Talk:Philosophy

I'm just trying to make a dent in the Special:Wantedpages, any help on this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks -ColinR 04:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm working on improving this page and the other pages in the philosophy category. Is anybody a Continental, by chance? NosnhoJE 02:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Notability?

I don't think Niebuhr and Hartshorne are really notable figures in American philosophy, and Mills was a sociologist, not a philosopher. If you want American philosophers of religion in there, the obvious choices should be Plantinga and Hick. But - on that note - "American philosophy" is really limited to Pragmatism (or Peirce's 'pragmaticism', since he hated James), in the 20th century most famously championed by Rorty. Other than that, the meaningful distinction is (as I noted in the top section) the divide between Analytic and "Continental" philosophy. Rawls, for example, is squarely in the Analytic camp, not the American (read: Pragmatic) camp.

May be my source is not as good as yours, please improve it as it should be. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:31, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm working on it. For reference, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is probably the best overall web resource, but it's more specialist articles and less general information. Most of what I'm adding right is common-knowledge (for professional philosophers, I suppose) but probably needs sourcing for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, most of my library is still packed from a recent move. I'll improve that as I unpack. Cheers! NosnhoJE 19:48, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Great work. I just recovered some valuable material. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice. My area of expertise is in Analytic philosophy and to a lesser extent German phenomenology, so I'm a bit in the dark with the others. If you concentrate your efforts there, we can probably avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. NosnhoJE 00:06, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Fine I will try. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 02:10, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

"Philosophizing" addition

Joaquin, got something up. I really don't know if this is OK for the article and would not be surprised or offended if it is taken down. But it was good for me to think throughBert Schlossberg 06:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

It's certainly an interesting claim, but it looks to me more like a start on an argument than something encyclopedic about philosophy - especially since, even if it's true (which we should talk about sometime), it only applies to some of philosophy's sub-disciplines. It would be exceptionally difficult, for example, to show that the study of ontology arises from pain or disaffectedness... NosnhoJE 14:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)