Talk:Philosophy/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32

The nature of existence

Philosophy is not simply the study of problems. That description is the death of philosophy. It is intended to be descriptive in a math-language sort of way, but it does nothing to describe the fullness of philosophical study as normal language is not math-language, and philosophy is not based on problems though it does approach them. It shouldn't be the first line of description. When I search google it says that Wikipedia says, "Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." And I would add "the nature of" to the existence part, and not delete the whole thing and replace it with problems but hey, that's just me. ~ R.T.G 12:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I've mixed it up, but it shouldn't say problems first. Philosophy is about the why of everything. Problems are just a part of everything, not the everything itself. Philosophy is the parent of modern science. The study of everything. ~ R.T.G 12:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I think philosophy is more about aiming to find answers to fundamental questions re existence etc., rather than seeing these areas as problems. TonyClarke (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree - the basic problems have been around for a long time and debating those problems, seeking answers but generally redefining problems is what it is all about. Problem is not a negative word. Whatever its in the reference so if people want to reopen the debates about the lede I suggest they first check the archives -----Snowded TALK 09:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Well looks like you are in a minority already Snowded TALK, see above. Also the page you quoted is not part of accepted Wikipedia policy. I respect your input, but sadly have noticed a negative trend in your comments and edits. For example your edit comments are almost a direct copy of your comments on your earlier reversion of an edit on this page.That is not helping Wikipedia or yourself. Unless you can show a consensus for your view, I think we need to revert. Lets not get into detailed to and fro, but I invite other people to comment on this. Thanks in advance.

TonyClarke (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Two editors to one does not constitute a majority I'm afraid, not enough to overturn a form of words that was agreed after much participation. You have not yet got a consensus for change, other people do need to comment first and you need to cut out the personal comments -----Snowded TALK 04:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your observations. I'm not sure that this specific point (about problems or answering questions being the focus of philosophy) has ever been formally discussed, certainly not within the past year. I think my point of view is supported by the Internet Encyclopedia article on philosophy, by the etymology of 'philosophy' as the love of wisdom rather than mystery, by the dictionary definition of 'philosophy', and other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on 'metaphysics', and on 'philosopher'. Unless there are strong views otherwise, I think this issue in the intro needs to be revisited TonyClarke (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The love of wisdom could be interpreted as supporting either wording. It was discussed several years ago - there have been two long extended discussions of the lede in my wikipedia editing life time. But anything can be revisited but it needs more involvement of other editors - and the group who monitor this article are slow to respond. I have several encyclopaedias and histories of philosophy at home and I can check out their definitions when I get back to my study on Sunday. -----Snowded TALK 06:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if "problems" is perfect but it is traditional and easy to understand. On the other hand "issues" is literally a word used when people want to be comically vague and unclear; and "questions" seems to be an attempt to find a word which means something like "problems" but which misses an essential point: not all questions are problems, ie interesting to people. So both words are vague. Can I at least request a more clear statement of why this needs to be changed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I was responding to an earlier poster on the talk page, who thought 'problems' was very negative and not reflecting the richness and diversity of philosophical work. On looking at many definitions of philosophy on the web, it seemed to me most did not put problems as the main focus of philosophy. Philosophers do not study problems, but a range of topics, epistemology, ethics etc. etc. Perhaps in that approach they tend to work on what some see as problems in those fields, but they seek to work beyond that, and in many cases the problems disappear through further insights which the philosopher finds. 'Questions' I think is relevant in that many topics are phrased as questions: what is value? How does true knowledge arise? What is the nature of reality? etc.. These are best seen as lines of inquiry rather than simply problems. Wikipedia is one of the few sources directly mentioning 'problems' in its definition of philosophy, so I think we should be reflecting the wider, more diverse accounts of philosophy. Hope this helps. TonyClarke (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

So you have a source saying "issues"? I think that term is hopeless honestly? In this post above you now mention "topics", and concerning this word I have the same concern as with "questions" which indeed you also link it to ("many topics are phrased as questions"). Philosophy is not interested in all topics or questions, but only the problematic ones, sometimes also described as being insoluble or permanent. You really found no sources saying this? In any case we can't define philosophy as being a subject which looks into topics or questions because that is not distinguishing philosophy from other academic pursuits, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to the "problems" language already in place, but I think that last sentence you wrote is a little unfair, because there's a bunch of further qualifiers that follow whatever word we use there. We're basically saying "philosophy studies things about stuff like existence, knowledge, etc" and just arguing over what word to use in place of "things".
And, again not that I think "problems" is problematic at all, but the wording we have there is already a little redundant, "problems concerning matters such as", when we could just say something like "matters such as". We're essentially saying "...studies things about stuff like..." when we could just say "...studies things like..." or "...studies stuff like...", rather than saying both "things" and "stuff", so to speak. (What is this, mereology? You know, the study of things and stuff...) --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Disagree - problems are what make philosophy interesting. Words like 'issues' are meaningless here. We use phrases like "The hard problem" for example -----Snowded TALK 21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes we use the label 'problem', but that does not mean problems are the focus of philosophy, as the previous wording suggested. It is 'the hard problem'- of consciousness, and it is consciousness that philosophers study, in order to resolve the problem it poses. To say philosophy is the study of problems just isn't the whole story, and the general sources quote specific areas which characterise philosophical inquiry. If someone can come up with a better term than inquiry, issue or question, then I will be happy, but 'problems' just isn't enough, and is not widely quoted as characterising the work of philosophy.

TonyClarke (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the fact that most of the problems remain unresolved after several thousand of years would argue that the 'label' is accurate-----Snowded TALK 05:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Pfhorrest I think that simply using a couple of examples as the only "qualifiers" would be an emergency solution, and not really desirable if avoidable? I remain surprised that people are saying that "problems" is not a word found in publications, but I am not seeing anyone give any real citations to any such publications using any other terminology either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I object to the latest reversion of my contribution. It was well supported, and the replacement text is not well supported. There are no citations to support the use of 'problem' as the study of philosophy, whereas I gave alternative citations to back up what I said, including the dictionary definition, and a University introductory lecture to philosophy.I could have given many more quotes in introductions from Universities around the world. A simple Google search confirms my position, if needed. If the editors are happy with this remaining as it is, then they are publishing a minority, unsupported view. Please discuss the reasons for reversion before doing so,, this was still under discussion.

TonyClarke (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

TonyClarke, do keep in mind you are the one proposing a change, and your sources are quite weak, and objections to the terms "issues" and "questions" have been explained above without any reply. Anyway, I went to google and I am still mystified about your claim that you could not find any reference to "problems":--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies I have been away from the internet for a couple of weeks but it looks like this is now closed? -----Snowded TALK 07:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
No I don't think it is closed. I too have been off Wikipedia for a while. To answer some of the above points: I think this is a discussion about the definition of philosophy, particuarly whether 'the study of problems' should figure in the definition. I did a Google search for 'What is philosophy', and all of the contemporary and authoritative sources, (excluding Wikipedia) which came up with answers (including English language dictionaries, and universities) come up with things like 'fundamental questions about..' or 'the nature of ..' followed by a list. If there is a modern, authoritative definition of philosophy lurking somewhere making reference to 'the study of problems', I cannot find it, and it is certainly in a very small minority.

Regarding Andrew Lancaster's post above, I could not follow some of the links. Also some of the references are quite old. The William James one is revealing, since in that work I think he was trying to show that his radical empiricism potentially resolved many, if not all of the traditional problems of philosophy. To that extent his philosophy was dynamic, problem solving rather than the study of problems. Snowded TALK, earlier in this discussion, rejects such a positive and progressive view of philosophy, and I think that James' approach is an affirmation of the comment by ~ R.T.G on the 'death of philosophy' if it stuck only to the study of problems, not to their resolution.

If someone can cite a contemporary authoritative list of sources mentioning the 'study of problems' in the definition, I will regard this issue as closed. But modern dictionaries and universities do not seem to favour such a definition. We need to conform to the prevalent definitions. TonyClarke (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so opposition to you now indicates a lack of a positive and progressive view of philosophy from which I assume that you see problems as negative, solutions as positive. You might want to watch this. -----Snowded TALK 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
TonyClarke I made the list quickly using online publications (which normally do not include recent important books, it was absolutely clear that more recent books are still using the terminology though) and I stopped soon after, because as I made it I was thinking that just the short list is like a "who's who". Philosophy is not a fast moving field like genetics. (Just as an example opinion I'd say philosophy is still digesting Hume, and might never go very far beyond him. I am not important, but my point is that I think this arguably eccentric opinion is not unusually arguably eccentric in philosophy. Some people argue that philosophy should go back to Plato. Many or most philosophers seem to think philosophy made a wrong turn somewhere. That is how philosophy works.) Anyway, you might find someone well known who disagrees, but I think that in context even that is no longer so convincing. The original contention was that there were no good sources at all for philosophy being about questions. That contention was in my opinion proven false. If you want to formulate a completely new complaint then please start from a blank slate and do not confuse it with the original concern?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok thank you Andrew. I take it that philosophy being about (fundamental ) questions is now acceptable? I have sources (already posted, but reverted summarily) that philosophy is about fundamental questions, not defined as the study of problems. There is no support for the latter that I can find (although as your list shows, philosophers often start by addressing problems), while very good authorities, such as foremost universities, and the Oxford dictionary, support the former. Unless there are any other comments, I shall go ahead and post regarding this in the article.TonyClarke (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the history I suggest you propose wording here before making changes -----Snowded TALK 14:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
TonyClarke, my apologies. Above I have written as if the position you were opposing was that philosophy involves "questions", whereas obviously we were talking about "problems". Obviously the sources I showed were using the latter terminology. I do not think anyone is opposing the idea that philosophy discusses "questions", but as mentioned before it is a less specific term, and therefore worse for definition purposes. Let's put it this way: you see to accept that "questions" is not specific enough (every field studies questions) so you add "fundamental". We are using the word "fundamental" already, but what is the meaning of "fundamental" in this context? Is that clear? The types of questions philosophy deals with are commonly referred to as problematic, as I've shown. A "problematic question" can simply be called a "problem" in English, and so a "fundamental problematic question" can be called a "fundamental problem". A lot of people clearly think that the word problem helps explain what philosophy is. I do not believe you have proven that the best authorities disagree with this, because as I mentioned the word "problem" seems quite popular with a "who's who" of philosophers who've tried to define philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Philosophy is about understanding things, is the pinnacle of knowledge taken from ignorance to understanding (Platos ladder of true understanding). Extensions thereafter are peripheral. Everything else is just a branch, which doesn't sound important, but for instance, modern academia is a branch of philosophy so there is like a reverse hype going on. Currently the article suggests that philosophy has moved on from science to problem solving, but in fact the opposite may be more true. ~ R.T.G 10:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this collection of statements is debatable, and also unsourced, and also hard to convert into any practical suggestion. Is philosophy more about "understanding" than say "physics"? Is it "higher" than, say, physics? (Or perhaps better, how is it "higher"?) Why do you make "problem solving" something opposed to "science"? When it comes to long term or even permanent problems like the ones philosophy constantly stalks around, who says there is necessarily a solution or understanding? And how can we honestly say modern academia is a branch of philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Janism

I reverted a cut and paste of material in Indian philosophy here. I think there is a case for a couple of sentences in the section on Indian Philosophy but not a whole entry -----Snowded TALK 07:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor has now been banned as a sock so this is probably closed -----Snowded TALK 09:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


I'm adding a nice article I found about Newton's influence on Kant's philosophy, considering the influence Kant had on philosophy. Kant's view on formation of the solar system was based on Newtonian principles. Also the article talks about Leibniz's views on natural law. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-science/ Anna.tonoyan (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Should Buddhist and Jain Philosophy be subsection of Indian Philosophy?

The word Indian is ambiguous. For most of the Muslims of the world, Indian = Hindu. As a matter of fact the synonym for India in Arabic, Persian and Urdu(and may be many more languages) is Hindustan(Land of Hindus). Hence, to avoid confusion, Hindu Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy and Jain Philosophy should be in separate sections. Kundakundakunda (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "Hindu" is also complex and varied in meaning. So if we take this to its logical conclusion, all the schools, or at least many of them, which fall under "Hindu philosophy" would then have to get their own section. Best to leave "Indian philosophy" as a generic geographic descriptor. Though I do think that since Buddhist philosophy is now mostly done outside of India and historically has had just as much development outside of India as inside of it, it should probably be its own section. Even in the generic geographic sense, "Buddhist philosophy" is not just "Indian" since it is now just as much "Tibetan", "Southeast Asian" and "East Asian". Just my two cents. Javierfv1212

Repetition in Jain philosophy

In the section Indian philosophy - Jain philosophy the sentence " It has two major subtraditions: Digambara and Svetambara, along with several more minor traditions such as Terapanthis." is mentioned twice and I would propose that one of them gets omitted. The first appearance of the sentence should probably remain as it contains more information in brackets. BennoKrojer (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone broke the Philosophy Game

You can't race to Philosophy anymore. I'm unsure as to when it happened or who did it, but I recently discovered that the first links on the Reality and Existence articles link to each other. Due to the fact that playing the game in reverse eventually links back to Reality, I know that there's no other way to reach Philosophy using only first links. It probably won't happen, but can either page be edited so as to make the game possible again? WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

somebody fixed it, try it now Tommy has a great username (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Open Court Publishing Company?

Why is this part even included under popular culture? It reads like promotional content:

In 2000, the Open Court Publishing Company began publishing a series of books on philosophy and popular culture. Each book consists of essays written by philosophers for general readers. The books "explore the meanings, concepts and puzzles within television shows, movies, music and other icons of popular culture"[125] analyzing topics such as the TV shows Seinfeld and The Simpsons, The Matrix and Star Wars movies and related media and new technological developments such as the iPod and Facebook. Their most recent publication (as of 2016) is titled Louis C.K. and Philosophy; its subject is the comedian Louis C.K.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.141.102 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Actioned -----Snowded TALK 06:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Add Self to this Philosophy article

Self is the fundamental underlying concern by philosophy in Idealism. Johann Gottlieb Fichte...go for the consensus.Arnlodg (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Modern Indian Philosophers?

Upon reading this article, one gets an impression that there are no modern philosophers in India or that there has been no historical development in philosophy. Manoguru (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Then go and find some third party reliable sources that reference such individuals and we can assess them for weight. Not sure how you form the second conclusion but the talk page is here to discuss CHANGES to the article not the subject per se -----Snowded TALK 18:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Change first sentence

--Change first sentence from: Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] is the study of general and fundamental "problems" concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

--Change first sentence to: Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] is the study of "fundamental-interactions" concerning "subjects" such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, language, observation, science and math.[1]

--The phrase "fundamental interactions" is more inclusive-comprehensive and modern as is also "subjects" and added subjects. As referenced by Wikipedia to Marcus Aurelius : "Observe always that everything is the result of a change, and get used to thinking that there is nothing Nature loves so well as to change existing forms and to make new ones like them." Arnlodg (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

From any normal reader of Wikipedia talking about interactions not problems would be largely meaningless. Adding subjects provides no value -----Snowded TALK 09:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

--then we could just leave it at 'love of wisdom pursuit of truth', thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lets just leave it as it is -----Snowded TALK 01:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

--Please see comments below and advise...thanksArnlodg (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Where does this repeated objection to the word "problems" come from? Is this the same person over and over again, sockpuppets, meat puppets, or a bunch of real different people coming here from somewhere? --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what the full background is, but there is indeed more discussion that will be in the archives by now. If we continue to get messages about it we can consider posting a header about the first sentence specifically to

-(open space deleted)- ensure that people address what has already been discussed if they really want a new discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

--This/my request came from reading the many non-linked 'philosophy" references in Wikipedia, it is meant to be a update, as "fundamental-interactions" is more comprehensive than problems...thanksArnlodg (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed next is not more up to date and its confusing and obscurantist -----Snowded TALK 07:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree; "fundamental interactions" does not seem to be either a common or clear term, nor one which captures the type of consensus positions we try to reflect on this project. Also, while I am not sure where in Wikipedia it is supposed to come from, we should not use Wikipedia as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

--'Problems' solved, the word Problems has been changed by someone, to "Concerns", thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing my attention to that, I've reverted it to problems -----Snowded TALK 05:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

--Who changed it, not me..."Concerns" is a good compromise, covering many attitudes in problem solving, please check it out, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Arnlodg: Are you calling "concerns" an improvement over "problems"? Liberty5651 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

--Yes "Concerns" is a good compromise, covering many attitudes in problem solving , thanks..Arnlodg (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

>All the things listed after "matter" are not matter. They are immaterial things. The primary definition for matter is an object that has mass and takes up space. I know over the millennium that definition has changed in discussion to include virtual everything, but the basic definition for "matter" is always a material object. So, there are better words to use then "matter" when referring to ideas. It's use conflates many topics; it's simplification could improve comprehension (but that's just me). Plus, the sentence just reads like a lot for college buzz words and industry jargon. I get it though, I'm not the only one in the world; it's quite a diverse place with many different languages and dialects (and values and customs) explaining the same few things. Even if there were a valid consensus on this page, well, many others will disagree. Liberty5651 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose Arnlodg's unsourced proposed change; the undefined term "fundamental-interactions" will be confusing for most readers, and misleading because it is used in nuclear physics. The existing wording is adequately supported by sources. --ChetvornoTALK 23:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That philosophers interact with other philosophers towards, any and all fundamental meanings, of any and all interactions of any and all fundamental meanings, in our infinite cosmos, is what philosophy is about..."Concerns" is a good compromise to settle this, covering many attitudes and points of view, please check it out, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for you to pursue your own idiosyncratic ideas - we world from third party sources. You\re wasting editors time with these sort of comments over several articles -----Snowded TALK 07:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I support Arnlodg's comment that 'concerns' is better than 'problems'. I took part in a discussion last year about this, and I took from it that some people had fixed views which they didn't want to change. If you google 'what is philosophy' the central term is 90% of the time something like 'questions' 'concerns', 'understanding', and these results come form universities who should have a fair idea of what the subject is. 'Problems' very seldom come up, so insisting on leaving it in is unsourced, and therefore POV. If reputable sources can be obtained which outnumber concerns or questions in favour of problems, I will change my mind. But I don't see any such sources which explicitly say that philosophy is about problems. I have a post grad degree in Philosophy.

TonyClarke (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I don't have any objection to using another word like "concerns", "questions", "issues", "matters", or anything like that, though I also see no reason to object to "problems". "Fundamental-interactions" is obscurantist nonsense, though. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to leave my edit to the definition here, for reference:

... the study of general and fundamental concerns such as existence, knowledge, matter, values, reason, mind, and language.

In my opinion "concerns" is an improvement from "problems". It also recognizes "matter" as used to reference material objects rather then immaterial concepts. Liberty5651 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

OK we seem to have two editors approaching this from a "matter" perspective which is of itself problematic :-) We have the " hard problem of consciousness" and that is before we do a simple good scholar search which reveals this. The reason philosophy is interesting is because these concerns are all problematic, they are difficult to resolve and today in the main have not been resolved. Concerns is a truly terrible word here. "Fundamental questions" is good and could be added to problems as an option -----Snowded TALK 06:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you do a search for 'philosophy + problems', then of course you will get a list of problems. So that does not enlighten a definition of philosophy, it presupposes it. I wonder why 'concern' is seen as a 'truly terrible' word here? It has a perfectly relevant sense of a 'matter of interest or importance', interpreting 'matter' as 'topic' or similar. TonyClarke (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It shows just how many people use the two words to define the field. Concern is far too weak a word -----Snowded TALK 15:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we deserve more explicit statements than 'Far too weak', 'idiosyncratic', and 'truly terrible'. Otherwise you are just venting, not adding anything rational to the discussion. 'Concerns' are matters of interest, or importance, in the dictionary. Why is that too weak? Unless you can explain your point of view less emotionally, I feel I cannot seriously consider your contributions. TonyClarke (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh me or my, you think that is emotional! I'll try and help you a little bit here (and your post-graduate degree of course). The search I mentioned above contains lots of lots of phrases like that name various problems that philosophy addresses. A similar search on Philosophy + concerns contains no such references, just phrases like "experimental philosophy concerns ...." and so on. I very much doubt if there were just concerns, the various problems of philosophy would have attracted so much controversy over the years. -----Snowded TALK 21:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
You compare two biased searches, one supposing philosophy to be about problems, the other about concerns. I originally proposed a neutral search, which comes up with terms which rarely include reference to problems. It's about questions of fundamental importance, i.e. concerns, seeking understanding or wisdom, or interests or some such synonym. That's what a neutral search reveals, and I can provide the results in citations which support a change from problems, to something like concerns, interest, seeking understanding, etc.. I don't think your last post supports any belief that problems are the fundamental content of philosophy, I think it merely reiterates your belief. TonyClarke (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Not really, I've used two searches to shown common and uncommon use. If you have a citation that says Philosophy no longer deals with problems but with concerns I'm very curious to see it. -----Snowded TALK 08:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for opening up about how Wiki editors seem to do business...Other Wiki editors in their responses here, to you, have not made this 'search' a waist of time, thanks again, Arnlodg (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Arnlodg have you looked at the archives of this talk page yet? I think without that context it is not fair to be criticizing others for not putting time into it. Sometimes articles have questions which come up over and over. Concerning the normal "way of doing business" on Wikipedia an important norm to keep in mind is that if you make a proposal and it is resisted, you should be the one to provide good evidence for your position. Complaining about the lack of time spent by those resisting a new edit is not very convincing if you are spending no time on it yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I am looking into citing philology positions in the future, again thank you...Arnlodg (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

TonyClarke, of course you are correct that the word should be chosen by searching neutrally. That would mean looking at what words are commonly used to define philosophy. But, that kind of search has been done before, as the archives of this talkpage show. The word "problems" has a clear and strong history and continuing use. I have never heard of the subject matter of philosophy being defined as a "concerns", and this is a case where the two words do not seem to me to have the overlap which they often have in casual English. A concern is in the end (or in the beginning?) referring to an emotional state, whereas a problem can be a puzzle that is for example posed even for pure entertainment, or in mathematics or physics. We do not say that Einstein posed some concerns about gravity, or that quantum theory presents us with concerns. (We could say those things, but they would mean something else than what a physics book would mean.) We also do not speak of resolving the concerns people have with Rubiks Cubes. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Andrew, I agree with most of them. I am not proposing replacing 'problems' with 'concerns'. There are philosophical problems of course, as there are economic problems, public health problems, economic problems. But these disciplines aren't defined by the problems which they deal with, they seek and often obtain understanding and productive ways to approach the problems or issues. Just so, philosophy is not defined by its problems although they are often prominent in its literature. Any dictionary or authoritative sources such as universities recognise this in their description of philosophy. They use terms such as reaching understanding on fundamental facts or areas of human experience. I fail to see why we have become stuck on this issue, which I see as straightforward. TonyClarke (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy supposes problems, as props towards critical thinking, and the purpose of understanding. "Philosophy is about understanding" gets 35,000 hits on a web search. Times Literary review[1]. Psychology Today[2]. It's a huge long list and in general, the use of the term is to describe philosophy out of hand. "If philosophy is about understanding..." type comments, "So-on and so forth, if philosophy is about understanding." Suggesting the reader be supposed to know, understanding to be, the most principle element, of philosophy. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Philosophy is about problems" gets only 20,000 hits ~ R.T.G 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you all really unaware of the sense of the word "problems" that means something like "questions or puzzles"? Think "math problems", not "social problems". In a math class you're often assigned homework which is solving "a set of problems", but not as in making bad situations good again, rather, as in finding answers to questions. Philosophical "problems" are like that; things in need of "solving" as in "answering", not as in "fixing". (see wikt:problem#Noun sense 2 and maybe 3). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Philosophy is an art of understanding. Math was my top subject. The sense you are implying is ambiguous. ~ R.T.G 00:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Philosophy has understanding as a goal, but because it has long admitted that it might never achieve such understanding, it has long described itself in terms of the attempt rather than in terms of the achievement. You might say that all sciences and disciplines are like that, which raises an interesting point. Most such disciplines if not all, were once covered by the term philosophy. In fact, a situation has involved that as understandings are achieved they tend to be re-defined so that they are not philosophy anymore. Philosophy is now a term which is effectively reserved for unsolved problems? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Possibly, but then we have psychology and the philosophy of mind, so a science clearly has overlap with an area of philosophy. I think we have reached a point where we are now discussing the subject rather than considering how the article can be improved. That is the purpose of the talk pages. I think it can be improved by following dictionary and other authoritative sources, virtually all of which do not mention problems in their definition of philosophy. By my count, there there is a majority in this discussion who would support the change from 'problems' to something like 'understanding and study of fundamental questions...' I propose to make that change, quoting reliable authoritative sources. If anyone would be inclined to revert that change, please discuss here first, or give any other comments. Thank you. TonyClarke (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes there is overlap still between the subject matter of philosophy and science (and maths and logic) but that is exactly relevant to the question of definition. When do you call a maths discussion philosophical? I think most sources and our own common sense are telling us very clearly that this is when there is an unresolved problem. In any case, from the standpoint of editing norms I see no consensus or good sourcing to justify changing yet, and that change was already rejected. So is there new sourcing to justify a new attempt to make a rejected change?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And an unresolved problem calls for investigation, study and understanding, which is precisely how the reliable sources characterise philosophy, seeking understanding and answers to basic fundamental questions. The change was deleted because the subject was still under discussion, and I think that discussion appears to be ending. My rationale for the change would be that no, or very few, reputable sources include 'problems' in their definition, and so the entry is misleading as it stands. I would have no issue with some statement later in the article, treating 'problems' as a synonym for classical philosophical topics or questions, and about the major ones in philosophy. But as it stands, the definition gives undue and unsupported prominence to the word 'problems'. It is against our policy on reliable and authoritative sources. TonyClarke (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Study, research etc, of questions is something every discipline does. Also see in the archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy/Archive_31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy/Archive_30 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I found the earlier archive seemed to cover other issues, and not really connected to the present discussion. In the later archive, the balance of opinion seems to favour the replacement of 'problems'. TonyClarke (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There has never been a consensus to remove 'problems' and there isn't now. Your suggestion above that you cn make a change and others would not be able to revert is false. There are a range of processes in wikipedia to gain consensus and you need to follow them. Oh and your own reading of the archive is (sic) problematic :-). You might be better trying to find a new form of words that includes problems but handles some of your concerns -----Snowded TALK 06:45, 16 March 2019 (UTCod]]

I was briefly home and had a look at a couple of reference books. Honderich in the Oxford Companion doesn't actually define philosophy but he taks about "ideas, arguments, theories, doctrines, world views, schools, movements and traditions" is respect of what he calls a dozen parts of philosophy. Kenny. Copleston and Blackborn all discuss without definition. -----Snowded TALK 06:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

'Consensus' means 'agreement', not 'unanimity'. If you hold out for the latter term, we are never going to reach consensus. That would justify repeated reversion of well intentioned and supported edits. But it is based on a false definition. More people here agree that something other than 'problems' define philosophy, rather than disagree, and for me that is consensus.
Concern with "problems" is not necessarily wrong, but it is unnecessarily ambiguous and should not appear to be definitive to the topic, which is obviously broad and covers aspects of the full range of knowledge, not least of all methodology and rationale. The acceptable sense of problems here, is the least recognisable outside specialised context (i.e. mathematics, philosophy itself) and is therefore jargonous, like as not. Mention the word yes, perhaps, but do not let it appear to define as in stricter terms it does not. Democracy and consensus can be used to control Wikipedia, but that is not how we define knowledge so much as how we take leave of the definition whether it is complete or accurate or not. If problems are not strictly definitive, it must be open to change and refinement because Wikipedia is not yet complete. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 12:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
That it is difficult to explain philosophy is of course no surprise and so indeed we should be open to improvements. But surely what is most painfully missing from any of these discussions is a good rationale and good sourcing for any better alternative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree Andrew, but I am surprised by the notion that 'problems' is jargon - I would have use here was closer to common use. -----Snowded TALK 16:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
My apology, although I consider jargonous to be a word, I have taken it that nobody else does and it would be interchangeable with jargonesque but less of a letter scramble. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 18:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
"Problems" is definitely not jargon specific to philosophy and math. Go click in the search box up there and start typing "list of unsolved p" in it; the suggestions will be a plethora of articles each listing unsolved problems in a wide variety of different fields. "Problem" is the usual and common term for a something-or-other in need of an answer in an academic field. Or just see articles like Lists of unsolved problems or open problems, all of which use the word in this perfectly normal sense that's used all over the damn place. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and what you say reduces the relevance of problems to defining philosophy, since it is not uniquely characterising the discipline. Other disciplines, as you point out, have problems, and so philosophy needs to be characterised in something other than 'problems'. 'What needs an answer' can also be defined more properly as a 'question', the more commonly used term in its non-Wikipedia definitions. Problems, on the other hand, require resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyClarke (talk • contribs)
This makes me think you're not reading the existing lede sentence all the way through, and are just stopping at the word "problems" and not reading further. It doesn't just say that "problems" are what philosophy is about, it says which problems philosophy is about. Every field studies some set or another of problems, that is to say questions, puzzles, etc. The point of my comment above was that "problems" is a very common word used to describe the things that any field studies. Philosophy studies and tries to answer stuff about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, and so on; those things are the kinds of problems that philosophy studies. Nobody is saying that philosophy is just about "studying problems" full stop. Every field is about studying some set of problems. Philosophy is about, as the article already says, those specific kinds of problems. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
No. We are going to establish here over time what we all already know. That philosophy is the parent of all modern science and is based on the attempt to know and understand all things, the nature of existence as an exact phrase if we can manage it. Philosophy is not to remain enshrined as its source of derogatisation here on Wikipedia. I don't care who means well. This is an expression of outrage. Philosophy is a pursuit of understanding and wisdom, upon the nature of all things. No other description can match it to its use in description of individual methodology. The philosophy here is to produce reliable relevant resources. I don't care what schooling or side, any of you are on, if you do not consider philosophy to be the study and supposition of the nature of all things, beyond deference to individual application, you are actively involved with damaging this page. We should tell what the story of stories of knowledge is about. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 16:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia seeks to give a balanced reflection of what published sources say. Every day, hundreds or perhaps thousands of good people point out that this aim is low, and a higher aim should be possible. But whether or not that is possible, no one has succeeded in making such a wiki and anyway, here we continue to compromise. Concerning the particular point you raise we have to (and in fact any author would have to) compromise between writing an essay about the history of the concept (which still certainly influences what philosophy is understood to be today) and modern definitions (which certainly tend towards the idea of a professional academic who is not a scientist). For the record I believe I have been a defender of a stronger mention of the history love of wisdom understanding, which encompasses science. But I also have a lot of experience in the rules and norms of Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The above third bullet is not an individuals statements of philosophy but a compendium of statements of historical philosophers and introductions to manuscripts.
  • For anyone with real interest, don't let's get bogged down with continuing articulation. Nobody is stupid here. The above represents most of the first page of a Google search. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 11:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I share RTG's concerns, we are wasting time on a pedantic debate when we have a whole article which needs improved, and that is what the talk page is for. I find that all of the sources I can locate talk about 'study', 'understanding', and 'fundamental questions'. None that I have found put an emphasis or even mention of 'problems'. I have not seen a real defence of retaining 'problems' here, and can find no published reliable sources which put that term at the centre. So I think the page needs improvement by reflecting what the best sources say. I could give innumerable quotes, but will confine to three: the Oxford dictionary, University of Cambridge, and a quote from Wilfred Sellars. I am not being partial in this, but trying to give the best supported and respected sources. Before I edit the page, I'd like to hear people's views on what I have said.TonyClarke (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Like any other editor you are free to propose amendments and we all have an obligation to discuss them, but you need consensus to make the changes. You are not the arbiter of what is included and if you make a change without consensus it will be reverted. Reading the above there is no current consensus to remove 'problems' but there is an openness to proposals for change. It's also worth noting that the lede summarises the article. If after you have made a proposal for change there is no consensus among the active editors then you call an RfC -----Snowded TALK 13:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And there is also the policy statement: 'If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change.' RFCs are unlikely to resolve issues of content. So are there objections? If so, please give your reasons and suggestions. Let's get this done. TonyClarke (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony I think we went through the phases of bold editing, revert, discussion, but now I am still not really seeing any clarity of what the sourcing and rationale would be for what would be a reasonably important edit, given that it involves the opening and definition. I just see the discussion as being on pause until someone puts that effort in. The article is certainly far from perfect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony you need to come up with a proposal and discuss it here. Assume that any arbitrary change by you will be reverted. RfCs frequently resolve content issues by the way and they are the agreed community process if you can't get agreement. But at the moment we are in a vacuum as you have made no specific proposal and there is no consensus to simply remove the word problems. It might be worth someone finding the archive discussion when Peter Damian was involved as I think there was a lot of material there and more editors involved than now. I've got limited bandwidth (physically and figuratively this week so can't until late next week at the earliest. -----Snowded TALK 06:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well I've read 3/4s of the previous discussion (busy now). However, Damien falls down by repeatedly confining the logic, critical thinking and clarity, to the observation of questions. Pretty much summing up my present objections in doing so. Snowded largely agreed (10 years hence) with my present outlook, except that I know that we can pull the sources out and agree the most prevalent terms and opinions, but only over time. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 16:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "... problems concerning matters ..." just seems redundant. Losing two from these three words wouldn't reduce understanding. It might make it a little more accessible. They all seem to hold the same context, they mean the same thing. I'd rather a word other then "problems" but that's just me, and people have made some solid arguments for "problems" applicability to the subject. Is it just me or does "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." seem easier to read? Liberty5651 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks everybody for above comments. Taking into account everyone's views, I suggest the following edit with citations (precise wording and reference formatting to be agreed) (bracketed a and b would be in line citations) How does this sound:


Philosophy seeks understanding (a) through the study of fundamental, important questions about life, existence and experience. Such questions are often posed as problems (b) to be studied or resolved.

References (a): https://www.phil.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/philosophy Oxford dictionary definition

http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf Wilfrid Sellars on philosophy, see first sentence.


References (b) http://www.consc.net/papers/facing.html Chalmers on the Problem of consciousness. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#JusInd Stanford encyclopaedia on the problem of induction. TonyClarke (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Not quite poetry :). But I suppose it is written in a modular way for drafting discussion? Some of the components seems more controversial than others to me.
Philosophy seeks understanding (a) through the study of fundamental, important questions about life, existence and experience. Such questions are often posed as problems (b) to be studied or resolved.
  • Not sure that "important" is uncontroversial and also whether, to the extent it is used, that it means anything other than fundamental (or general and fundamental) as we currently have.
  • Not sure that the first definition needs to explain what is "often" the case. I think we should start with what is "always" the case?
  • The current leads is a nice simple "is the study of" sentence. Isn't a seeking of understanding something pretty similar to that? Indeed isn't "the study of" a more common way to define an intellectual pursuit?
  • Isn't a seeking of understanding basically the same as the questioning in these sentences? So aren't they saying something like a seeking to understand the seeking to understand or a questioning of the questions?
  • Playing Devil's advocate I suppose that if we remove the bits I just mentioned the two sentences can be united. It really only comes down still to whether to say questions or problems (or some fudge combining the two? Just on a logical basis though, in the senses of the two words intended is there not always a question (seeking of understanding) and an object of that search, which we call a problem?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thanks for the comments. I agree that 'fundamental' covers 'important' also, so will amend.

Your comment that 'I think we should start with what is "always" the case?' If that means that philosophical questions are always posed as problems, then I disagree. It is a problem that we do not have full answer for some of these questions, but that does not make the questions into problems. I am trying to follow the guidance from Wikipedia on compromising to reach consensus, so have to include both 'questions' and 'problems'. In fact there are some areas which are most often referred to as problems, e.g. consciousness and induction as in my citations. But not always the case, as the cited sources in (a)(and many more) do not refer to problems.

I agree that 'study of' conveys understanding, so will be amended. Also that seeking to understand is equivalent, or very similar to questioning.

Your last point that '(seeking of understanding) and an object of that search, which we call a problem?' doesn't ring true to me. The object of that search, its aim, is to reach understanding and knowledge about x, and the fact that the lack of understanding is a problem is incidental to, and doesn't define x as a problem. For example, in trying to understand moral reasons for action, moral reasons are not a problem, it is our lack of understanding or knowledge which can be so described. The citations I give in (a) do not mention 'problems', nor do most of searches made in this discussion above. I also noticed an archived discussion from 2007 giving ten researched definitions, only one of which mentions problems. In recognition of its occasional mention in definitions, I gave two citations in (b) of two areas of study which are usually referred to as problems. I also wanted to recognise the strength of feeling in our discussions that 'problems' should not be removed.

Thank you again, I'll try to be more poetic!! TonyClarke (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for working on this Tony.
  • No I was just thinking that an opening definition should be a sentence which really gets to the pith of what all things called X have in common. OK, that does sound like Aristotle too but I just meant the standard way of writing a Wikipedia article.
  • According to the logic I proposed, problems are the object of the questions, and philosophy is a pursuit, search, study. So if that were correct no compromise would be necessary. Questions and problems are two sides of one coin? If it is not correct then I find it confusing to say that philosophy is the question about questions, so to speak.
  • Aren't problems more or less the same as questions without obvious answers, at least in context like philosophy or maths?
  • I think sometimes in philosophy and probably maths, investigating a problem is not necessarily useless just because the nominal question was not answerable. Often for example, people are proud of having proven that they say something about what any answer would have to be like.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Tony, you wrote "It is a problem that we do not have full answer for some of these questions, but that does not make the questions into problems." That indicates to me that you are still seeing the word "problem" as meaning "something in need of fixing", rather than "something in need of answering", which is the sense meant here, and in all of those other examples of the word "problem" used throughout academia (and across Wikipedia) that I gave before. "Problem" means more or less the same thing as "question" in that sense. It really seems like lack of understanding that is the main motivator for this whole conversation. Nobody is saying that philosophy is about fixing things ("problems") about existence, knowledge, etc..., but that it's about answering' things ("problems") about existence, knowledge, etc. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for the above comments, not sure who made the last? The general point about the equivalence of 'questions' and 'problems' doesn't seem right, otherwise there would be an equal distribution of the terms in the definitions used for philosophy. But 'problems' are very infrequently mentioned, whereas 'understanding' and 'fundamental questions' are more common by far. Yes, there is a case for your opinion that they are equivalents being correct. But that is not reflected in the majority of the reliable sources, which is what we need to observe, not our opinions on the matter. I welcome these open discussions, and hope we can reach consensus.
TonyClarke (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I've said from the beginning that I have no objection to changing "problems" to a synonym like "questions" if that puts the matter to rest, though I don't think there is really any reason for objecting to the term "problems" either. A simple change like that seems far superior to any of the more elaborate rewrites being proposed. "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental stuff concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language" seems like a great gist of it to me, and whatever more encyclopedic-tone word we use in place of "stuff" doesn't seem that important. "Problems" is fine, "questions" would be fine too, and I'm open to other suggestions so long as they aren't obscurantist nonsense like "fundamental-interactions". --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
If "problems" is "stuff", then "concerning" is also "stuff". Even if concerning isn't "stuff", "matters" is surely "stuff". So the sentence is essentially "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental stuff stuff stuff such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language". That's how I read it. Funny, no? Liberty5651 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say "concerning" means more like "about" here, but yeah it is basically saying "...general and fundamental stuff about things such as existence, knowledge...". When we do stick "problems" or "questions" in for the first "stuff", that redundancy becomes semantically necessary, because existence, knowledge, etc, aren't themselves problems or questions per se, they're what the problems or questions philosophy studies are about. But I would be fine with trimming that part off completely and leaving just "...general and fundamental matters such as...". I don't think that's necessary, but I don't think anything would be lost if that makes everybody else happy. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
More then any other semantics here I dislike "matters" being used in the sentence. I think about matter as a physical object. Here it refers to nonphysical concepts. If you look in the dictionaries it will have both definitions: physical objects and non physical concepts. In my (unreferenced and data less) opinion using the word "matter" for nonphysical objects had derived from confusing conversations about physical things. I think we humans try and try to point to matter as a real physical thing but are easily misunderstood in that reference, and thus many people have taken it to be a nonphysical concept. Like when we're talking about physical objects we're often talking about (around) them and trying to describe them with nonphysical language. It's easily confused. That's philosophy for you. At it's most basic though, "matter" seems to me a physical thing and all the other definitions are a confusion from that. Liberty5651 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Just found Metaphilosophy in Wikipedia; please read first lead paragraph; you (editors) could change the first two "philosophy" descriptions in this Philosophy article and the Metaphilosophy article, and make them the same-please, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a developing consensus here on something like my earlier proposal for change. No-one has fundamentally objected, although some comments suggested edited changes are needed. So I suggest, for comment the following change to the opening for the article (obviously citations need to be properly formatted before finalisation):

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] is the study of general and fundamental questions [2][3][4] about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems[5] [6]to be studied or resolved.The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include…

I hope people see this as an improvement. The thinking is that 'questions' vastly out number 'problems' in published sources on definition, although 'problems', eg. the ones I cite have some prominence as being part of philosophy. TonyClarke (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ron Hubbard said, "“So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others to help themselves and one should keep going despite heavy weather, for there is always a calm ahead.”" ... That is a philosophy. It is a cross between method and insight. It may provide answers to questions, but is not specifically intended to be an answer to a question.
A race car driver naturally becomes a mechanic, but a mechanic is not necessarily a race car driver, so it is questionable to describe a race car driver primarily as a mechanic, even though mechanics are often the main activity of a race car driver. The difference is in knowledge and understanding. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 15:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I have used my attempt at philosophising above to explain why philosophy is the study of answers primarily and before questions. The only way to have answers before questions are posed, is to have knowledge and understanding. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 19:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
RTG there is a big difference between "a philosophy", a term which can refer to a persons principles or supposedly wise sayings, and "philosophy", which is the subject of this article. Arguably you can not ever be practicing philosophy if you are a person who spouts philosophies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I said, philosophy is the study of answers. Answers may exist in response to questions, or before the questions they answer have been posed. Philosophy relies more on answers than on questions, giving us a route of investigation. I did not say a memes worth of philosophising represents a composite academic field, and I will hold it, with a little lol in saying so, that philosophising is philosophy. As for quoting Hubbard in the lead section? Well, maybe later just. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 14:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
But to be clear I think I and most people do not agree philosophy is about answers in this definitive way. Indeed the word was supposedly invented to distinguish people who loved wisdom people called sophists who clai,ed to have it for sale. See the Wittgenstein quote above just for example in order to show that this remains a common theme in recent generations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Wittgenstein above, "Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions." Translation, "Philosophy is not about finding questions, but it is about answers." -- Philosophy is about knowledge, and understanding it, which, in the absence of self harm or folly, can only produce wisdom. Questions, answers, all perhiphery, but answers are more important to what philosophy is. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Philosophy in any form is a study of nature(). The nature of philosophy is mainly, to study the various nature of other things, and conclude on the knowledge gained, to produce increasing shared wisdom. Apart from simple copy editing or expansion of the same expression, please explain to me where that description lacks. And if it does not, it seems obvious to me that it is not simply my own personal worldview opinion. It seems to me if any sentiment can be supported across almost all of the sources, it is the study of and conclusions regarding various nature. Problems, answers, questions, understanding, all have their nature, and philosophy studies and concludes on that nature, I believe. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 19:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
TonyClarke, I have no objection to that phrasing. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. There have been no objections to the proposed changes to the first sentence, which I posted above. So in accordance with policy, I assume there is consensus and will now edit the article on that basis. TonyClarke (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Noting the change, a few comments:
  • I think we have not discussed this choice of the verbs "study" and "resolve" but to me this feel wrong. I get a feeling there is a bit of a desperation to make philosophy just another academic discipline. I think not everyone agrees with that. It could even be argued that it is what is left over apart from all the nice clear subjects that can be studied and resolved. For example, philosophy is possibly the only field where some/many academics studying and teaching it would find it pretentious to refer to themselves as a philosopher, just because they can teach it. Different from other fields right?
  • I think the idea of breaking into two sentences is an effort to compromise, by including the word problem there? But I am not sure that those of us who have been cautious of the proposals are really going to see this extra sentence as adding much if we are going with that first sentence anyway. Not sure if others agree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Describing philosophy as the study of questions or problems is not unlike describing astronomy as the study of mathematics. Without math, astronomers and navigators would be blind. So is it fair to say that astronomy and navigation are the study of mathematics? Astronomy is a field that studies and applies the mathematics of size, shape, distance and motion? Philosophy studies the nature of various forms of study, existence, methodology and thought. "Philosophy is the study of questions" doesn't ring a single one of those bells. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 14:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that has been covered in discussions already? This is why "general and fundamental" or some such words are used. On other hand I think it is worth saying once again that philosophy is not necessarily like academic disciplines. If you read philosophers from any period you will see that they see no boundaries on relevant subject matter. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Where in the discussions does it say philosophy can be described succinctly but we aren't going to do that? ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 23:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
We can describe what philosophy is, without giving up and listing what it does. Or why not? ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 03:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Gorgias (dialogue) (a philosophical Plato fiction about Socrates) on Wikipedia quotes, an orator "guesses at what's pleasant with no consideration for what's best. And I say that it isn't a craft, but a knack, because it has no account of the nature of whatever things it applies by which it applies them, so that it's unable to state the cause of each thing". ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 08:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster:, I am not proposing an added boundary. I am proposing that anything short of "nature" as the leading category of thing, rather is going to be like a boundary. The place people are proposing to put the words questions and problems is the place of words like wonder and imperfection, i.e., what do we find before we invent philosophy. Refinement and understanding, i.e., what do we seek before we find philosophy. And questions and problems, i.e., what are the tests we apply before we conclude the nature we have observed. Journalism is an endless search through information and words, pictures, emails, phone calls, interviews, in-person disussion, conference calls etc. It is tough. Wikipedia says, "Journalism refers to the production and distribution of reports on recent events." It is easy to call a journalist a reporter. It is important to call a philosopher a student of concept and nature, is it not. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 12:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You still seem really hung up on "problem" meaning "bad thing", in that you suggest "imperfection" in place of "problem". A problem-like-the-kind-scholars-study isn't "imperfect", it's just a puzzle, a curiosity, a thing-in-need-of-figuring-out. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There are only so many verbs that can be had as a major aspect of philosophy. If they were evaluated here, there'd be a list.
Humans have not so much as set foot on the moon in almost fifty years, but to claim that space travel, is the activity of achieving various orbit, though it can be construed as such, and always involves that action, is misleading.
Problems may mean bad things or not. Does it really seem I have been trying to discuss the word problems itself in particular all along?
My "hang up" is the word nature and the obscurity of language and information. I assure you, I am sat cross legged in front of a 14 inch screen. Any apparent emotion is nothing more than passion. Let's discuss the implication of other words than problems and questions. Let us make a list of all descriptive words comprising the core of philosophy and related studies. There can't be much more than twenty notable enough to consider. Then let us discuss, with that list in view, what makes a good lead section, along with the value of each word and the whole. There isn't that much to discuss. What are the various ambiguities in a word. What is the point of the topic. Which words are required in some way. I am sure that problems and questions will turn out to be a primary basis of philosophy throughout, but not entire. Problems and questions are central to the basis of many studies. The philosopher studies consequence and learns answers, quite clearly, do they not? ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 19:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
RTG, "Let us make a list of all descriptive words comprising the core of philosophy and related studies. There can't be much more than twenty notable enough to consider. Then let us discuss, with that list in view, what makes a good lead section, along with the value of each word and the whole." is a good idea. It's like-scientific. Maybe it would be appropriate, though, to recognize that if there's 40 or more words people respond with, it'd be unwieldly and the effort get scrapped. Liberty5651 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I doubt there are as many as twenty core descriptive words and/or phrases which cannot be superceded. It may be that we sit down and study the words then simply can't agree to follow the findings. ~^\\\.rTG'{~ 12:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

--More about understanding; Metaphysics of presence is a short read; to get back to "change first sentence request"; go for the consensus; thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Metaphysics of presence has relevance to everything in existence, but I'm not sure how it has any more relevance or specific relevance to this article's definition. I imagine I'm missing something. What are you thinking? (Cool topic; hadn't thought about time like that lately.) Liberty5651 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Your not missing anything, that's the point of this request; to update philosophy--as always towards fundamental understandings in nature; thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

We've changed problem to question and I don't see any other concrete suggestions here. Considerable effort went into the lede some time ago with a lot of editors involved. Suddenly deciding to list key words and start from scratch is not really what wikipedia is about. If there is something wrong with the existing, or concrete proposals for something that will add value fine ut otherwise this thread is already far too long -----Snowded TALK 14:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Problems always develop philosophies. Philosophy is always about answering questions. That is methodology. Name for me a thing which philosophy is not about. Finding philosophy to be about all things, apply a word to "all things". Nature? ~ R.T.G 23:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Philosophy is the study of reason and understanding. And the nature of reason and understanding. Such study answers questions and solves problems. The article says, "Philosophy () is the study of general and fundamental questions". It's not the same thing. ~ R.T.G 12:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It's about "reason", yep, I'd agree. Liberty5651 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is an instance, Problem of why there is anything at all. The basic element of this "problem" is not to ask a question or solve a problem, but to explain the fundamental nature of existence. On that particular article, the "overview" section gives us no overview at all. I invite you to read it and see for your self what it does give us, and maybe then understand why people want to tinker around with the details on this one. I mean it is sourced like it has been edit warred onto the page. What is more important? ~ R.T.G 17:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Organizational philosophy

In the categories of philosophy in this article, there is no mention of organizational philosophy. On WP, this redirects to Organizational behavior, which is unfortunate. I am familiar with C. West Churchman's inquiring systems as one form of organizational philosophy. I wish there was a mention of organizational philosophy in this article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

History of Philosophy article

It looks like the History of Philosophy article was turned into a redirect to here back in 2016 and there's been some back-and-forth controversy since. At the time, editors were discussing how to condense the content to make it a reasonable length, but I don't see that a clear consensus ever emerged to remove the article (granted, maybe I'm missing one of the discussions). I'm coming here from a discussion at [Vital Articles], where some editors think that the page may be restored at some point (and be deemed vital on top of that). Personally, it seems like something that ought to happen, given that there's too much history of philosophy to discuss just here. Could someone catch me up as to what the rationale was for redirecting the history page, or if there wasn't ever strong rationale, could we have a discussion about restoring it? - Sdkb (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I would support restoring a History of Philosophy article. I can't see any valid rationale for combining the two articles—the history of philosophy and philosophy in the abstract are far too expansive to be combined into one article. The history of philosophy is also an academic discipline as well as a subject area. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I will do an Aristotle here and split into theory and practice. The theoretical possibility of a history article is not controversial. The practice has been unconvincing. How will that split really work? Normally when you explain philosophy to someone, you have to go through all the basic historical arguments. When you explain the history... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I support restoration of History of Philosophy. Polyison (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Update: History of Philosophy has been successfully listed as a level 4 vital article. It's highly unusual for Wikiproject Vital Articles to list a redirect, so you can interpret this as a strong endorsement from the project for the restoration of the article as a stand-alone page. Sdkb (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Role of women

What is the point of this section? If there were notable women in philosophy they should be mentioned in respective sections. Polyison (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That section talks about matters that are significant to those pursuing a career in philosophy, but less so to those wishing to understand philosophy as a discipline. For that reason, I'd support moving it to Philosopher, and even there there'd be concerns about WP:DUE. I could see the potential for a brief mention here, but it would need to speak to how the discipline itself has been shaped by women or affected by their absence (e.g. perhaps sexist philosophies gaining traction they otherwise wouldn't have), which the current text does not do. Apart from that, I think only a brief mention is warranted, saying something along the lines of "throughout history, philosophizing has been predominantly an activity of the privileged, and the mainstream discipline has often reflected the perspective of privileged groups". - Sdkb (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to bat this title around a bit and I could not find anything striking, but one of my favourites this evening was, "Rejection and acceptance of female philosophers", (which I supposed as both balanced and descriptive). The obvious alternative is contained in the "main article" hatnote already, "Women in philosophy"... non-descriptive, but perhaps concise nonetheless...
In any case, most of the article and the subject of philosophy involves the history of its development, and while I have not entered any study of female philosophers to form this response, I find it safe to claim that even the lack in particular of female philosophers historically, and their subsequent apparency, for the various reasons, is relevant to the subject. If someone were to come along and prove that there was never any significant publication or relevant information regarding the larger half of our species toward what is ultimately the subject of thinking, I'd be stunned...
The point is... the history of the development of philosophy.
Like "philosophy", the word "history" is a catch-all. Everything is a part of history if it is not wholly forgotten. ~ R.T.G 23:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Or at least, everything that is recorded, which is likely to include anything notable enough for inclusion on WP. ~ R.T.G 00:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors please review

When and why Wikipedia Natural philosophy redirects to Science-Main article...

Review with natural philosophy, a Main article. See my edit, thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It fails to establish a difference between philosophy and natural philosophy. The origin section says "natural philosophy" originated as the parent of physics, which is instead the origin of physics. In fact, it is easy to point out that natural philosophy is the study of things whose nature is their own, i.e., not influenced by the human kind. This is why it is so removed from chemistry, which is the epitome of human influence. You could note that these branchings indicate the underlying attitude in humans, to deify and therefore centralise ourselves in the abstract, leading to the comparison of all things to what it means to be human, rather than simply what it means to be. Philosophy in general is the study of what it means to be in general, humans or not. Is the branching an indication of a reinvigoration of the attitude? It would be difficult to find a source and yet a primary student could understand it. The only reason there are (probably) no sources is that the attitude remains prevailent. Philosophies which dispose of an inferior past help us to avoid certain lines of scrutiny, for instance, in this instance, by claiming to exemplify the height of scrutiny. It's basic human nature... is it not? Sorry if this is not helpful, but it should be... ~ R.T.G 13:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing "problems"

Removing "problems" from first paragraph resolves itself as implied attitudes instead of problems .Arnlodg (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I see you removed the word. I don't really understand your explanation. As we are writing an encyclopedia, not an article for experts, we tend to make an effort to make sure we have addressed the key words people will find in that field. Therefore it is not always best to reduce the words we use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there was a lengthy and sometimes heated discussion about the use of the word 'problems' in the lead, involving several editors with one side preferring the term 'questions'. A compromise agreed by all was reached , which used both terms. Arnlodg has now deleted one of those terms, which there has been considerable and widespread agreement about using, in conjunction with the other term 'questions'. This edit is in danger of re-igniting that debate, and it overrides a lot of work by the editors in reaching an agreed phraseology. If Arnlodg had disagreed with the use of both terms, I think it was incumbent upon him to say so at the time, rather than now after considerable time has elapsed. In the citation he deleted, Chalmers actually states it as a problem, defined by his concise use of a question about the basis of consciousness. TonyClarke (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Arnlodg is meant to be consulting with me as mentor before be makes changes - he was on the verge of a renewal of a indef before I agreed to that. I've reversed the change but I may just give up and contact the blocking admin -----Snowded TALK 09:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Because philosophy involves the study of problems, but that is not what philosophy is. Have you ever directed traffic? I have. Directing traffic is the same as holding your arms up in the air. Right? No. And it must be wrong to an extent to make it appear so. Yes there are many sources which describe philosophy that way, but not so much an insistence that problems and questions is what philosophy is, any more than the other things that it is, which is an important consideration. We should be seeking to encompass the issue entirely if indeed we can. ~ R.T.G 13:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we have defined philosophy as problems, nor said that that is what philosophy is. Instead, the wording is that the fundamental questions philosophy concerns itself with are often posed as problems. The included citation of Chalmers in the lead illustrates this. His issue has become conventionally known as the 'Hard Problem', but he has posed it in his paper as a question, of how and why consciousness arises. No-one thereby thinks philosophy has thereby been labelled as problematic, or consisting of problems. Instead, philosophers seek to answer questions which are often stated as problems. Hope this helps.TonyClarke (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
On second reading maybe I haven't completely addressed your point. An encompassing definition would be ostensive, pointing to the range of fundamental questions and problems addressed by actual philosophers, and described in general philosophical introductions. TonyClarke (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


The Simple wiki says this, "Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them." Philosophy is the development of thought and understanding. Questions are integral. Problems are not integral, but give philosophy purpose. Albert Einstein once claimed, "The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple." ~ R.T.G 10:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Without reading the whole thing, I don't see Chalmers making claims about what philosophy is in that paper, User:TonyClarke. I search the page for the word "philosophy", or even for the partial term "philosoph"... it's not there. I mean there are hits and it's all very philosophical, this paper, but it does not seem to describe philosophy itself at all.. ~ R.T.G 10:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The basic fact is that a lot of philosophy is defined as a series of problems and named as such - it is because they are problems that they are interesting. -----Snowded TALK 15:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Tony reckons it is not about going beyond saying that questions are involved, but going deeper, seeing that all questions to which philosophy can be applied are represented, and very little else. No User:Snowded, philosophy is not defined by problems. Problems are defined by philosophy, as it is aimed toward their solutions. ~ R.T.G 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The current article does not say that Philosophy is defined by problems and if you bother to read what I said I didn't either. it says "Such questions are often posed as problems" which is factually true and was a compromise last time round. I see no reason to revisit this -----Snowded TALK 16:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of the more significant stable versions have occured here, here, here, here, here, here, here and the birthplace of the current iteration. Some possibly relevant examples (this bit may be messy for now) such as this, here, here, here, here, here. And before that various states, some worth reading some not, but no real steady version since the article was transferred with some odd readouts in the previous revisions here. I'm not going to sit up all night with this, but from the first set we have easier reference from which to examine what has come before and how it has come to remain. Goodnight. ~ R.T.G 21:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Happy to look at any proposal for change which doesn't involve removing the word problems, but I would prefer not to - this has been done to death -----Snowded TALK 07:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Previously, the speech/voting system has been used to debate this issue. Contributors have started by producing ends, voted on which end is best to start with, and finished at the end/dropping, of the voting debate. Perhaps a more practical method is to go over the topic in piecemeal. Identify the recurring elements. Seek agreement on key elements one at a time to begin, specifically avoiding reference to structure. We should attract a number of contributors to prove consensus, settle the issue of elements among them, and debate order rather than value thereafter. For example, we are all going to agree that inquiry and problem study are key elements. We are all going to agree that the history of the foundation of the sciences is key. I'm going to ping User:TonyClarke, User:Arnlodg and User:Andrew Lancaster to come back, and hopefully Snowded has his eye on it. ~ R.T.G 10:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
And previously was good enough - in my view we don't need to reopen this -----Snowded TALK 10:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Snowded, in the same vein as you would not consider removing problems altogether, it is fair for others to complain if it is problems only, even if we swap the word problems for questions, we need to be fair to the subject of philosophy more than the previous debate. It is almost assuredly not going to result in a pretense that there are no problems, or anything silly like that. As far as I recall, the previous debate did sort of drop off rather than conclude... ~ R.T.G 11:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Saw the ping, and have been watching, but I am not seeing a clear reasoning or proposal yet? I think that we should mention "problems" or something similar and I think that is traditional and sourceable. There might be better ways to formulate things though. I suppose one issue (which we have tried to handle) is that the traditional term problems has a bit of a special meaning here. Philosophy especially concerns itself with the types of problems that might never be solved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It dropped off in my view because people got bored silly with it and no one wanted to spend their time in a set of abstract discussions about a MINOR issue. 'Problems' is sourced and commonly used and cannot be replaced with questions - as Andrew says some problems are irresolvable (a bit like Derrida's definition of a decision). The fact that you are making no concrete proposal but simply inviting us to some abstract discussion is one reason why I think this should just stop until you have a change you want to make. -----Snowded TALK 12:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't take more than a single word or two added to imply that "problem" has a general meaning, if necessary. Snowded, this is not about our ability to philosophise for ourselves, we obviously are capable of doing that as humans, but our ability to determine what philosophy is to an accordance with published resources. The proposal to itemise is not concrete. It is far more solid than that. I'm going through the archives this evening to list previous discussions and subpages of any note, which deal directly with the introductory topic. It's not a reliable source, but along with the previous revisions and some external resources collected in the previous rehash, it is hopefully one of the best guides to ideas and problems towards building an article in this genre. We can rebuild him. We have the technology.[3] ~ R.T.G 18:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


Notes of elements of previous consensus building
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_1#Content - Larry Sanger gives one of the first opinions on how to approach the article and its introduction.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_1#6 - The first argument to focus on the difference between students of nature and ethics, opposed by assertion that philosophers too often pursue both to be defined that way.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_1#10 - Larry Sanger again, the introduction should be broad towards all relevant topics.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_1#18 - Calls for specific philosophers to be discussed in the introduction and some tangents.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_2#New_edits - At first it was accepted that logic building questions were used to define philosophy, but the idea that questions are philosophy itself was not considered. English language bias noted and complained.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_2#Critique - The first calls that the intro be a reference to specific sources, and the first complaints at the introduction defining the topic as questioning only, with a claim that framing questions as puzzles is attributable to Wittgenstein, and as problems to Popper. The complaint is similar, that the novice reader is often to be confused by the problem-only presentation. Also, caution on bias towards the individual discipline, specifically to argue about heavy reliance on analytic philosophy. Section dropped off with little exploration of the latter argument.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_2#two_structures - A lengthy acceptance against vague but familiar poses in the lead, mostly debates the fuller article.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_2#On_generalities - Argument that the fuller article does not claim current methods to be singular definition, therefore the lead should not either. (also User:Lucidish sincere complaint that vagueness is important, while the appearance of lucidity is inadequate, to avoid clarity until there is evidence of confusion. I must wipe the grin off my face at this point, apologies, however this is picked up later...)
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_2#intro To remain vague, avoiding over categorisation of individual philosophers, given they are not always so readily defined. The first addition of philosophising, in the sense of an activity. Avoid continual reference to regional (western) categorisations.
  • Okay I break for now, more later. ~ R.T.G 23:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_3#intro - Not to define philosophy in the lead at all. Unanswered.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_3#Introduction - Is philosophy itself questioning, or does it simply include question. And a lot of semantics, should we say "philosophical attitude", should we expect the reader to understand what a stoic attitude is, digestable wording. The contention that philosophy may mean the loving of wisdom in a verb sense, therefore to include both.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_3#Requests_for_comment - The first RFC, what is the definition of philosophy... Arguments: Should the intro be long or short? That contemporary philosophy is purely a study of language, contended, with a third opinion added to try "Philosophy is understood in different ways historically and by different philosophers." (User:Knucmo2). That readers should already know the subject, contended that the experienced reader is not going to rely on Wikipedia for a definition, so to keep the novice in mind. That dialogue and dispute are essential elements (I will contend that dispute is not). Avoid specifying regional categorisations. That metaphysics around ontology is the core of modern philosophy. That Heraclides, student of Plato, claimed Pythagoras coined the term. That it has been a tradition since the classical philosophers for innovators to attempt to define philosophy (current does not specify that). That analysis of language is predominant.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_3#Addition_to_definition_of_philosophy? - That it is a reflection of thought on "special" topics. That is is science of the mind, contended.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_3#Introduction_2 - Importance to human rights through ethics. Avoiding narrow definition in "speculate" and "conjecture". Otherwise vague and interpersonal.
  • Talk:Philosophy/Archive_3#Motives_Goals_and_Methods - That philosophy is germinal.
While I applaud the citation of the Bionic Man here, I still don't see where we are going with this. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
A Google proposal compares Wikipedia with Britannica concerning Philosophy today... "Western philosophy - Contemporary philosophy | Britannicawww.britannica.com › topic › Contemporary-philosophy". I suggest the lead paragraph should include contemporary philosophy now, and no mention of subjects like problems...thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I come back to an earlier point. Come up with a specific proposal and we can look at it, but as you have pointed out this has had extensive discussions before and I see zero value in starting another extended discussion on a trivial issue. -----Snowded TALK 09:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Look, when people make lists about what philosophy is, by debating what philosophy is, or referring to debates on what philosophy is, they are telling themselves or others what they want to hear. The most basic truth about what philosophy is... Philosophy what we produce when we conclude about studying the nature of things. Some of the great philosophers have built their lifes achievements on these debates, but they are always, always, in context. The point is, they provide new context, and that is why the debate rages over validity. When we try to put that all together without context, it always, always, comes out confused. We are not creating a new niche here. We are applying concision. Philosophy is the basis of philosophising. Philosophising is stating knowledge, either through speech or debate. The development of wisdom through philosophising comes after the fact. The finer details are totally based on specialised contexts. There is only one main genre of philosophy which is true:- Practicality. Simple clear sense is the ambrosia of philosophy. ~ R.T.G 03:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The header to this page tells us that 'This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.' In light of this, most discussions here are a pointless waste of time. If any of us believe the article can be improved, come up with practical changes which we can discuss for consensus. Simply deleting 'problems' is not viable since it has been thrashed to death previously, without gaining consensus. Problems plus questions gained consensus, no-one objected to that change at that time, and to my mind is an improvement on what we had before. Improvement in the article is what we should be about, not endless debate about the subject.TonyClarke (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This is about consensus, not voting. The "consensus" previously, from 2007/2008, was basically what is trying to be rehashed here. An examination of what makes the great philosophers great. That's not what we need to focus here. This is about informing the reader, not satiating the audience. We need to focus the definition. We need to achieve that not by each writing a party piece and voting for the best one. We can detect in this case if there is consensus before we have an end point. The current iteration implies that philosophy in its entirety, is the dilemmas posed to junior students. That is so annoying. Can we agree on the basic principle? That such implication is inadequate? If we cannot, there will be no true consensus no matter how long and wide we list our preference for ideas. Have any of you actually read the "consensus" long enough after the fact to have fresh eyes? There are about 31 or 32 pages of archives up at the top of the page. The "consensus" covers something like 10 of them. Think about that. We need to cut all that bullshit out. That's what concision is about. Only because we are denied the normal graduational approach, for whatever reason, to avoid the ten super-page steps to introduction, which is fair, but, look, you've been debating what philosophy is here in the same manner for roughly fifteen years. IF you won't concede, it will mean continued languish. Identifying a singular method or category as the defining principle of philosophy is insufficient, even if it directs the reader to inquiry. We need consensus on that to even begin. Denying such consensus is going to mean, not an out, but an extension which leads to nothing worthwhile. Various forms of questioning does not constitute the wide aspect of philosophy. Accepting this will change nothing. It will simply prove participation. Can we accept? ~ R.T.G 20:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Somewhere or other there is a league table of lame debates on Wikipedia. I have no great desire for this article to be listed there. Consensus has been reached on this and the article is stable. In my time on Wikipedia there have only been a couple of major debates on the issue and I don't see anything new here. As Tony says this is not the place for a general discussion on the article's subject matter. There is no concensus to reopen the question so can we please just drop this now? -----Snowded TALK 03:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I am experiencing a series of mishaps, not least of all trying to categorise Social Darwinism as a protoscience, so I am likely to avoid everything for a while, but I am totally right about fixing this. You don't need an authority. You need an adjudicator, who loves the topic, but isn't too entwined with it, and you need them to figure out not to follow the previous discussions, but to slice all the way through it. It is the requisite for that which has left the problem/question description up so long. Your instinct is to get simplicity into it, but problem question/puzzle is insufficient. Philosophy is much more than that. Just recognise when you are asking each other, how many of a million variations on method we choose to define an underlying principle of motivation:- The answer is none. Philosophy is about understanding the nature of a topic. It's not about being defined by that topic, or the approach to studying the topic. All that is peripheral and secondary to the underlying principle. Study, understanding. The question/problem and ten page debate are about the journey. Begin the tale by setting out. Philosophy does not begin with a problem, and ideally, it does not end there either. Contention that is has ended there is not true. It ended at a million points with a million solutions. They are merely forgotten, but not lost, not even lost. They are simple passed on to the evolved disciplines. You must reflect that. It is the basis of philosophy. Not putting that first is following a negative bias. So much stress is put onto modern science to strengthen the fight against indoctrination and anti-heretical approaches in knowledge, but with all the stops pulled out, the total opposite of one thing tends to become a reflection of it. Google sent me to a story on Wikipedia over the COVID virus. I'd like you to read it, from here Ignaz_Semmelweis#Work_on_cause_of_childbed_fever_mortality until the point of his death. Philosophy is more popular than ever with the rise of the meme. We must be open to permitting people to see that, if we truly want to expand the cause of understanding. It won't last forever. ~ R.T.G 23:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
With respect, your post is not about improving the article and so does not belong here on this talk page. If you have a suggestion for improvement, lets have it otherwise please have your discussion elsewhere. You are prolonging a futile discussion.TonyClarke (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Only the first part of the first sentence is not directly imploring you to stop being impossible about allowing people access to the improvement of the first part of this article. ~ R.T.G 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You haven't got support for an open ended discussion, you have not made any proposal for a change. Its over unless you do -----Snowded TALK 05:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of understanding. Philosophy has a long history as the basis of modern scientific practices. Developed through the study of intellectual challenges, such as unsolvable problems, and validating or criticising perspective and principle, philosophy is applied by identifying and evaluating evidence toward logical and impeachable conclusions. The basis, methods, and uses of philosophy are described differently between one discipline and another in connection with wisdom and knowledge.

I'm trying to connect all of the common terms from the quotes I listed the last time off universities and such. I added "impeachable" myself and have avoided repetition, specific reference, defining examples, and meanderings. I'm not sure about piping research under identification but it seemed accurate. I have not included the current references as a few days ago they did not seem to be supportive and there would be too many for this version. But something like that, a careful inclusive reflection of broader consensus. ~ R.T.G 07:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
My first impression is that this is original work? Even if it is not, it makes a lot of demands and wordings which are unusual: narrowing the topic of research down to "understanding", claiming that philosophy is the basis of scientific practice (methodological scepticism might be the basis, but it is not philosophy per se, only derived from philosophy), treating "unsolvable problems" now as simple thing we can point at or study, etc etc. I think every sentence in this proposal raises questions for me. What problems do you feel it solves?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I made a list last year of most of the notable attempts to describe philosophy available online, listed them here on this talk page, and here we have a collage of the recurring words. They are not my words, or at least, they are not my invention. It is my frame, given that nobody else has for so long. When definitive resource cannot be found for common knowledge, we require a minimal amount of interpretation. This represents minimal interpretation based on the work of others with a view to complete representation. Please take the spirit of this effort and use it to define philosophy, rather than making this endless appeal to authority we do not, or cannot, collectively nurture. Sorry for the difficult descriptions, but it needs to be an effort toward completeness for this genre. ~ R.T.G 15:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It solves the problem of restrictive definition, or trying to rely on authoritative reference, where they are too many and too various. It is a view on all commonly accepted definitions. I've supposed the best method towards producing that, to review and find the most frequently and accepted words defining this subject, then create a paragraph from those words, rather than follow or produce, an authoritative statement, which is notoriously impossible for philosophy both on and off the site. Attempting to respect all of those words in a sentence as it were. I'm trying to achieve a philosophical method, rather than an evaluation of orations. I've thought long and hard about it, studied the arguments. This seems an appropriate method. Again, I'm not an authority on this and I'm having a Wikipedia hard time. You will scarcely find a better method ever. My apologies for being subhuman, but I am also human. It's good. Take it. Fix it. Etc., ~ R.T.G 16:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Relying on authoritative reference is partly a matter of WP's basic methodology. Concerning differences between authorities, I think our current version does a better job of finding a core connection between them, than this new proposal, which seems to me to narrow down the definition in a way which does not connect to most authorities, and also many "common sense" every day definitions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not the version, but an example, that the buzz words used by contemporary philosophers to describe the genre can be strung together in a couple of sentences that summarise the topic broadly. Is anybody aware that the word "understanding" does not appear until a third of the way down the page? The leading image is skewed, etc. Let's get through this lockdown by setting philosophy free. ~ R.T.G 03:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Concur with Andrew. If you want to have a general discussion about what Philosophy is fine, but this is not the place for it. Proposals supported by reliable sources only please not synthesis and original research -----Snowded TALK 08:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The current lead is not fully supported by the sources it uses. Sources for my suggestion are listed in Archive 31. We didn't hear that. We can't see. The third monkey just waiting in the wing. And beside that, it's not even like any of the suggestions you made in 2007/8, when suggestions were still open, Snowded. Why do you preside such an impossible protection of it? There are only two ways to do justice to Wikipedia for the introduction of this article. Either allow it to be fluid once more, or draw the description from a hundred or more sources, not just personal preferences. In no other place can that be done as it can be here. What a travesty. Yes, it's ridiculous. If I was editing in 2007/8, I'd have told you all to shut up quite directly about the interpersonal insults, and you would not have gotten away with this inadequate result. After all the effort gone into it. :/ ~ R.T.G 13:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It has been done to death RTG and recycling the same discussions every few years is not going to get us anywhere. If there are direct criticisms of sourcing in the current lead, list them. If there are direct sources for proposals you want to make for change, list them with a concrete proposal. Asking other editors to hunt down archives and/or deal with your generalisations is not on. You have zero support from any established editor to do this discussion and until you do and/or have concreted, referenced proposals for change then I can't see why we have to contiunue the discussion -----Snowded TALK 13:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Archive 31 is the most recent archive. It's the page directly before this one. I'm not going to repeatedly copy and paste 2 and a half pages of sources. I am going to complain when your band of merry concrete restricts improvement to nothing, as though there can be none ever. It is important to complain about this. The sooner an interest returns to this page the better. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. Argument is a healthy part of philosophy. It was to be expected that they would produce an endless argument. That doesn't prove impossibility. Thanks anyway Snowded but I can scarcely imagine this complaint is going to disappear. ~ R.T.G 13:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Susanne Langer image seems...unlikely

In the "Women in Philosophy" section there's an image purported to be of Susanne Langer. I don't know much about Susanne Langer, but she seems to have been in her late 80s when she died in 1985, and this image seems to be...not of that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnimartin (talk • contribs) 05:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done~ R.T.G 22:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Entry on the late Pamela Sue Anderson (PSA for short)

PSA was an Oxford academic who died last year at age 61. Wikipedia has a page on her with very limited information indeed. A warning is displayed that such entry shall be removed if nobody makes it more informative. PSA was specialized in I. Kant and a more recent French thinker and, in addition, she was active on the front of providing a feminist appreciation of the topics she researched. She was in touch with virtually all leading feminist philosophers both in Europe and North America. Due to my full time schedule and lack of experience with Wikipedia, I cannot do more than provide several URLs that can be used to improve on the current Wikipedia presentation of PSA. Those URLs that seemed relevant to me are now gathered in a section of the talk page on PSA, should anyone be interested at having a look at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdjf3 (talk • contribs)

@Hdjf3:, apologies for the delay, but if you would please provide those urls... there is no guarantee the information will be added, but if the notability can be reviewed, at least it might be added... ~ R.T.G 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation 34

I'm not sure if citation 34 really supports its point - I clicked through and it seemed to be an unrelated portion of Plato's Symposium. --Nerd1a4i (talk)

@Nerd1a4i:, Wikipedia articles are in a constant state of flux. The number of the citation will change often. You should provide the url and discuss the text related to it. ~ R.T.G 14:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggest classical meaning-introduction, only, for lead paragraph...

First paragraph: Philosophy, from Greek (φιλοσοφία, philosophia), literally "love of wisdom")[1][2][3][4] for fundamental questions from language, value, belief and reason[5][6][7] . The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Classic philosophical questions include: Is it possible to know anything and to prove it?[12][13][14] What is most real?
Second paragraph: Philosophers also pose more practical and concrete questions such as: Is there a best way to live? Is it better to be just or unjust (if one can get away with it)?[15] Do humans have free will?[16] Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.[10][11] Such questions are often posed as problems[8][9] to be studied or resolved.
Snowded please read, This way 'problems' (now at the end of the 2nd paragraph) is in context to classical philosophy and 'questioning'. If this is an improvement, please adjust ref. numbering...thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I deleted an exact replica Arnlodg look at the history. You have now simply changed the order of one sentence with an explanation which is incoherent at best. Please stop wasting everyone's time -----Snowded TALK 19:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

....Snowded/mentor, I am 77, thanks, I suggest the first paragraph of Wikipedia Philosophy Article be this..."Philosophy, from Greek (φιλοσοφία, philosophia), literally love of wisdom for fundamental questions from language, value, belief and reason. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE)." It is the most common meaning, its about love and always has been...thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

FAD your age is not relevant. I am giving up on mentoring as you have never followed the principles agree so if the time-wasting continues I am going to recommend your block is reimposed. -----Snowded TALK 08:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please do not delete (below) responses to TonyClarke, thanks,Arnlodg (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure about the suggested changed phrasing to 'love of wisdom for' ?? Also, it is a straightforward fact that references to philosophy almost inevitably include both 'questions' and 'problems'. For example, my current personal list of watchlist changes include two articles headed up as 'Problem of induction', and the 'Is-ought problem'. Both of these use 'questions' in their lead as well as 'problem'. Problems and questions are really interchangeable, justifying our inclusion of both in the lead. Many other examples spring to mind: the hard problem of consciousness is uncontroversially referred to as a problem: but on immediate reading, it is posed as a question : how does our rich personal experience arise from physical, probably neural processes? So if we are suggesting removing the word 'problem' from a general account of philosophy, there are a lot of articles and usages of 'problems' which will need revision, an uphill task against consensus and in contradiction to all of the editors who find the existent wording in those articles satisfactory. I think there is a semantic resistance involved here: 'problems' suggests a lack of progress, but this is manifestly not true in philosophy, many questions have been answered satisfactorily, or seen as invalid, for many philosophers. For these reasons I think the current suggestion for improvement by removing or downplaying 'problems' is not advisable. For anyone who might disagree, can they please give their reasons?TonyClarke (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Response to TonyClarke request, One step at a time reasoning towards philosophy; Recognizing and understanding other cultures ideas came together in the eastern Mediterranean around 2,500 yrs ago; That we began then to share ideas that leads to study...that sharing proceeds studying is philosophy, and shows us different kinds of materiality...material "for/of" the person, material of the mind, material of the body; please take it from here...Arnlodg (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but I just don't understand what you have just posted. How is this related to improving the article. I hope you can clarify for us. TonyClarke (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hope like, attitude, pursue, process and measure are examples of love of wisdom...this spells out and improves the (classical) meaning of philosophy. Then readers would turn to philosophers Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle...for relation and clarity of philosophical subjects (like problems) in Wikipedian Article Contents.Arnlodg (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you are looking for a wider account of philosophy to begin with, something like 'an eternal human quest for shared understanding and knowledge'? Or perhaps to start with the early history of philosophy? That might be contentious or confusing use of language. Also I don't think it invalidates the current version, with which you agreed at the time. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for change at the moment. I respect your views, if I've got them right:) TonyClarke (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
If I've got it right, your part of reconciliation 'for' tensions in our cosmos universe, thank you,Arnlodg (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Arnold is challenging you with reason, Tony. That you are in the *for* category towards future misunderstandings under a guise of reconciliation. Before that he is saying, let's have a step by step entry to what philosophy is in the introduction, that philosophy precedes denomination, that communication supercedes examination as a basis for philosophy, that it is focused on material output, material which guides the personality, mind, body. That philosophy studies hope, attitude, method and quantification, in a "classical" understanding of the topic. ~ R.T.G 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Or at least that is how it read to me... ~ R.T.G 07:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not seeing how any of this discussion is in line with the relatively limited aims of this particular type of publication. We are not supposed to be seeing ourselves as teachers looking for radical new ways of teaching people. Especially in the lead, I think we can only see ourselves as helping readers get standard definitions and uncontroversial background context for any topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see these limited aims you mention. It's just about the short form introduction. Nobody is talking about breaking ground in teaching or anything like that. ~ R.T.G 12:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020

I noticed an example of scrīptiō continua in this article with a run-on to Epicurus the first time he is mentioned. Orthographically, a whitespace is required here. 2602:306:CF6F:520:5DB7:2679:9EA5:EEC2 (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done And thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian philosophy = Hindu philosophy

Example: metaphysics#Classical_India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser2090 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Another example: old version of philosophy article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=857144760 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser2090 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Consider WP:OTHER --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Definition of philosophy

Should a section on the definition of philosophy be added in the article? Cinadon36 06:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It is done in the lede -----Snowded TALK 06:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't spot it at the lede, but anyway, it shouldn't be in the lede, unless it is discussed in the main body of the article. Cinadon36 07:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
it is perfectly normal for a term to be defined in the lede and it starts "Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2][3] is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence ..." which is a definition and which has been much discussed as such if you check the talk pages. -----Snowded TALK 08:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that specific definition is not grounded on solid secondary RS, hence it does not include prominent aspects of the definition, ie philosophy is an actCinadon36 10:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You really need to check the archives on this - there are multiple definitions and we went through a lot of them to come up with the current wording. You can't just cherry pick one -----Snowded TALK 10:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Immediately after the sentence that constitutes the philosophy of mathematics section should be the words; 'The philosophy of mathematics really took off in the 19th century with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry. After this point; it was no longer adequate to consider mathematics the study of quantity; but rather the derivation of formal systems from appropriately chosen axioms using logic. Hilbert's program was an attempt to ground all mathematical knowledge in the study of formal logical systems; a project that is widely regarded to have foundered on the work of Kurt Gödel with the incompleteness theorems which demonstrated that no formal mathematical system capable of containing arithmetic could be given a set of axioms that demonstrated all true theorems in the system; and further; that such a system could also not be demonstrated to be free from contradictions.'. Nicholasjscottmills (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosopher link

Philosopher has a separate article so it is helpful to point to that in the lede. It is not conveniently linked anywhere in the article. "Greek philosophers" links to Ancient Greek philosophy and "Philosophers" in the infobox for "Part of a series on Philosophy" links to Category:Philosophers. It wouldn't be necessary if it just linked back to the article on "Philosophy". UserTwoSix (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Even the page on Philosopher links back to Philosophy in its first sentence. UserTwoSix (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I don’t see why Snowded reverted you at all. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't like overlinking and that form was also poor: [[Philosopher]]s is messy. I don't think it is necessary but if both of you want it then I can live with [[Philosopher|Philosophers]] -----Snowded TALK 09:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't especially care one way or another from a content perspective, but IMO [[link]]s is much more elegant markup than [[link|links]]. (Also, hope you don't mind I added the nowiki tags to your comment, so that people not reading in the non-visual editor can see the difference you meant). --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
No objections :-)-----Snowded TALK 08:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

under "branches of philosophy", change: 

   "These five major branches can be separated into sub-branches and each sub-branch contains many specific fields of study:
   Metaphysics and epistemology
   Value theory
   Science, logic, and mathematics
   History of philosophy"

to: 

   "These three major branches can be separated into sub-branches and each sub-branch contains many specific fields of study:
   Metaphysics and epistemology
   Value theory
   Science, logic, and mathematics"

as mathematics could be said to be related to science, metaphysics and epistemology are related in a philosophical sense.

also, "history of philosophy" should be removed from this section, as "historical overview" aptly explains that, and it isn't a branch of philosophy, as it is a way to group philosophical ideas 90.248.179.69 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not actioned as you would need a source to provide that grouping. Also we are not here to take instructions :-) Create an ID and propose changes -----Snowded TALK 18:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Buddhist phil and Indian phil

When I initially created this section of the article, I had made it so that Buddhist phil had a separate sub-section here. It seems like someone decided they wanted to place this under Indian philosophy. But this is incorrect, for various reasons, and so in my recent edit, I moved it back to its own sub-section. Here are the main reasons I think it should stay like this:

  • Buddhist philosophy started in India, but then spread to numerous other regions, and today is mainly done outside of India.
  • Apart from Indians, Buddhist philosophy has been done by Tibetans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Southeast Asians and so on. Most of these people did not set foot in India, and would not have considered themselves as doing "Indian" philosophy in any sense.
  • Buddhist philosophy has been written and discussed in Classical Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese and now English and other Western languages. It is not restricted to Indian languages (indeed, today, very little Buddhist philosophy is actually written in an Indic language).

And so, it makes as much sense to say that Buddhism is an "Indian philosophy" than to say that Christian philosophy is a "Hebrew" philosophy, or a "Greek" philosophy. Just because the origins of Buddhist thought lies in India does not mean one can define all of it as being Indian, certainly not now. The modern concept or idea of "India" did not exist in the time of the Buddha, nor during most of the medieval era. It mainly formed after Buddhism had disappeared from India. So, it really makes more sense to just have a separate sub-section here and call it "Buddhist philosophy" and leave it separate.

On the other hand, it makes sense to have Jainism be under Indian philosophy, since it never really left India until very recently, and was always done by Indians.

☸Javierfv1212☸

All the other philosophies are grouped geographically, why would Buddhism be an exception? You can easily cover Classical Buddhist thought under the Indian section, and East Asian schools of thought such as Zen under that section. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a good reason for this, Buddhist phil straddles various cultures and regions including east asia, himalayas, southeast asia and south asia (not just India , but Sri Lanka as well). This is unlike other philosophical traditions. Furthermore, "the West" referring to in western philosophy is not exactly a geographical category, and in some historical cases it refers to philosophy that was done in regions that are no longer part of the West (egypt, north africa etc). Likewise, "african philosophy" doesn't just refer to philosophy done in Africa proper, but also that done by african diaspora people. So I would say that the rest of this section is not exactly geographically organized. It only appears to be so, but these categories are more ad hoc (as they reflect how western academia has taken up these subjects). As such I think I have given good reasons that there should be a separate sub section for Buddhist philosophy. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Javierfv1212, that's fair enough, but I think there is also the question of scale. Why should Buddhism be given its own section, when no other doctrine is given this privilege? I suggest a compromise: a new Eastern philosophy section, which covers East Asian, Indian, and Buddhist philosophies. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'scale'? For most of its history, "Western philosophy" covers less land area than Buddhist philosophy (Europe vs most of Asia). Ideologically, "Buddhist philosophy" refers to numerous different traditions with different philosophical views, from idealism, to realism, to anti-foundationalism. Regarding putting all of those under 'eastern philosophy, sure I guess I could go with that, but I don't see the point. The end result is the same (Buddhist phil still should have its own sub-category), you're just putting all of this under another extra category, a very artificial category at that since "eastern philosophy" can refer to a lot of things and is also just another academic construct. But I could work with this. ☸Javierfv1212☸
I mean that Buddhism is a single tradition (even if there are different strands within it), while all the other sections compose multiple traditions of thought. If it gets its own section, then i don't see why Islamic philosophy or Platonism don't also get this, and that will lead to endless arguments about who gets a section. And all attempts to neatly divide philosophy are academic constructions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems rather irragional to list philosophies under a geographical label but anyway, the important question is whether RS categorize buddism as an indian philosophy. Cinadon36 05:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I think if we look at academic publications that examine world philosophy, you can see how they often will treat Buddhist philosophy separately from "Indian" philosophy. See for example, The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy (Garfield, Edelglass). For the record, I also think Islamic philosophy should probably get its own sub-section too, given that it is a well established and separate tradition. Since Christian philosophy was always part of "Western phil", this is not the case with this tradition. I don't know enough about Jewish philosophy to comment on how that one should be handled. ☸Javierfv1212☸
I think the following ordering of the sections could work, thoughts?
  • 1.1 Western philosophy
  • 1.1.1 Ancient era
  • 1.1.2 Medieval era
  • 1.1.3 Modern era
  • 1.2 Middle Eastern philosophy
  • 1.2.1 Islamic philosophy
  • 1.3 Eastern philosophy
  • 1.3.1 Indian philosophy
  • 1.3.2 Buddhist philosophy
  • 1.3.3 East Asian philosophy ☸Javierfv1212☸
As a general rule, if there's only a single subcategory then the subcategory should not exist; hence, the Islamic philosophy category is not needed. Or else another subcategory is needed, such as "ancient" or "pre-Islamic". Teishin (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook does not strictly speaking do that, as it has sections called "Non-Buddhist Indian Philosophy" and "Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Philosophy", clearly suggesting that Buddhist philosophy is at least in part "Indian philosophy". But I do support your suggestion, with the caveat that it should indeed have a separate subsection for "pre-" or "non-Islamic" Middle Eastern philosophy, as noted above. Cheers, Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

In the introduction, where it says "...logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to deduce conclusions from true premises," change 'deduce' to 'derive', as logic can be both deductive and inductive. A bit pedantic, I know. Mohammadmrakib (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Historical overview requesting the add of the Latin American Philosophy:

The term Latin American philosophy refers to a philosophical project that advocates a contextualization of European philosophy in the Latin American context and not, as could be inferred, to the broad set of philosophical currents practised in the different countries of Latin America. It is the project of a philosophy arising from Latin America and focused on the systematic reflection on its own problems and situations. It is therefore convenient to make a technical distinction between Philosophy in Latin America and Latin American philosophy. Latin American philosophy is a tradition of thought that refers both to the work of many Latino philosophers in the United States and to a specific set of philosophical problems and methods of questioning that relate to Latino identity as a hibernated experience, borders, immigration, gender, race and ethnicity, feminism and decoloniality. Latin American philosophy has opted for the recognition of the singularity of the subject that inhabits a world dependent on the European cultural matrix and at the same time seeks to recognize its own identity. Thus, Latin American thinking is a perspective that intersects with utopian thought and claims for itself a perspective that allows it to build a future beyond the social exclusion of which it has been victim throughout the last five hundred years of interventions, colonizations and impositions in the region. Fgabo23 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

In this series of edits the cols template was moved from the top of the see also section to the top of the external links section [4]. This has completely messed up the rendering of the article, such as the navboxes. please can someone move the cols back to it's correct location? 192.76.8.73 (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Already done looks like it was fixed here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: The "See also" section is supposed to be set in multiple columns using a {{cols}} and {{colend}} template, see this version: [5]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that did it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the see also section is long enough to need columns. I did remove the templates that had ended up in the external links section, though. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie: If you think they're unnecessary then I wouldn't object to removal. When I made the edit request the end of the article was a complete mess with all the navboxes and stuff being squeezed into multiple columns. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Content removed from the section "Definitions"

Hello Snowded, I saw that you removed various contents from the section "Definitions". First a rough summary of your changes and the justifications you provided:

(1) the following paragraph was removed with the justification of WP:OR:

Some approaches are deflationist: they see "philosophy" as an empty blanket term that groups various disciplines together for the sake of convenience even though they do not share important characteristics.[7][8][9] Deflationism is opposed by essentialists, who argue that there is a set of essential features shared by all parts of philosophy.[8][10] Various theorists have argued for a position between these two extremes: that the different parts of philosophy are related to each other by family resemblance even though they do not all manifest the same essential features.[8][11][12] Another important distinction among definitions of philosophy concerns the focus on its method or its topic.[8][13] Method-based definitions usually emphasize the importance of pure reasoning for philosophy to contrast it from the natural sciences and their focus on empirical evidence and experiments.[14][8] Topic-based definitions highlight how wide-ranging and open the philosophical domain of inquiry is.[8] Some characterize philosophy holistically as the study of the biggest patterns of the world as a whole or as the attempt to answer the big questions.[15][13] Both approaches have the problem that they are usually either too wide, by including non-philosophical disciplines, or too narrow, by excluding some philosophical sub-disciplines. Definitions combining these two approaches are often more successful but still not fully satisfactory.[8]

(2) the passage "There is a lot of disagreement about how philosophy (from the ancient Greek φίλος, phílos: "love"; and σοφία, sophía: "wisdom")[16] is to be defined.[17]" was replaced with the passage "Honderich argues that all definitions of philosophy that aim to be interesting or profound are controversial [18]" without any clear justification

(3) the following paragraph was removed with the justification that it is partial and incomplete because it ignores the "naturalising tradition"

Many definitions of philosophy emphasize its intimate relation to science.[8][17] In this sense, philosophy is sometimes seen as a proper science in its own right. This can take the form of the science of the essences of things. On this view, philosophy is concerned with what the essences are like and how they are related to each other while putting aside the empirical question of whether they have any instances in the actual world.[19][20][21] Another approach sees philosophy as an empirical yet very abstract science that is concerned with very wide-ranging empirical patterns instead of particular observations.[8][22] Science-based definitions usually face the problem of explaining why philosophy in its long history has not made the type of progress as seen in other sciences.[8][23][24] While some try to answer this objection by holding that philosophy has just recently achieved the status of a proper science, the more common approach is to weaken its relation to science by seeing it as an immature science.[8][20] On this view, various fields of inquiry belong to philosophy until there is a general academic consensus on their fundamental theories and methods. Once this is achieved, they become fully developed, distinct sciences and do not carry the title "philosohy" any longer.[17][7] One such view defines philosophy as a provisional science of appearances that may later be replaced by a mature science studying the underlying reality responsible for these appearances. In this sense, philosophy is the midwife of the sciences.[17]"

(4) the passage "All these meaning- and understanding-based approaches have in common that they are concerned with how we think or speak about the world and less with the particular empirical facts found in the world, unlike the empirical sciences.[8]" was removed without any clear justification.

My replies to these changes:

As for (1): the justification falls flat since this is not OR. This section is well-sourced. For example, from "Overgaard, Søren; Gilbert, Paul; Burwood, Stephen (2013). What is philosophy?": "We distinguish between two opposing extremes – ‘essentialist’ and ‘deflationary’ replies – and suggest that both are problematic. We then inquire whether the truth might lie somewhere in the middle, and we tentatively suggest the possibility that an account in terms of family resemblances might single out a set of central issues and characteristic ways of dealing with them"

As for (2): could you please provide a justification? Most of the sources cited in this section express explicitly that there is a lot of disagreement, not just Honderich.

As for (3): could you please explain what you mean with the naturalizing tradition and provide a source that its definition of philosophy is significant and not already covered by the distinction between philosophy as mature or immature science. Again, this section is well-sourced. If it's partial then it would be better to add the missing content or to apply a corresponding tag than to remove it altogether.

As for (4): please provide a justification for the removal. This passage provides a useful summary of its paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Well for (1) you make my point for me. You have chosen to give prominence to a distinction made by a single source. For (2) I simplified it to match Honderich's opening to the section on Philosophy in the Oxford Companion. I note he sees this as sufficient to cover definitions in that article. It is also a Third Party Source. For (3) the Naturalising tradition bases Philosophy in natural science (more or less as a constraint) and if interested read Kornblith, although the term itself goes back to Quine. In respect of 4 (and more generally the other three) you are heavily biasing towards a single source namely Overgaard. The place for multiple views and definitions - where all can be laid out - is in the linked article not here. Oh the title of this section might better expressed as "Rejection of recent additions" :-) -----Snowded TALK 07:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
As for (1): I think you misunderstand WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." There exist reliable, published sources, as you yourself acknowledge, so this is obviously not OR. As for your charge that this passage has insufficient sources: the sentences talking about the relation between deflationism and essentialism are backed up by 6 sources. There are more, but that would lead to WP:OVERCITE. For essentialism, see for example Blackburn's foreword from here: "There are essentialist theories, hoping to lay down a definition, an eternal fence, so that what lies within is philosophy, and what lies without is not". For an example for deflationism, see Quine here: "'Philosophy' is one of a number of blanket terms used by deans and librarians in their necessary task of grouping the myriad topics and problems of science and scholarship under a managable number of headings."
As for (2): You haven't responded to my argument: why use a very specific claim that needs to be attributed to Honderich when we can use a more general claim that is widely accepted and needs not to be attributed?
As for (3): Have a look at the following sentence from the removed content: "Another approach sees philosophy as an empirical yet very abstract science that is concerned with very wide-ranging empirical patterns instead of particular observations." This is how Quine sees philosophy. Maybe it would be helpful to make it more explicit that this belongs to the naturalist tradition in philosophy by replacing it with "Some naturalists, on the other hand, see philosophy as an empirical yet very abstract science that is concerned with very wide-ranging empirical patterns instead of particular observations." Could you provide more specific details on the source by Kornblith you mentioned: which book, where in this book does he talk about the definition of philosophy, how does he define it, etc?
As for (4): similar points are made by "Rescher, Nicholas (2 May 2013). 1. The Nature of Philosophy.", "Joll, Nicholas. "Metaphilosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.", the logical positivists and Wittgenstein. Do you think it necessary that I quote them here? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I would have been better referencing synthesis or partial selection, but OR also references to constructing a theory or summary from original or limited sourcing. Whatever that is the point, it was partial. I don't doubt that the perspectives you represent can be cited, I am disputed if they represent the wider body of views. I think you used Honderich to support something which didn't represent what he said (and in particular what he goes onto say). The point we need for this section is that any definition is controversial and the Oxford Handbook is pretty close to an ideal third party source so its enough. What you haven't got is a balanced source which covers the field - all the material you have here would be valuable, linked to its sources, in the supporting article. This section is about the right size now - and I compromised on removing all content-----Snowded TALK 11:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As for (1): From Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not: "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources." Please specify which thesis is not found in the reliable sources.

You say that you are disputed as to whether the contents removed represent the wider body of views. If you have any sources to cite that put in question the material in the section, then please go ahead. So far, you have only expressed your personal opinions. Be precise: just dropping the name "Kornblith" or something similar does not constitute citing a source. I have been very forthcoming in linking my claims to multiple reliable sources, you haven't cited one to support your content removals despite repeated requests.

Your standards for rejecting the contributions of other editors don't match Wikipedia policies: it's not necessary to provide one single source that covers all the material in a section. In many cases, such a source does not exist, not just for definitions of philosophy. And if a comprehensive source is introduced, you object that the contents are "heavily biasing towards a single source", which seems to directly contradict your earlier demand.

As for (2): My point is relatively simple: starting a section with "this philosopher says that" is a very weak claim. Ideally, a section should start with giving a general overview of the topic and the academic discourse, not just talk about the opinions of one individual philosopher on this topic. I'm not against using the passage you added based on the Oxford Companion somewhere later in the text, but not as an introductory sentence.

As for (3) & (4): You haven't responded to my arguments that naturalism is already covered and that there are other sources for meaning-based definitions. I'll restore these passages unless you have anything more to say.

Apart from that: You said, "I think you used Honderich to support something which didn't represent what he said". Please be precise: which claim are you talking about? Such vague objections do not help in advancing the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You asked for examples of naturalising approaches in philosophy so I gave you one in Kornblith. I was not advocating inclusion, I was pointing out that the way you chose to frame the insertions you want to make was limited in respect of the role of science, partial, based on limited sources. I also referenced the origins in Pragmatic Philosophy to help out. Your suggestion that it is covered I find odd to say the least, but it was just one example. Otherwise you also seem to be labouring under a common error of some editors of thinking that just because you can reference something it should be included. My own view is that the whole question of definitions should be reduced to a statement in the lede that such definitions are controversial. That approach is justified by the treatment in the Oxford Handbook which restricts itself to that comment, then goes onto describe the major types of Philosophy. You wanted to expand on that and I wanted to be reasonable so I left everything that wasn't partial and suggested the other material be put in the supporting article. I'm happy to remove specific reference to Honderich, just have the statement that it is controversial (I took the wording largely from the handbook) and that is enough. If you restore the pages without agreement I'll simply revert it back to the previous stable version, you do not determine what is or isn't consensus - beware of edit warring. -----Snowded TALK 15:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The article should mention the following things from the removed contents
(1a) some definitions posit that all parts of philosophy share an essence, others think philosophy is an empty term, many definitions are in-between
(1b) some definitions focus on topic alone, other on method alone, others are in-between
Based on your last comment, I think for (2), we can work something out.
(3) the distinction between definitions seeing philosophy as proper science, an immature science, or not a science at all
(4) a clarification of definitions based meaning and understanding
additionally: there should be some examples of the different types
We don't need to use my exact words for that, and maybe we can cutdown some of the content if length is an issue. I think the easiest approach to achieve these results would be to start with the removed content, summarize it and leave out some details, then re-add it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Meditations. iv. 36. – Marcus Aurelius
  2. ^ https://www.phil.cam.ac.uk
  3. ^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/philosophy
  4. ^ http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.consc.net/papers/facing.html Chalmers on the Problem of consciousness
  6. ^ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/#JusInd
  7. ^ a b Mittelstraß, Jürgen (2005). "Philosophie". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Overgaard, Søren; Gilbert, Paul; Burwood, Stephen (2013). "What is philosophy?". An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–44. ISBN 978-0-521-19341-2.
  9. ^ Quine, Willard Van Orman (2008). "41. A Letter to Mr. Ostermann". Quine in Dialogue. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03083-1.
  10. ^ Blackburn, Simon (2001). "Foreword". What is Philosophy?. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-14793-3.
  11. ^ Biletzki, Anat; Matar, Anat (2021). "Ludwig Wittgenstein: 3.4 Language-games and Family Resemblance". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
  12. ^ Sluga, Hans (2006). "Family Resemblance". Grazer Philosophische Studien. 71 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1163/18756735-071001003.
  13. ^ a b Rescher, Nicholas (2 May 2013). "1. The Nature of Philosophy". On the Nature of Philosophy and Other Philosophical Essays. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-032020-6.
  14. ^ Nuttall, Jon (3 July 2013). "1. The Nature of Philosophy". An Introduction to Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-7456-6807-9.
  15. ^ Sellars, Wilfrid S. (1962). "Philosophy and the scientific image of man". Science, Perception, and Reality.
  16. ^ https://www.etymonline.com/word/Philosophy
  17. ^ a b c d Sandkühler, Hans Jörg (2010). "Philosophiebegriffe". Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Meiner.
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference OxfordPhilosophy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference IEPMetaphilosophy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ a b Gelan, Victor Eugen (2020). "Husserl's Idea of Rigorous Science and Its Relevance for the Human and Social Sciences". The Subject(s) of Phenomenology: Rereading Husserl. Springer International Publishing. pp. 97–105. ISBN 978-3-030-29357-4.
  21. ^ Ingarden, Roman (1975). "The Concept of Philosophy as Rigorous Science". On the Motives which led Husserl to Transcendental Idealism. Springer Netherlands. pp. 8–11. ISBN 978-94-010-1689-6.
  22. ^ Hylton, Peter; Kemp, Gary (2020). "Willard Van Orman Quine: 3. The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Argument Against Logical Empiricism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  23. ^ Chalmers, David J. (2015). "Why Isn't There More Progress in Philosophy?". Philosophy. 90 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1017/s0031819114000436.
  24. ^ Dellsén, Finnur; Lawler, Insa; Norton, James (29 June 2021). "Thinking about Progress: From Science to Philosophy". Noûs: nous.12383. doi:10.1111/nous.12383.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philosophy/Archive_31&oldid=1145869116"