Talk:Contemporary Western philosophy/Archive 1

This page is an current talk page .

why are all the dates of birth 'c.' ? Surely they're all or mostly known for sure? Saccerzd 13:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I firmly believe that in such shape this article is not necessary at all. I mean, there are tons of useful information on 20th Century Philosophy article, and on a top of that including for example Sartre in Structuralist/Poststructuralist philosopher list is proof that author of this list don't really know what is going on in continental philosophy.

Well, now it's being fixed. It's already in much better shape. Postmodern Beatnik 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this article useful in the sense that I don't need to know the lingo through out in order to be able to get some general idea who are the relevant guys and what are the topics they're concerned with. Needless to say it is important that Current Philosophical debate should be out in the open and not practised only by some molded faceless folk, who smell like old people in some stuffy cabinet. More Philosophical Debate to the Media! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.8.34 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The media never tell even basic truths let alone philosophical ones, even if militia philosophers do not all have the same focus, and interest in truth rather than opinion we are not to be trusted. Sioraf (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Though Charles Krauthammer, Scott Adams, Jared Diamond, Howard Zinn are all interesting, intelligent people, they are not philosophers.

I currently think its disenfranchising to not include contemporary Eastern Philosophy! Contemporary philosophy should consider a wide horizon of geographical locations.

I nominate John Searle, Thomas Nagel and Peter Singer for inclusion. They each have a large body of work and are recognized as authorities in their respective fields. --17:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if Noam Chomsky could be added to the Political Phil section, Umberto Eco and Jean Baudrilliard to some other section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.8.34 (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

May 2005- Aren't we in an age where we are seeking a spiritual postmodernism? A theory that accepts choas and absolute order at the same time.

Could spiritual philosophy be the next wave?

What of postpostmodernism? archola 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly whoever chose the names on this list has very little grasp of analytic philosophy. Unless, of course, "Analytical School" is just a name created so that quacks can have their names alongside deserving people. KSchutte 07:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thinking on this a little longer, this whole article seems to be a waste of space. If anybody wants to put it up for VfD, I'd be delighted to vote it down. KSchutte 07:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What about

Please keep your crackpot fetishes out of my philosophy articles. KSchutte 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be arrogant (or ignorant?). I didn't say that I'm a "Wilber-believer" or stg. I've just wanted to ask your opinion.

Personally, I think this article is rubbish. Not only is it complete overlap with the 19th and 20th Century Philosophy articles, but it is much worse and contains little to no information. This should probably be deleted. Mrmlekoday 07:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether dead philosohers qualify as contemporary philosophers. Some were, to be sure, important in the 20th century, but most of them hardly published anything in the 21st and some have even been dead for more than a decade. Examples: Quine, Rawls, David Lewis, Bernard Williams, Davidson, Kuhn, Sellars, Isiah Berlin, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Gadamer and Ricoeur. --D. Webb 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They should be so considered, given that they overlap with people still living. If the article is to be only about living philosophers, good luck with that.--Levalley (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

given that rand's status as a philosopher is disputed, both on wikipedia and in philosophy, i think it is unwise to promote her to the status of philosopher. her inclusion on this page should be footnoted minimally, or should be removed until philosophers recognize her as member of the discipline as demonstrated by some objective standard such as '50 articles dealing with her work in philosopher's index'. --Buridan 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Contemporary philosophy" is way too big theme to fit in one wikipage frame..

Yep, totally agree.--Levalley (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody against merging this article with

Perhaps it would be best to turn it into a re-direct to analytic philosophy since most analytic philosophy is contemporary, and all contemporary philosophy is analytic.

If the pomo whingers don't like it then the article should either be deleted or completely re-written. Misodoctakleidist 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the lists - if you wish to replace them, I sugest you do so systematicaly, by linking to the categories. But note that it makes for boring reading.

I've deleted the non-encyclopaedic definitions, with references to the editors and so on, for obvious reasons.

I've pointed to a few of the areas of interest in contemporary philosophy. There are more, and each area needs a substantial amount of work.

I've also listed the article at Template:PhilosophyTasks. Banno 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Added more topics... still needs mucho work. Poor Yorick 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I expanded several sections today with what I could add to off the top of my head and I added a few references. I'll probably be adding some more references soon. Let's get this article sourced, people! Postmodern Beatnik 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good job - this is starting to look like an article. Banno 07:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

it is a fair start, but most of the sections are missing the continental, which is a huge bias. --Buridan 11:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The divide between "analytic" and "continental" doesn't exist in contemporary philosophy. See, for instance, Brian Leiter's statements on the issue: [1] and [2]. Obviously, I am very sympathetic to Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault. However, Postmodernism has its own section in this article, and while their philosophy is heavily linguistic, it is not quite philosophy of language. If it were then we'd have to start counting most of metaethics, the quantifier debate between Eternalists and Presentists within the philosophy of time, the epistemological battle over Gettier examples, and any number of issues as "philosophy of language." But this would be to ignore the obvious. For while these debates are heavily influenced by the philosophy of language, they are still clearly located within the sub-disciplines that birthed them. Postmodern Beatnik 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. This should be reflected in the article. I read a quote the other day: "There is no analytic and continental philosophy, only good and bad philosophy". See if I can re-source it. The article is just a grab-bag a the moment. Some real contemporary debates would be good. Banno 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote you mention sounds like the first of Brian Leiter's comments that I linked to above. As for some contemporary debates, I tried to put a little bit of that in by mentioning the battle between the Cornell realists and the Arizona anti-realists (under Ethics), the current focus on consciousness (under Philosophy of Mind), and citing a number of different perspectives under various headings. But I'm not sure how much further you want us to go with this. Should we really be getting into the specifics of these arguments, or should we continue writing in broad strokes? Postmodern Beatnik 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for content are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/readability#General and introductory articles. Breadth rather than depth, linking to the main article on each topic. But having said that, I see no problem with dealing in some way with specific current arguments, especialy if they are not mentioned elsewhere. Banno 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Postmodern Beatnik 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The clean-up tag was added to a version of this article that was virtually a list. And while improvements still need to be made, it seems that the current version is much cleaner than that of September 2006. If I don't see opposition by Monday (July 23, 2007), I'm removing the tag.

I'm not really considering removing the {{unreferenced}} tag at this time, however, because we still have some distance to go on that score. For one thing, I've been using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a bit more than I'd like. It's a great resource, it's written by professionals, and it has quite a bit of information that is directly on point. Still, I'd like greater numbers and diversity in our sources before removing the tag. Postmodern Beatnik 18:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should make it clear that, despite his influence on that school of thought, Nietzsche wasn't an existentialist as he was a determinist. --212.2.171.136 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You've misread the eternal return.--67.162.121.32 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As if this even needs to be said, the "sections" on neopragmatism and post-modernism are terrible. The blurb on neo-pragmatism is virtually one of James' definitions, and the facile understanding of Derrida, the metaphysics of presence, and post-modernism generally, is embarassing. As all of these subjects already have quite comprehensive articles, how about we just include the first paragraph or so of those articles and then link to them? Also, there's more contemporary schools of philosophy than two mere varieties of counter-Enlightenment thought. -Apophrenetic (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this entry define contemporary philosophy as the last four decades? The usage of the term indicates that this period of philosophy began at the tail end of the 19th-century. Usually, contemporary philosophy is dated as beginning with the rise of the analytic/continental split (with Frege on the analytic side and Husserl on the continental side). - Atfyfe (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted line from Ethics Section:

However, the debate between the

moral philosophy.^[1]

While applied ethics has come to dominate contemporary ethics, it is flat untrue that there isn't a lot of important work being done in metaethics. Singling out the work of Terry Horgan and Mark Timmons as the only work being done in metaethics today is a very odd thing to say, and therefore I've placed the above line here on the talk page until a more comprehensive description of contemporary metaethics can be written. - Atfyfe (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The

Using the search tems "analytic continental philosophy history" on Google, we find some accounts of the divide:

• The Analytical/Continental Philosophy Divide - http://www.philoagora.com/content/view/102/104/
• “Analytic” and “Continental” Philosophy - http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/analytic.asp
• Analytic and Continental Philosophy - http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefphil_kjones6.htm

- Atfyfe (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there sources for the use of the term "Contemporary philosophy"? Count Truthstein (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If postmodern is subsumed under contemporary, then postmodern shouldn't be in the template. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "contemporary philosophy" is the standard phrase for speaking of the era following the modern era beginning around 1900. The phrase "postmodern" can't be used because it has become so closely associated with only one part of philosophy in the era following the modern era. Therefore, philosophers usually speak of the period between 1500-1900 as Modern Philosophy and the period following 1900 as Contemporary Philosophy. Here are a few examples of the phrase "Contemporary philosophy" being used this way that I could quickly find:

• http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/index.htm
• http://science.jrank.org/pages/10680/Philosophy-Historical-Overview-Recent-Developments-Contemporary-Philosophy.html
• http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_chron_1900.htm
• http://www.radicalacademy.com/diahistphil.htm

As for your point about "postmodern," I agree with you. However, it seems that we should either use the phrase "continental" or "postmodern" since they name the same group of philosophers. We shouldn't include both without making it clear that they amount to the same thing. Furthermore, I think "continental" is more appropriate than "postmodern." So... I'm not sure what to do.

Maybe we can list it as "Continental-Postmodern" and just link it to Continental Philosophy. - Atfyfe (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's absurd to combine the two, as they mean different things. Even if, right now, people are being taught they're "the same names" that's unlikely to stick into the future, as they are very different entities and wildly different controversies exist about who should be in each group. My view is that they get collapsed in undergraduate/survey courses out of convenience/laziness, but that Wikipedia should in no way endorse such a view. They do not "amount to the same thing" to anyone who has thought about it. The real problem comes with "post-modern." Many people who consider themselves post-modern (or are considered to be) are not continental. Further, the distinction changes from discipline to discipline, university to university. Post-modernists (by definition) decline to be organized by discipline. Is Foucault a post-modern philospoher? Or is he a contintental historian? An anthropologist? How about his students? What are they? How about Althusser - is he the first post-modern philosopher or is he a continental political theorist? These distinctions shift and fluctuate far too much. Choose one, explain its disadvantages and problems and stick to it, but don't muddle the two.--Levalley (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or give balanced details in the very few sentences that are there. Right now, it sounds almost completely random.--Levalley (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In English-speaking countries, academic

Ordinary language philosophy declined in popularity in the 1970s, giving rise to an emphasis on the philosophy of mind and philosophy of language.^[7]

In Europe excluding Britain, process philosophy, existentialism and existential phenomenology were leading philosophical movements.^[8][9][10]

The 1960s and 1970s overturned the dominance of the aforementioned schools. The revival of the writings of

• The further reading section should contain books and articles about contemporary philosophy generally or about the analytic/continental divide. The old further reading section should be split up and placed in the entries for
  Continental Philosophy. - Atfyfe (talk
  ) 23:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Stich, Stephen P. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind.
  ISBN 0631217754
• Smith, David Woodruff and Amie L. Thomasson. Phenomenology and Philosophy of Mind.
  ISBN 0199272441

• Creegan, Charles L. Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard.
  ISBN 0415000661
• Nielsen, Kai and D.Z. Phillips. Wittgensteinian Fideism?
  ISBN 0334040051
• Taliaferro, Charles and Philip L. Quinn. A Companion to the Philosophy of Religion.
  ISBN 0631213287
• Wainwright, William J. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion.
  ISBN 0195138090
• Zagzebski, Linda. Philosophy of Religion: An Historical Introduction.
  ISBN 1405118725

• Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method.
  ISBN 0226467759
• Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
  ISBN 0226458083

• Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy.
  ISBN 0198782748

• Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology.
  ISBN 0801858305

• Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.
  ISBN 0691020167

In my opinion, either this article should be called 20th century philosophy, or a seperate article about 21st century philosophy should be created. Most philosophers on this page have been long dead. They are not our contemporaries. This is an entirely different age. The Berlin Wall and the World Trade Center have fallen. History hasn't ended, as Fukuyama thought almost twenty years ago. Russel and Nietzsche make no mention of this, because they were long dead by then. A contemporary philosophy needs to take into account these events, among many others, and the effects they caused. I am not an expert on this. If I were I wouldnt need the wikipage, or I would make it myself, but I hope you see where i'm getting at. Today is the 10 year anniversary of this century. I think the wikis should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.67.202 (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a long response to this, but I think all that needs to be said here is that this entry is about a particular field of study that uses the term "contemporary philosophy" to historically label the work done in the field after Kant or after 1900 given the major changes in the field at that time (radical advances in logic, a focus on philosophy of language, professionalization, analytic/continental divide, etc.). Those broad changes in philosophy as a field persist today and so philosophy is still considered to be in the same "era" that began about 110-180 years ago. The Berlin Wall and the World Trade Center did affect philosophy (e.g. work on torture and terrorism increased), but these were not fundamental changes to the methods of philosophy in general. Rather, these issues were approached using the same philosophical method that Russell pioneered at the end of the era of "modern philosophy" and at the beginning of the era of "contemporary philosophy". Russell did not work on issues of terrorism and torture (to my knowledge) but philosophers who today work on those issues because of the historical events you mention are doing so still using the same philosophical approach as Russell. Russell and Socrates might both be dead, but Russell is still a "contemporary philosopher" because that label is for a method of doing philosophy rather than a label for "living philosopher" or "recent philosopher". - Atfyfe (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes but when it comes to the general structure of an encyclopedic explanation, one can only agree with the IP above when they express concern about it. Other users (see Archives 1, passim) find this title at least puzzling, if not misleading or even confusing. To suggest it is a wrong title or that the content is off-topic, would even seem fair.--130.34.32.151 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Only to the same exact degree that

Modern Philosophy is misleadingly titled. Both the entry for modern philosophy and contemporary philosophy make it clear up front that they are technical labels for certain periods in the history of philosophy rather than just phrases for referring to recent philosophy. Also, I believe those earlier comments were responded to by making it very clear at the beginning of the article what this entry was about. - Atfyfe (talk

) 18:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You are probably right. True it is the lead section makes it clear (it only mentions this every issue, in fact...). I can not agree, though, that both contemporary philosophy and modern philosophy are exactly as misleading. But this issue is too hard to resolve and I will consider the concern addressed. Thanks again.--130.34.32.151 (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been waiting to respond to this edit until I had time to give a full defense of it. Here it goes--User:Byelf2007 removed the Nick Rescher quote saying that it was "unnecessary and inconsistent with other articles". Let me take on each criticism one-by-one:

• "inconsistent with other articles" - I am not sure what Byef2007 means by this, but if this quote is inconsistent with other articles then that is a problem with those articles. This article explains in detail how and why contemporary philosophy has become extremely professionalized and devoid of amaturs. Which is to say, the quote summarizes the entire point of the "Professionalization of Philosophy" section of this entry which is itself well sourced (and correct I might add). Which is to say, the quote accurately and correctly captures the (for good or for bad) extreme professionalization of the field. You might criticize contemporary philosophy for being over-professionalized, but someone would have to be very out of touch with the present state of the field to be unaware of the point Nicholas Rescher is making in the quote.

• "unnecessary" - I am not sure how someone can call the quote both wrong and unnecessary. I can understand "correct but unnecessary" because the quote might be trivial and/or repeat obvious points already stated in the article, but in claiming that the quote is "inconsistent with other articles" I take Byelf2007 to be saying the quote is wrong! Which means: (a) it isn't trivially true (and so can't be so trivially correct as to be “unnecessary”), and (b) that it is in fact shown to be necessary by Byelf2007's edit itself since the quote summarizes and puts on display the results of the "Professionalization of Philosophy" section which Byelf2007 seems to have missed (otherwise he would have criticized that section rather than just this quote; either both that section and this quote is wrong, or neither is).

Just to avoid misunderstanding: I don't mean to criticize the editor of this change (i.e. Byelf2007). In fact, welcome to editing this article! It could use more devoted editors. But, I do disagree with Byelf2007 deleting this quote and I just want to do Byelf2007 justice by giving a full justification before I reverse his/her edit.

Overall, contemporary philosophy has become extremely professionalized in the last 100 years (peer-reviewed journals, professional organizations, a good deal of standardization of methods and core texts, informal enforcement of professional requirements for working in the field, etc.) and amateur outsiders contributing to the field have all but disappeared. This is not something the population at large is very aware of, possibly because in becoming professionalized philosophy has become extremely insular. The professionalization of philosophy might be a bad thing or at least have significant downsides even if it has been good for the field all things considered. Many philosophers have published works concerned about the “over-professionalization” of the field (e.g. Richard Rorty comes to mind). But to criticize the professionalization of philosophy is different from saying it hasn't occurred; in fact, to criticize the over-professionalization of philosophy you have to recognize that professionalization has taken place. The “professionalization of philosophy” section discusses the professionalization of the field, but to see the evidence of the professionalization for oneself one only need to look at the top peer-reviewed philosophy journals and notice how rare it is for a publication to be authored by someone without a philosophy PhD or employed by a philosophy department. Or, as an even weaker standard to show the professionalization of the field, notice how rare it is for any article in one of those journals to even cite a piece of philosophy produced in the last 100 years that was not authored by someone with a philosophy PhD or employed by a philosophy department.

What about Deepak Chopra and self-proclaimed “philosophers” of the guru, self-help, mystic sort? Well, I won't start an argument about who is a philosopher, who is a religious figure, who is a motivational speaker/writer, etc. Instead, let me just point out that this article states up front that it is about the term-of-art/technical term “contemporary philosophy”, which clearly doesn't not include Deepak Chopra. This article isn't really about “recent philosophy”, it is about a technical term “contemporary philosophy” which is used to label the era of philosophy after “modern philosophy”. As a technical terms, neither “contemporary philosophy” nor “modern philosophy” mean “recent philosophy”. Notice that the technical term “modern philosophy” labels an era of philosophy that ends by the first years of the 1900's at the latest and so couldn't mean “recent philosophy”.

In fact, this article is really about “philosophy” as itself a technical term that refers to a particular field/institution that “philosophers” (in some other sense of the word) like Deepak Chopra do not participate or engage with. "Philosophy" as a technical term referring to the community/field including Kripke, Korsgaard, Gibbard, Dennett, all of the publishing faculty of the philosophy departments of the world's top colleges (Oxford, Harvard, NYU, etc.), the people publishing/reading peer-reviewed philosophy journals, etc. is very different from "philosophy" as a colloquial term referring to anyone's religious, political, or self-help/motivational beliefs or thinking. To give an analogy: I can "do biology" by capturing an insect in my backyard and dissecting it just to satisfy my curiosity, but that is very different from my "doing biology" by participating in the community/field including those we would label "biologists". In one sense, biology is anyone's beliefs/thinking/investigation about lifeforms, but in another sense it is a technical term referring to a particular community/field with methods, journals, degrees, professionals, conferences, history, etc. Similarly, "philosophy" is often used as a label for any abstract belief or thinking that is neither instrumental nor scientific (so neither "how old can meat be and still be eatable?" nor "how old is the universe?"). But "philosophy" as a technical term is a label for a particular community/field/activity.

Anyway, now I might be straying too far from what Byelf2007 meant with his criticism. All Byelf2007 said was that the quote was "unnecessary and inconsistent with other articles" and I really can't be sure what he had in mind in saying that. I've tried to cover a lot of ground to try and respond to his/her criticism however Byelf2007 might have meant it. In general, my point is just that the quote is a wonderful distillation of the “professionalization of philosophy” sub-section and so belongs in this article. When I re-add it, I'll put it in that sub-section which perhaps Byelf2007 will find to be a satisfactory compromise.

- Atfyfe (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Curtd59 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Um... Sorry, but I don't think the analytical continental divide is represented except as a critique of analytical philosophy, or an APOLOGIA for continental philosophy. The primary difference between the constructs is, sure, the method of the argument: experiential versus empirical, but primarily it's the precedence give to science, naturalism and correspondence on the side of the anglo and empirical philosophers, and to experience, hierarchy and morality on the side of the continentals. Which is only noted in the Continentals section. Nor is the reason for this divide: The Franco-German rejection of the Anglo social model, and the separation of the german and anglo culture in the early 1800's. That is the NPOV on the divide if we apply any historical reference to the matter. At this point, most people in the west view "Obscurant" language as a form of deception that should have gone out with Religious mysticism. And it's certainly a critique of Heidegger and Rorty and the postmodernists that they're works are a deliberate attempt to restore the authority of the church with the authority of academic and moral philosophers.

It's not a trivial issue of style or method. The traditions are egalitarian and scientific on the Analytical side, and hierarchical,

I mean, the french and the german philosophers attacked the anglo enlightenment for a reason: it's antithetical to their cultures. Why? Because the anglo model is a moral code supported by the Absolute Nuclear Family (See Emmanuel Todd) and the German and French Models are on the Traditional Family, which retains its authoritarian rather than egalitarian set of duties. It's still in debate which model was right (I think moving toward the German at this moment). More specifically the continentals and the american postmodernists are attempting to restore the values of socialism as a moral code given that socialism has failed in theory and practice.

One interesting phenomenon is that with the professionalism of philosophy has also come most of its decline. Economics, History, Experimental Psychology, and Cognitive Science have been contributing primarily to the debate and philosophers are increasingly ignored. So much so that it's a frequent complaint in the west that philosophy and religion departments are constantly being cut of funding - Because religion is categorized along with philosophy.

Perhaps as a practitioner I assume that all of this is obvious (it's taught in most university courses on Postmodernism or Modernism in one way or another).

SO BEFORE SOMEONE PULLS THE AMATEUR CARD: Why is it that the rest of the articles on movements here and on other sites make use of this information and this page does not? I mean, I'm not going to do the work if it's going to be a bit of warfare to post it. Too much to do already. Thanks for your patience.

Curtd59 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If what you posted here is suggestive of the edits you intend on making, then yes, there will be "a bit of warfare to post it". I have trouble knowing where to begin taking issue with your claims and much of it I have trouble even making sense of. - Atfyfe (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the user's chief complaints was that one of the biggest criticisms of philosophy, its practical uselessness, only arose after the professionalization and subsequent schisms of the discipline. I don't think it would be a bad idea to note that the popular view of the decline of philosophy occurred alongside its secular institutionalisation. To be honest, I find the quote about philosophy going from the public to the private realm of ideologues talking amongst themselves rather unsettling myself. I don't think the user's points were obscure. I err on the side of the continentals myself, but I do despise me some Babette Babich, who is a fine example of why philosophy probably needs to have its funding reserves cut. 173.230.98.68 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone was interested, here are some suggestions for additions to this entry:

1. Women have moved into philosophy during the contemporary era, a section about that would be a worthy addition. Feminist phil of science and ethics, issues with sexism (e.g. the McGinn scandal), etc.

2. A subsection about the American Philosophical Association and its history would be a worthy addition.

3. Short history sub-sections for both the Anayltic and Continental sections would be excellent (e.g. how analytic went through the rise and fall of logical positivism, ordinary language philosophy, the appearance of virtue ethics, applied ethics, and experimental philosophy in the late 20th century, etc.).

4. A line or two about the NYT The Stone should obviously be added.

5. Maybe a section about how world events affected the field (they largely did not, but a small section talking about why they have not and the few exceptions would be worth it).

I am not sure what else. But I figured throwing out some ideas might be helpful. -Atfyfe (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday User:Harvard1932 added a paragraph to this article as part of a campaign to build connections to his recently-created article on "System philosophy" (which was speedily deleted today on the grounds that it's something he just made up).

That was rightly reverted by User:Snowded (though Harvard then restored it and was reverted by Snowded again).

Earlier today a new anonymous user, 81.170.9.201, reverted Snowded's reversion, apparently as part of some kind of revert-stalking of Snowded. (As of this writing almost all of that users edits, which began yesterday, have been reversions of Snowded's edits, and have gotten him three warnings). I reverted that. (Addendum: I just realized I accidentally reverted Tony's intermediate edits as well when I did so! Sorry Tony, just clicked the wrong button!)

Now User:TonyClarke, who appears to be a very old, experienced user, while making a series of what seem to be good, productive edits to this article, seems to have restored that paragraph again, with slight changes, including changing the now-broken link to Harvard's now-deleted article to the similarly-named but (apparently) unrelated Systems philosophy.

I've deleted it again, but I'm just kind of curious how that happened, since it seems implausible (and I don't want to jump to the conclusion) that Tony is in league with Harvard or that disruptive anon. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

HI Pfhorrest. I thought the original post had an element of truth in it, that contemporary stuff is influenced by past stuff in philosophy. I think most editors who are well minded have something useful to say, and we have a duty to consider that and try to bring out the useful truths rather than just revert what might seem partial nonsense.. That way lies edit wars. In view of that I wrote a section on the relevance of contemporary philosophy, and the intro then needed a hook to this as per policy on intros. So I used the deleted post slightly cleaned up.

The was my thinking, thanks for asking. Not sure where to go now, perhaps more cogent examples in the intro.

TonyClarke (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors who insert original material on multiple pages without citations etc. are generally vandals and/or self promotors and that was the case this time. Clearing up such trails over multiple articles leaves little alternative but reversion. However if it stimulated you to add the section on history then some good came out of it. The section needs expanding and I removed the Newton reference - in part because it was a satire on Boyle and was not intended in the way it is currently used. Also in effect it is commentary without references ----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am on the side of Tony. I hate to say this. But Pf and Snowded are two stubborn minded philosophers who runs Wikipedia philosophy section like their own little backyard together. Every single time I see talk page comments, I see Pf and Snowded together like they are teaming up to rule Wikipedia, which is a hilarious scene. I don't even know how many times I have to mention this to them: But philosophy is UNLIKE SCIENCE. Philosophy can be PROVEN THRU TIME AND DEBATES, without a source even. While science can only be proven thru experiments and experiments, it can also do without a source, if the experiment results are consistent. Citation on a source often times SLOWS down philosophy research, like a "speed limit" on your thought process. And not all newest philosophy development are published (publication takes year, while debate only take hours to confirm a concept). But ultimately, I understand where Pf and Snowded came from. <-- similar to someone close to me. Graduated from the top university in China. Focused 11 years on Daoism, his only job was to think and write. Contracted by the most prestigious publisher of the province. Offered free review, free printing, at no expense of publication from his pocket. In the end, every single time me and him debates on philosophy, with 3rd party of friends as judge. I win. This "age gap" between traditional philosophers like Snowded who believes in traditional stubborn rules (I don't know what style it is even classified as), or a debate-driven philosopher like me who advances on fast thinking, free roaming of ideas, who proves their philosophy not with citation; but with powerful arguments, debates, public-discussion, open discussion (rather than peer review), to prove a concept.Harvard1932 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The above edit is a very clear
  personal attack that fails to follow talk page guidance. The editor in this comment specifically says s/he has no intention of following wikipedia policy. Why TonyClarke has chosen to reinstate this nonsense twice I don't understand but I'm not wasting any more time on it, Harvard1932 to be very very clear, if you carry on making personal attacks and ignoring wikipedia rules for editing then I will take this for community review with a recommendation for sanctions. ----Snowded ^TALK
  13:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As a target of this supposed attack, I don't read the above as a personal attack myself. It's kind of rambling and misses the point but it's attempting to argue fairly about the matter under dispute, and certainly isn't the kind of comment that needs to be summarily deleted from the talk page, which is an action I think should be reserved only for the most egregious offenses. Talk pages aren't articles, we can afford to let bad arguments stand, though we're not compelled to even engage with them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are both being far too nice about this, behaviour best nipped in the bud. Will try and avoid saying I told you so in the new year :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[redacted]

I think his editing behavior definitely needs to be nipped in the bud, and the only reason I haven't sought administrative action is because I'm lazy and also he stopped for now so no need. I'm just being principled about talk page censorship here, which is a pet peeve of mine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That anon just above me though (who's probably the same one who's been stalking you), that the kind of clear personal attack that I wouldn't object to you deleting if you felt like it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep I suspect someone with an off wiki dispute given the comments. Admin action seems to have hit it! Pet peeves we are all entitled to at Christmas - have a good one! ----Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Pf and Snowded, stop taking things personally on my personal wiki page. Community does not mean just you two. Community is the entire audience who chooses to edit the wikipedia on their good will. Do not ever think, you are the reflection of everyone else beyond yourself. And in no sharp, my previous statement was offensive. I did not use any offensive languages, but to express my right of the speech. Don't tell me, wikipedia talk page doesn't allow expression of true thoughts/emotions.Harvard1932 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am from rapid response and you are all being audited. Work it out please. JKshaw (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

OK I'm curious. What is rapid response and just what does 'audit' mean in this context? ----Snowded ^TALK 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The 'System Philosophy' paragraph needed to be deleted. Glad to see others deleted it. Good work User:Snowded and User:Pfhorrest. - Atfyfe (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see people still arguing with system philosophy on Christmas, I think it is rather sad (Doesn't apply for me, since my family is half-Asian, never been a huge fan of Christmas). System philosophy is nonsense until you have constructed the entire set of systematic ideas in your mind. Anyways, pointless to talk about a wikipedia page on a concept that was never completed in editing, thinking you have accomplished something. Or you are talking about the edit I made on this page? But I don't think so, because edit made on this page got nothing to do with system philosophy. And atf, you seems to be friends with Snowded and Pf, because you talk about them as being "together", "grouped". Not to assume anything, but you made yourself suspicious when your counter-argument was: "nonsense". Which is NOT a logical counter-argument if you ever took any scientific logic classes. And you are a 10 years philosophy graduate. And trying to get PhD. Doesn't know the basics of logic surprises me, actually gives me a cold-shiver when I sees it. - Please learn to formally challenge an idea with depth of reasoning, appropriate logical response, and a complete understanding of the argument before trying to agree/disagree against it. Philosophy 101 lecture.Harvard1932 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit 2, Atfyfe just edited his "was nonsense" part out. So he actually acknowledged his mistake. <--- I have been taking screenshoots on all of the arguments since the edit war pf and Snowded started. Glad to see you are giving me even more evidence to play around. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard1932 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Could the most recent poster on this article please explain what they have done, and why? If major change are made without explanation, it is likely that it will be challenged , as here. The poster is anonymous: 207.161.217.209. Given previous edit wars on this entry, I think we should all be as transparent as possible about who we are. TonyClarke (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@TonyClarke: I think the edits speak for themselves, but I'm happy to explain anything you're unclear about. The main changes were:

1. Converting two tables to a standard list format as the information contained is not "
   tabular in nature
   " and is not suitable for that format (I would also suspect that there may have been accessibility issues);
2. Changing the names of the journals previously contained in the tables to their full names as used in the titles of their respective Wikipedia articles;
3. Removing two non-
   inappropriately placed
   navboxes;
4. Removing see also links that merely "
   repeat links that appear in the article's body
   " or that are of peripheral relevance;
5. Bringing consistency to the variety of English being used; and
6. Minor stylistic changes.

If major change are made without explanation, it is likely that it will be challenged , as here.

So on what basis are the edits being "challenged"?

The poster is anonymous

As are most editors.

I think we should all be as transparent as possible about who we are.

Why do you say that? Are you suggesting that I have been less than transparent?

Finally, if you were wanting a reply, why would you not have notified me of this discussion? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to ask what you meant by the heading "Anonymous edit of sources". What sources are you concerned about? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, and apologies. I think I was having a bad day, and the changes seemed quite extensive and unexplained. It would have been helpful if you had put some description of what you had done and why, in your original edit.

TonyClarke (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Contemporary philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212215250/http://gawker.com:80/5787195/philosophy-departments-are-full-of-sexual-harassment to http://gawker.com/5787195/philosophy-departments-are-full-of-sexual-harassment
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128165848/http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000129/article.pdf to http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000129/article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)