Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Active discussions
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Project-class)
This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon

Is Islamic philosophy "Eastern philosophy"? (re article Intuition)Edit

Intuition has subject headings

1.1 Eastern philosophy
1.1.1 Hinduism
1.1.2 Buddhism
1.1.3 Islam
1.2 Western philosophy

I wouldn't include "Islamic philosophy" under "Eastern philosophy" myself.

Is there a definite ruling or guideline on Wikipedia on whether "Islamic philosophy" is "Eastern philosophy", "Western philosophy", or "other" ??

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:4CCB:A6ED:2135:2FAF (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a notable Taylor & Francis journal called Asian philosophy : an international journal of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist, Persian and Islamic philosophical traditions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, Part VI of the authoritative Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (2002) is titled "Islamic Philosophy". --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed/repaired "Table of Statistics" issueEdit

Greetings, Since 2016 there was a "Page overflow" issue which should now be corrected here. Tables starting at "Analytic philosophy" to the end were not being shown. These statistic tables are now viewable.

  • 2.13 Analytic philosophy
  • 2.14 Continental philosophy
  • 2.15 Ancient philosophy
  • 2.16 Medieval philosophy
  • 2.17 Modern philosophy
  • 2.18 Contemporary philosophy
  • 2.19 Philosophical literature
  • 2.20 Eastern philosophy

I kept the "Page overflow" comments still in the wikicode in case this issue re-occurs. Posting here for more pagewatchers. JoeNMLC (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Metabasis paradoxEdit

Hello, I'd like to ask for advice as to this article, before resubmitting once again after several submissions. What has been done to it lately is to ensure that all the statements are attributed to another party. It is not certain that the part under Lessing that mentions John Moles should have been cut short due to an original research issue. I saved the excised detail about John Moles which could be put back.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cdg1072. I am afraid that an anthology of summaries of philosophical works is usually not considered encyclopedic. Wikipedians tend to avoid this style of essay-like article structure. Philosophy articles tend to be organized around major themes, not organized around a collection of opinions of famous commentators/philosophers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
There's no dispute at this point as to the notability of the topic problem, and that each section of the article describes one of the several notable solutions (Castelvetro and Vettori are important because of they were the first to respond). Prof. Ford of Princeton, for example excessively praised Elsa Bouchard's solution, which had the effect of making it very notable, due to Ford's prestige as a Classicist. That's all I'd say about notability of the problem and its solutions.
Now as you emphasize here, and as Sam-2727 also noted, unfortunately the authors' names were the only things available for introducing each solution to the problem. Yes, I know that. So does Sam-2727, who sent me here. I debated this with him to no end. As I argued to Sam-2727, given that an article is about a particular notable problem in a field, Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that prohibits authors' names as subheading titles, for the sections that contain their respective solution (theory, etc.). I admit that Sam-2727 never fully agreed with me, about this. However, he knows that he couldn't prove that those authors' names couldn't head those sections. And the last objection that Sam-2727 raised was, instead, he didn't like the solutions themselves as the structure either (regardless of their names). He never provided proof of either of those objections. Since we already debated these points, are you going to have them debated again? Respectfully, that's redundant and inconvenient, and now you've started the same debate all over. If you had a strong case about this point, I think you might also use stronger language, not "tends to." There may be no other Wikipedia article using names in that way, but there's not a rule that prohibits it. Already, it's obvious there is no other way to name the subheadings. The actual "structure" of the article isn't peoples names, as you imply, but their solutions to the topic problem (change of fortune paradox). So when Sam-2727 suggests that "eventually it might be better," clearly this one point can't be changed.
It just so happens that no convenient name exists, for each of the solutions that have been put forth. In some fields, for example, or especially for such a highly specific, narrow problem, solutions might rarely have names. And if we were to create names, that would be original research. The solutions never were given names by anyone. OK, but so what? Lessing's theory on this topic has been very influential. Scholars have adopted his view on this, since 1770, so 250 years. But because he gave his solution no name, then the problem can't be in Wikipedia? I disagree. If you could prove that you're right, then wouldn't Sam-2727 have already done so? He would have already taken care of this, and the article would already be deleted. But instead, he sent me here. Why? Here's what I suggest. Either delete the thing, or else find some substantive flaw in the article that can be corrected. The thing about authors' names being used to introduce their solutions, that can't be fixed. It seems a dead issue.
It seems that, in your attempt to claim that Wikipedia doesn't allow theorists' names to introduce their theories on some one major problem, you sound like you're claiming that there is no major, notable problem that the article is about. Although it's really strange that you would say that (and unkind), I don't think that's what you mean. You're not saying that my article has no notable, central issue. You can see that it does have one, "the change of fortune paradox." When you say an article should be "structured around" a "major theme," you're not really referring to the "structure" itself, but only to subheadings. You're equating "structure" with names of sections. But that's not "structure," of ideas presented, it's just subheadings, names. You're just pointing out that the subheadings don't bear the solution's names. As I mentioned, the theorists didn't provide theory names. (I presume this page is not the wrong place for all this, and literary theory is considered to fall under philosophy; you didn't say this was the wrong place).Cdg1072 (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Poetics is of interest to philosophy, classical scholarship, and literary theory (this means that other relevant projects would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature). It is clear that you invented the term "Change of fortune paradox"; not a good start. You could have called it "metabasis paradox." As you know the "metabasis paradox" is only mentioned once in the literature (Elisabetta Brighi, Antonio Cerella, eds., The Sacred and the Political: Explorations on Mimesis, Violence and Religion, 2016, pp. 13–21 (essay written by Arata Takeda)). You basically want to reproduce here the structure and content of this academic paper. There is a policy that can be invoked against the existence of this article: WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Usually this refers to sections of articles, but it has been invoked in cases where the very topic of an article is not considered prominent or legitimate by most relevant scholars. One single article bringing together other scholars' work on the topic for the first time, is not a good indicator about the prominence or legitimacy of the topic. The main problem is not that the solutions to this problem do not have names but that the topic does not seem to be a prominent one. I personally would endorse the existence of a trimmed down version of the article in question. You could also create an article on Arata Takeda and include information about the metabasis paradox there. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Omnipaedista, as much as I'm inclined, it seems unproductive to speak of my personal interest level. I'm just going to respond to the above, a day late because I got sidetracked. I don't completely agree with any one of the paradox solutions, and that may be the reason why my interest in it is not very high.
Before talking about notability directly, there is the statement, "You basically want to reproduce here the structure and content of [Takeda's] academic paper." But Takeda's article is shockingly inaccurate, and it's not your fault you didn't know. As I regretted while creating the article, he completely misrepresented Dacier, Lessing, and even Halliwell, which is an amazing amount of error. In that sense, what I wrote doesn't reproduce him, even though you're right that he compiled a longer structure than had appeared before. That's true, and if it has nothing to do with notability, he is at least an additional secondary reference. But I put in the correct description of the main scholars' views on the problem which are at least referred to elsewhere. Although my secondary sources don't fully define each view that they reference, clearly no secondary source fully defines, for example, The Computational Neural Theory of Humor, and perhaps none exists for the O'Shannon Model of Humor either, in One can with good reason delete The Computational Neural Theory of Humor--just for breaking guidelines, I understand the craziness of the content is irrelevant.
My second point is that to have substituted change of fortune for metabasis, to create a short title, seems a minor issue. Metabasis means change of fortune, and then you suggested that if the topic was considered notable, metabasis would be OK.
Third, about notability, you're right that just because an idea is steeped in the Renaissance, involves huge literary names like Dacier and Lessing, and many classical scholars wrote on it, and you can find a secondary source for almost every theory in detail--those things still don't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. And this is a really, really weird case, where a topic might barely fall short. While Sam-2727 was more optimistic, you might be right. Of course I side with him. True notability would need discussion and relevance of the idea in other work on the Poetics, tragedy, and so on. I don't think you're saying it would have to appear in a literary mag like LARB or Times Literary Supplement, but in other literary scholarship. And it doesn't appear in either. I wouldn't quite call it a "viewpoint held by an extremely small minority." It's more of a problem, and Elizabeth Belfiore also wrote about it, someone almost as prestigious as Halliwell. At least in their opinion, those people are big. For example, in the Philosophy of Humor Yearbook to come out in August 2020 with De Gruyter, Halliwell is on the editorial board, along with academic celebrities Simon Critchley and Daniel Dennett.
My last point is about how you say, "I personally would endorse the existence of a trimmed down version of the article in question." It seemed that you had just denied the notability, unless you meant that only for the full list of opinions. But whatever your judgment is, is it likely that Wikipedia could maintain the simpler piece that included say, only Dacier, Lessing, Bywater, and Halliwell (after the introductory Vettori and Castelvetro)? Maybe it would start out omitting Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath, but what would prevent them from being added? Compare, again, the article Theories of Humor in Wikipedia. The late Peter Marteinson, author of the Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor--which is referenced in reliable secondary sources, books--is still a less prestigious scholar than Elsa Bouchard or Malcolm Heath. What then would stop anyone from adding them to a shorter Metabasis Paradox given their high reputations? At some point late in the game, someone added I.M. Suslov's Computational-Neural to Theories of Humor, which there is reason to delete. And there are other individuals who could have been considered, cases that are worthy and some that are not. Concerning metabasis paradox, Sheila Murnaghan's theory on the topic is somewhat unpersuasive yet it is extremely well written, and has a backing in general ideas that are talked about throughout literary theory.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
We need to make sure that the topic is well-defined—especially if an article about the problem is to feature a full list of opinions. Before this discussion, I was a bit skeptical about the notability of the subject. (Theories of humor is indeed probably in violation of WP:SYNTH but WP:OTHER is usually not a very good argument.) Anyway, my basic point is that a problem may be age-old, but a clearly defined approach to deal with it has to have developed before Wikipedia can include it. If you think that you have secondary sources to back up your claim that the topic is notable, then we might be good to go (the title should definitely be "metabasis paradox" so that there is no violation of WP:NOR). --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
In terms of defining the issue, I would suggest looking at the lead of the article. It defines the problem briefly, although you might have the impression the problem is stated redundantly (i.e., twice). This is even before the section The Problem where there's a bit more background. If you find the lead really is redundant, perhaps the redundancy could be merged into one, although I found it resulted in a logical way.
There is a secondary source that at least mentions, and very briefly describes each of the various opinions. There is not one I know of that clearly defines John Moles' specific view--so I removed him. Moles thought Aristotle changed his mind, but so did Bywater, and I know how Bywater and Moles differ, but didn't find enough secondary on Moles. The things about Aristotle himself in the more detailed "The Problem" section are connected to a few scholarly books on the Poetics. Perhaps you may find that unnecessary. I found it seemed the right way to give the paradox fuller background, in a way that could be backed up by secondaries.
The Malcolm Heath paragraph delves into his view of only Poetics chapter 13 and the single versus double plot. I could shorten that, and it should be referenced to Bouchard for a secondary source. I could add from Bouchard her very concise description (in the same article) of what Heath says about chapter 14. That's still missing.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I just worked on the Malcolm Heath part which was in bad shape. I also found yet another thing synthesized as fact, and fixed it by attributing to Halliwell by name, in that section.Cdg1072 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I found the last of the Halliwell unattributed statements, don't know how I could have passed over that all those times.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Lessing can be used as the correct secondary source for Dacier (since Takeda is wrong), even if there is not a single other one. I guess publishing all this in Wikipedia hinders the prospect of publishing the correct history in some reliable print medium. I guess that is a deterrent to going forward with this, but now I've done everything I can think of to make the article appropriate.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Sections about the views of Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath can be kept. The Lessing section should probably be trimmed down. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I take it that you might mean to remove: (1) that little comment that mentions D.W. Lucas alone, and (2) the comments about John Moles. I don't presume you mean to remove (3) the comments about Bywater, and (4) that list of names of people right after Lessing himself, that over the centuries have endorsed Lessing. You might let me know if you feel that of those 4 items, 1,2, and 3 should go, but 4 should stay.
However, I think you should keep in mind that (1) Bywater was first to say Aristotle changed his mind, yet (2) scholars have paid more attention to Moles than Bywater. Moles wrote a much more elaborate piece on the paradox (1979), and he is a more recent figure who was also very charismatic and a popular classicist. Thus Bywater and Moles are each, in their own way, significant. I'm going to delete the isolated comment about D.W. Lucas, as you think about it.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I just went and removed a number of things from the Lessing section, and also made the main statement of Lessing's own view much more concise. I made it less redundant. I'm against the idea of cutting out Bywater or Moles.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Good. The article is much better now. I think it is ready to be published. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
So I just click submit again?Cdg1072 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please do that. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I submitted yesterday. But want to discuss with you the fact that I just added a caveat at the beginning, that informs about how most of Takeda's explanation of others' theories disagrees with the standard scholarly account of it. I thought you might object to putting that in, since it's me saying it -- but I would justify it on these grounds, first of all it's not backed up as my opinion, but the view of a large number of scholars in both distant past, and present. As it stood before, the Wikipedia article would just say that "Takeda wrote a history" -- and you wrote your admin note to the effect that the article follows Takeda's "structure", which it only does for a main part. So if you leave out this caveat to the reader, then they don't know that Takeda's descriptions are so at odds with the standard view of the scholars he talks about.
I also did one other related thing, and btw, I would understand if you said that the corrective comment about Takeda and Dacier should only appear in one place. I disagree that we should worry about redundancy here. That Takeda is not standard scholarship, that he's considered incorrect, is now indicated in the very beginning. But then when you get to Dacier -- the first thing that Takeda is well known to misread, there is a very brief phrase, saying that this reference about Dacier reflects the standard scholarly opinion that comes to us from Lessing himself -- in 1769, who responded critically to Dacier for the first time. Well I put these two things in, look forward to what you think. But before I even did this, the caveat was already there with respect to Halliwell in the Halliwell section, as per Elsa Bouchard's mention of him. In that case, you didn't notice it, or you did not object to me doing it.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Just now, I made the lead of the article more neutral in tone by attributing the paradox to the scholars through history that have tried to resolve it, not just coming out and stating that there is an issue. I think the redundancy there is also now better, because the very first lead statement refers more to the contemporry situation, while in the redundancy just after that, it alludes more to the earliest scholars discovering the problem. I think this is much smoother. I also fixed a really bad sentence in the Halliwell section.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Aristotle's PoeticsEdit

If you look at the French and German versions of Wikipedia articles on the Poetics, you find they are noticeably superior to the one in English.

Note also how much better are other articles on Aristotle's works, for example, -- this is excellent.

Not everyone might agree that the English version of the Poetics article must be as complex as those others, but it still could be better at this point. Ideally it should equal those other language versions, in my opinion, eventually. A long term goal. I arrived at this issue late in the game, yet I have made this article more normal so far. That's a simple start. I reverted some weird section headings, which were, inappropriately, named 'form' and 'content,' changing them to 'overview' and 'synopsis' as typically found. Finally, if the article on Metabasis Paradox is ever accepted, I would motion to add a link to it along these lines:

"The Poetics has generated a handful of debates over its interpretation, including two that are better known, namely the meaning of catharsis ( and hamartia (, and one lesser-known, the metabasis paradox."Cdg1072 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

FAR for philosophy of mindEdit

I have nominated Philosophy of mind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Your link is to the 2007 FAR. The current FAR is at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Philosophy_of_mind/archive2. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sporadic IP disruption on Transcendent truthEdit

Please consider watchlisting this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about merging an article with the Involuntary commitment articleEdit

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Involuntary commitment#RfC about merging an article with this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Superstition in Judaism has been nominated for deletionEdit


Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lukas MeyerEdit

Hello philosophers. Here's a draft about a philosophy professor. It needed third-party references, so I added some, but this is not my field so there may be more appropriate ones. Also, the text may need some changes to make it less CV-like, but I'm not sure what's important to include in an article about a philosopher. Can someone here take a look at it?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Philosophy".