosophical View you can only get by reading Michel Foucault.
  • But who does scholarly work her? I even feel that no one bothers even reading Wikipedia.
  • In Banno's language (the current Wikipedia standard, in its evolution]] one would say that the Philosophy Page at Wikipedia is just a handful of guys wacking or jerking each other off (that how we say it in the streets of New York) - I do not how you put it in England. Is Banno an American?
  • Do you get my drift as to the actual level of philosophical discourse?
  • Go back and read the Socratic Dialogues. What happens when Socrates wins an argument?
  • It is my experience that you are more influence by Mel's status than by just LOOKING at what's going on.

Finally - have we ended the Editor's War? Because that's Wikipedia's Number One requirement! PS: I'm not going to waste time making typographical corrections, or stylistic, ones, not because I have to go and attend to my classes, as Peter J King, Mel, often hypnoticly suggest to. Instead - and hears something Administrator Banno condones - I have to go to the Bathroom to take a Bristol Stool Chart. Do you see what I'm doing to Mel now? Think back, objectively? Am I not truly engaging in a Socratic dialogue with nonentity Mel? But the ancient Greeks were much more civil than contemporary cyberspace men are on Wiki at this stage of its development.

Why don't also help me raise the level of discourse towards heaven rather than the toilet, as Mel has done? I am amazed how blind Lucas is to all this. Does he not know that Banno - at your prompting, of course (your the ringleader), has launched a campaign to have me banned?
What say you, Lucaas, to that?
I realy do have to go to that unmentionable place. Let Mel know he can come over with his chart and rate my results. I do hope it will not be a 7 - but I better run before it's to late.
Quiddity - it was you who said Wikipedia is funny - but I gather from your failure to defend me against Banno's 48 hour ban that you missed the point (asumining Wiki Good Faith).
Oops, it happening!
(Just kidding) Yours truly, Socrates
Well Ludikrus, you're back to your old multiple-edit long-style (sorry but that's what it becomes after a while, it seems I just can't save some of your gems of wisdom when you couch them amongst so much lineage. I ask you for the last time to edit your comments and keep them short! Brevity is essential here, people have dozens of pages to look at on the web and you just try their patience. I'm aware that Banno is involved in a community ban discussion about you, I do not think he started it, but was requested by another editor(s) on here who found the quantity of information you were pasting in here in such a haphazard fashion, disturbed the general flow of thought. I have also made comments on the community ban but I found the other side more offensive in their reaction than your babblings and wandering. I remind you this is not easy, there is little hope here for any balance, the majority here are of course English-speaking, and so in institutional philosophy they are in the vast majority and are controlled by Analytic thought, so any balance will of course be missing. We can expect both Continental and Eastern philosophy to be completely mis-represented on this page.
So reserve you comments on truth and power, an Analytic philosopher has no clue of these problems, they are naive to these issues, it is almost banned to read Marx/Hegel/Foucault in the Analytic academy; Though some of the Analytic pragmatists almost grasp this, they get lost in, or defeated by, the general positivism of propaganda, ideology and public relations. Do not disillusion them either, they are already in a bad way. For the same reason you would not disillusion a young mathematician who only exists in thought (which can be as unruly and anarchic as he likes, and may in fact need to be, to solve Fermat's theorem, etc.) and denies his body, but it is not because he is conscious how, unlike his mind, his body is regulated, spied upon, and coerced.--Lucas Talk 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's you who missed the point this time. User:FT2 made it clear: the Philosophy Edit War must end. So my discussion was with Dbuckner - not you. And now he has gone on Vacation - hopefully to read some philosophy in First and Secondary sources. So the Editor's War has ended, which Wikipedia needs. Don't you understand that? The Edit War was the issue. And my remarks were addressed to Db, and I think he understood me. I was not, this time, talking to you. Yours truly,--Ludvikus 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich (1996). "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 14 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Quinton, Anthony; ed. Ted Honderich (1996). "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 14 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy/Archive_17&oldid=1136243018"