Content deleted Content added
Keepcalmandchill (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
TheEpicCuber (talk | contribs) ←Replaced content with '''Italic text'' swjd;de' Tags: Replaced Reverted talk page blanking |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''Italic text'' |
|||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
swjd;de |
|||
{{Vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=1|class=C}} |
|||
{{Notice|This article was the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy]] collaboration of the month for December 2005}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=top|attention=yes}} |
|||
{{WP1.0| class =C| importance = Top| core = yes| category = Philrelig| v0.5 = pass}}}} |
|||
{{talkphil|search=yes}} |
|||
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|||
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|philosophy}} |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }} |
|||
{{high traffic|date=24 May 2011|url=http://www.xkcd.com/903/|site=xkcd|linktext=mentioned in the mouseover text|afterlinktext=on|notlinked=yes}} |
|||
{{tmbox|text=For the observation that repeatedly clicking the first link in a Wikipedia article leads to this article, see [[Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy]].}} |
|||
{{Backwardscopy |
|||
|author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. |
|||
|year = 2010 |
|||
|title = Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy |
|||
|org = Alphascript Publishing |
|||
|comments = {{OCLC|697554244}}, {{ISBN|9786130678883}}. |
|||
|bot=LivingBot |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|{{U|Sdkb}}|Level-1 vital article}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:Philosophy/Archive index |
|||
|mask1=Talk:Philosophy/Archive <#> |
|||
|mask2=Talk:Philosophy/Quotations |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
|counter = 31 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Philosophy/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archive box| |
|||
*[[Talk:Philosophy/Quotations]] |
|||
*[[Talk:Philosophy/Archive 21#Ten Textbook Definitions of Philosophy|Ten textbook definitions]] (12 February 2007) |
|||
*[[Talk:Philosophy/Jan2007|Jan2007]] and [[Talk:Philosophy/Jan2007-2|Jan2007-2]] archives. |
|||
}} |
|||
==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. |
|||
[[User:Javierfv1212|☸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. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Javierfv1212|☸Javierfv1212☸]] 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|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. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Javierfv1212|☸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. [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cinadon36|<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b>]][[User Talk:Cinadon36|<b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b>]] 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. [[User:Javierfv1212|☸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 [[User:Javierfv1212|☸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". [[User:Teishin|Teishin]] ([[User talk:Teishin|talk]]) 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The [https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195328998.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195328998 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, [[User:Keepcalmandchill|Keepcalmandchill]] ([[User talk:Keepcalmandchill|talk]]) 06:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Philosophy|answered=yes}} |
|||
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.'. [[User:Nicholasjscottmills|Nicholasjscottmills]] ([[User talk:Nicholasjscottmills|talk]]) 05:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ‑‑'''[[User talk:ElHef|<span style="color:red">El</span><span style="color:orange">Hef</span>]]''' <small>([[Special:Contributions/ElHef|<span style="color:black">Meep?</span>]])</small> 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". [[User:UserTwoSix|UserTwoSix]] ([[User talk:UserTwoSix|talk]]) 17:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Even the page on [[Philosopher]] links back to [[Philosophy]] in its first sentence. [[User:UserTwoSix|UserTwoSix]] ([[User talk:UserTwoSix|talk]]) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah I don’t see why Snowded reverted you at all. —[[User:Pfhorrest|Pfhorrest]] ([[User talk:Pfhorrest|talk]]) 21:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't like overlinking and that form was also poor: <nowiki>[[Philosopher]]s</nowiki> is messy. I don't think it is necessary but if both of you want it then I can live with <nowiki>[[Philosopher|Philosophers]]</nowiki> -----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 09:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't especially care one way or another from a content perspective, but IMO <nowiki>[[link]]s</nowiki> is much more elegant markup than <nowiki>[[link|links]]</nowiki>. (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). --[[User:Pfhorrest|Pfhorrest]] ([[User talk:Pfhorrest|talk]]) 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No objections :-)-----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 08:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Philosophy|answered=yes}} |
|||
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 [[Special:Contributions/90.248.179.69|90.248.179.69]] ([[User talk: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 -----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:20, 1 December 2020
Italic text swjd;de