This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
The definition of neutrality as the absence of declared bias is unprecise as neutrality may be a declared bias. The concept neutrality stems from 'neutral' and 'neuter' which may be understood as 'not either on one side or the other', thus pointing to a middle way philosophy.
--Xact (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is not so clear, indeed. In what sense is it meant? Objectivity? Secularity? Impartiality? All three (in their strong sense) are rejected (since Kant, Hegel, Marx et al.) The difference between scientific and every-day-thinking and religios (I believe in science!) is not clear. With Marx one can say: You are always part of a class (Impartiality is a capitalistic ideology to opress...), ... And with Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightment I say: Neutrality itself becomes ... undeclared bias? even faced to edit wars there should be found another way to see... perhaps this man can help: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/philos/dascal/publications.html my site wp.de: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Saviansn
