Talk:Outline of philosophy

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fields and branches

Why exactly are there two sections here for what amounts to the same thing? I'm just checking here whether I'm being an idiot or not before I go ahead and merge the two. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

core areas and fields

is "core areas" just an introduction to "fields"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Change first sentence

-Change first sentence from: Philosophy – study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

-Change first sentence to: Philosophy – study of "fundamental-interactions" concerning "subjects" such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, language, observation, science and math.

The phrase "fundamental interactions" is more inclusive-comprehensive and modern as is also "subjects". A Wikipedia reference to Marcus Aurelius : "Observe always that everything is the result of a change, and get used to thinking that there is nothing Nature loves so well as to change existing forms and to make new ones like them." Arnlodg (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Unsourced, and will be misleading for readers because fundamental interactions is a technical term used in particle physics. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

confused about criteria for Branches of philosophy

What makes me question this is the inclusion of the philosophy of science as a major branch (it would seem to me mostly subordinate to epistemology) and the exclusion of political philosophy (which is a major, long-standing field that cannot be reduced to ethics or any other branches listed).

Further, if the philosophy of science is justified in its placement, then on what grounds is the philosophy of language excluded? Based upon my informed, but non-scientific assessment, the latter is accorded at least as much importance and attention in the academy today (in both the Anglo-American and European traditions, no less).

Aesthetics, also, is not traditionally considered a major branch of philosophy at the level of metaphysics or ethics, nor is philosophy of mind.

I'm not suggesting that these are not all important fields of philosophical inquiry, I'm just confused about what justifies the hierarchy presented here.

The only criterion I can infer is the existence of sub-fields. But these could easily be adduced for most, if not all, of those relegated to Other status. So that doesn't really get us anywhere.

Thanks — Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, how is it that in the History of philosophy at Outline_of_philosophy#Contemporary_philosophy Analytic philosophy has no children listed (even though, conservatively, seven of the "branches" above are part of or off-shoots of that broad movement), whereas as phenomenology (which is very much alive and well, frequently in direct engagement with current scientific research) is not counted as a branch at all? Also, pragmatism might not be thriving in the same way, but it certainly shows signs of recovering.

So should not these two be moved up to "field-status" under Other?

(If, incidentally, one wanted to further populate the historical tree, one could add structuralism and deconstruction beneath Continental and logical positivism and logicism beneath Analytic.)

Is there some organization principle staring me in the face that I just don't see?

Thanks – Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to assume that there is a universal contemporary organisation of philosophy and its not needed for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not like a book or an article that needs to be based on a single perspective or a single global organization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but if you want to argue that this Outline should be deleted (or something like that) maybe take that to Talk:Philosophy? It is an assumption of this query that it is indeed possible to meaningful discuss the relevant advantages and shortcomings of various principles of organization. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it is relevant. It is even part of philosophy to consider how its different parts are related. When epistemology was added as an explicit division in the 20th century, philosophers discussed its relation with other disciplines. Russell in a letter to Couturat said that when he mentioned "logic", he meant an informal logic, something that we could call "epistemology". Before that, Kant discussed the division of philosophy used by the Stoics, Physics, Logic and Ethics - no epistemology, and said that he did not see how to improve on it. The way philosophers divide philosophy tells a lot about their philosophy. I am not going to go into a debate about this article. The key point that people here might want to think about is that it would violate a WP core principle to present a division of philosophy as if it was a truth and not a perspective taken by philosophers. I don't think there is a single division of philosophy adopted by all philosophers, in all cultures, even today. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dominic Mayers,

I agree with everything you say here, and I appreciate the example of epistemology.

I guess that I just take for granted that such an outline could only ever be an approximation of the loose consensus of the present moment.

If there is some way to clarify the open-endedness of this page for those who might not share this base-level assumption, I would gladly support making an edit to that effect.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

An approximation of the loose consensus of the present moment is not the way of Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, we don't try to present a single point of view that is compatible with the different points of view, but all pertinent points of views. The subject of the article is admissible, but it must be covered by presenting all points of view with sources. I don't know how much sources exist on that subject. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your engagement, but I am not here to defend the format or existence of outline pages, which, it is true, are not compatible with presenting all potentially pertinent points of view of the organization of an entire field.

My only query is whether there are any policies or criteria I should be aware of before making changes to the present version.

It seems there are not—which supports your objection the very existence of this and other such pages. But you need to take that up elsewhere. I don't have the authority to delete the thing even if I wanted to; and, if either of us just wiped it, we would be promptly (and quite rightly) reverted. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The article should not present points of view of the organization of an entire field only, but all pertinent points of view. This is a core principle of Wikipedia. Perhaps it was what you meant. If the article does not respect this requirement, the only possible way ahead is to try modify it so that it respects it. You can do that boldly. If some people disagree, they will have a hard time to explain why, but we will see it at the time, if it happens. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I will not, of course, make any changes I am not prepared to defend.

If you have a completely different vision for what this page should be, or if you want to argue for its deletion, by all means, do share, edit, make your case to the community, or whatnot.

In the meanwhile, I believe we have both expressed what we have to say on the matter, and so I am bowing out of this exchange—though I will, of course, welcome future feedback specific to any edits I make.

Thanks, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not talk about deletion, so it's polemical that you refer to that. My point is that this is a very difficult subject to write about, because it seems hard to find all the pertinent points of view. At the least, when one starts, even if it is only one point of view, it should be presented as such. No need to reply. I know already that it is not what you wanted to hear. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)