Talk:Philosophy

Pragmatism and Correspondence

I removed the claim in the pragmatism section that "truth should be seen as correspondence" [sic]. User:Warshy reverted. I've reverted again. Here's the reason: the pragmatist theory of truth is always contrasted with the quite different correspondence theory of truth (e.g. one example), making the wording I deleted significantly misleading. Note too that in the citation, Peirce never refers to correspondence. What he says is "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." And this is reflected by my edit. Maybe it can be written more pretty, but at least it's accurate.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again

One of the reasons I had reverted is that the syntax got garbled with your removal. You have now fixed that problem. I am no specialist in Peirce's pragmatism, so I will take you word on it, for the time being. Regards, warshy^¥¥ 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To be completely honest. I somehow misread the sentence after your first removal, the syntax did not get garbled as I thougt... So it was my mistake. Reading and re-reading the passage again now, the sentence the way it was still looks better to my aesthetic taste, and also logically is does not seem to fail. However, as I said, if you insist that Pierce's theories of correspondence and truth "need to be sharply distinguished," I will have to defer to you on it, for the time being... Regards again. warshy^¥¥ 16:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, my sentence could probably be improved, but losing the ref to "correspondence" was a priority.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again

incorrect spelling

In the ancient greco-roman section, 2nd paragraph, 4th line, 5th word; please change 'onw' to 'own' because of incorrect spelling. 41.204.183.254 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Done thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Expand the definition

I would like to see the opening of this article put the overall subject in better context. The statement, "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument", should be expanded to include the "other ways" in order to clarify the problem being addressed. After all, while there are many tools, there aren't that many other systems--did I miss any?.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to do a good job of this, but I'd suggest something along the lines of:

"Competing systems for addressing these same problems in order to generate new, reliable knowledge of human reality include:

• Science, which relies mainly on the tool of repeatable experimentation to provide new perceptions and useful manipulations of the physical world;
• Religion, which relies mainly on the tools of faith and mythology to recognize and promote successful patterns of cultural behavior in human history, or attempt to create new ones;
• Art, which provides new and unexpected commonalities and linkages, through sensory exploitation of sight (visual arts), sound (music), touch (dance, sculpture), taste and smell (culinary arts)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeliff (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy is about "problems!?" Quoting Lead Section:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]

That jars my teeth!...and dictionaries (American Heritage Dictionary) disagree. I'll change to "questions," but I'm not up to explaining the difference, —however I think that section begs for it. While subtle, it is so foundational that a misunderstanding here is likely to lead to an utterly different destination. A misunderstanding here is predictable due to the cultural assumptions and values internally projected from our western thought. see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
--71.133.254.31 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Nevermind, seems the article has been permanently locked up for three years.
Also suggest meta-philosophy such as eastern V. western thought be discussed. Also, how people with two philosophies can communicate, for example scientific V. religious or Eastern V. western systems of evidence, etc.
--71.133.254.31 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

two inactive references

References 53 "huang" and 54 "Chan" are not working.Can someone fix that in "Reference works" section?

A Sourcebook of Chinese Philosophy by Chan, Wing-tsit.

should be replaced with

 {{Cite book |title = A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy
  |last = Chan
  |first = Wing-tsit
  |publisher = Princeton University Press
  |year = 1963
  |isbn = 0691019649
  |url = http://books.google.com.hk/books/about/A_Source_Book_in_Chinese_Philosophy.html?id=dzmMaVTvUzAC
  |ref = harv}}

and

Essentials of Neo-Confucianism: Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming Periods by Huang, Siu-chi

should be replaced with

 {{Cite book |title = Essentials of Neo-Confucianism: Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming Periods
  |last = Huang 
  |first = Siu-chi  
  |publisher = Greenwood Publishing Group 
  |year = 1999
  |isbn = 031326449X
  |url = http://books.google.com.hk/books/about/Essentials_of_Neo_Confucianism.html?id=sjzPPg8eK7sC
  |ref = harv}}

--LesleyLai (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done and thanks.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge question concerning the Philosopher article

Should the article Philosopher, which is currently "top importance" but "start class" be merged into this article? Please have a look here: SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No: the Philosopher article is of little merit.

That's the point. The Philosopher article needs vast improvement or else it should be merged or redirect. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the point in having an article "Philosopher" as well as an article "Philosophy" any more than "Chemist" and "Chemistry" (and I am surprised to note that there are such as well as Biologist/Biology and Musician/Music.!) On the grounds that Philosopher a) superfluous and b) devoid of useful content I would support emptying the article and redirecting to this article, — Philogos (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not DELETE the article Philosopher? --— Philogos (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, merge and delete.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just DELETE (but do not merge) Philosopher replacing it with a redirection to Philosophy. The article Philosopher, has no content worth incorporting into Philosophy. --— Philogos (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

Lpcardoso (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC) In the second sentence of the first paragraph maybe it will help to add examples of other ways of addressing the problems that philosophy tackles. Ie: the sentence would read: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways (ex: mythology, religion, scientific research) of addressing such problems by..."

My suggestion comes after reading the article in another language (Portuguese) link. tks.