Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 5

1325:. I can find little discussion where other Wikiproject members have weighed their thoughts as to this template's features and purposes. Two TfD votes took place, yet TfD votes are for deciding whether a template should exist, not neccesarily its design. With this in mind, the specific issue I would like to address is whether or not the template should include external links, which I believe it should not. The purpose of this template seems to be to provide navigation between Knowledge articles relevent to philosophy, yet external links do not provide navigation, they provide further reading. Similar navigational templates, such as 3235:

unimportant because I've never heard of them, and/or disagree with them" and flowing from that: "Zizek must be right because he is more famous". One of the things I've tried to tackle generally on Knowledge is the horrible spectacle of fawning, fanboyish articles on certain people (unfortunately this happens as much, if not more, with famous academics as it does with movie stars) which is why I have helped contribute to a critiques section on the Zizek page. Surely criticism and the response to it is a vital element of academic discourse, and should therefore play a significant part in any article about an academic.

3213:. Or anti-semite Kevin MacDonald criticizing Adorno as "too Jewish" (which I finally killed from the article). The Zizek critiques are also at a similarly trite level. It's one thing if Negri, or Butler, or Laclau want to take serious issue with Zizek: let's definitely report on that in the bio (albeit concisely); but someone padding their resume after skimming a Zizek book isn't notable for the biography (which basically would include a couple articles by me, in full disclosure mode... but I sure don't want "Mertz" cited in the Zizek bio either). 1711:

the bar the less likely you may be to get the help of busy academics and scholars. If the entry learning curve is too steep, some very knowledgeable and potentially helpful people might decide its not worth the effort. That's the primary reason I think it might be a good idea to have a single simple, concise document that tells people all the basics they need to know to begin helping. I know this information is already available, but you have to look in several different places if you even know where to look.

1577:- it says which on the page. I did not compile it. Must have been a hell of a job - dean. And to avoid any other confusion, the only point of this list, which I am now maintaining outside WP, is to identify areas where our coverage is less than perfect. This is true of the "top rank" of philosophers, where our coverage of some is pitiful, as well as the other ranks. Generally, looking through the entries they are not as bad as you might imagine. There is a lot of plagiarised material though. 2748:

Knowledge, nowehere else. Pantheism is neither theism nor deism, of course, though it's marginally closer to the former than to the latter. The field of atheism is particularly fraught, as there's a tradition of hair-splitting definition-making and distinction-drawing on Usenet and other Internet forums that's mercifully absent from the serious literature (e.g., the strong vs weak debate, etc.) It would be nice to think that this would be sorted out, but I suspect that it never will be. --

2291:. At least two students have expressed some interest in doing this. I have offered to be a liason for this project, but I thought I would warn everyone in case something radically changes without warning :) If anyone has any concerns about this project, or about anyone you think might be working on an assignment, please drop me a message. Also, if you have any pages that you would like to have some TLC in these areas tell me and I'll suggest them in class. --best, kevin 3475:. You may not be aware, but the entire practice of 'reading' films as an analytical method is disputed in cinema studies. So, let us set aside that Žižek himself has trouble explaining terms without interpreting (often) Hitchcock's films (so little time, so many Hitchcock films...). I propose that the page should be informative even for people who have no interest in Hitchcock's films, or for those that have no idea what "MacGuffin" means, or alternatively, unlike Žižek, 2129:

different to the current system we already have. So at any given time, we can demand a print edition of Knowledge 1.0. Whereas, the wiki version serves as the playground for boldness, experimentation and to be cutting edge. Once you have made the published stable version, you can forget about it and concentrate on the wiki version. Eventually, it becomes better than the previous stable version, you then supplant it after it has been certified for accuracy. --

3314:. Pretending that Bordwell's criticisms are invalid because someone is unfamiliar with (or doesn't understand!) them does not make them so. Assuming that Bordwell is automatically wrong because he does not need to derive his rejections from from Freud, via Lacan, amounts to nothing more than an academic pissing contest. It is a debating trick, designed to protect Žižek from any criticism based on methods of logical reasoning that Žižek does not ascribe to. 3560:, and Alfred Hitchcock's application of the MacGuffin story as an analogy for a narrative principle. (yes, an explanation of narrative form that is an analogy derived from interpreting another narrative) Lastly, the (entire!?) Horror film genre is mentioned as if the effects of horror films are unitary (how under-grad can one get)... Of course, most of the film references are employed to 'explain' terms, but they are just interpretations open to dispute. 31: 3274:"criticism" sections; and if they must have them, the sections should be constrained to concise descriptions of genuinely notable critics.... i.e. exactly what is done for (nearly) every article on an analytic philosopher. Anyway, some help over at the Zizek article would be great; especially given Ramanpotential's increasing prediliction for more-and-more aggressive personal attacks on me over there (and a little bit up above). 791:, have sections on "X movement in popular culture", where representations of these philosophies in contemporary film, music, and literature are discussed. (Proposal 1): I think these sections are valuable, and actually should be added to more articles. It might even make a worthwhile collaboration of the month to try to get similar sections going on other articles. (Proposal 2): However, judging by the history on both 1653:

depth and quality. I believe this is or will soon become the best Philosophy reference on the net that all people interested in Philosophy will turn to first. On some of the philosophy forums I frequent many people are quite unaware of just how good the WP philosophy portal is. I ran onto the portal quite by chance. What kind of efforts, if any, are being made to get the word out?

378:

What would the purpose of your list be, exactly? That is, who do you want to reach, how do you want to affect/change/improve/influence them, what point do you want to get across, and how should your list be positioned (linked to) within the overall philosophy material? (By the way, I've taken the liberty of sorting and link-activating your list, hope you don't mind).

877:

benefit from sections like these. Philosophy is hard stuff, and if someone can say, "oh, hey, I saw that movie, I remember that scene" and then have everything click, that's fantastic. It may also be worth adding that not having pop-culture sections in articles (if we can find a way to keep it serious) would represent an anti-postmodern POV. -

3429:

let us both try to forget about it. I am waiting for you to explain why the critiques of Žižek are wrong, but given your worship of him, it seems that any criticism of Žižek (or amendment of the Žižek page) is taken as a personal attack on you. After all, you came up with those 'ideas' first, Žižek just managed to publish faster. (Drats!)

3803:

personal appraisal of the identity has shifted slightly from "almost certainly" to "most probably", which is a bit in the direction of skepticism. Obviously, as I've always stated, should such identity pertain, it's not a violation of sockpuppet rules, since these accounts were not used for any voting, nor to evade any block.

1731:

questions about how Knowledge works in general. I think philosophy is in the process of becoming organized as we speak. Anybody can help by doing things like proof-reading (easiest), doing to-do things, contributing to pages they know something about or starting good new pages (most effort--in my opinion, anyway).

1922:. However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2. Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Art packs a lot of punch for being only 3 letters, while Philosophy is on the same level as Science, both of which rank above Mathematics on the hierarchy of fields. But we're almost there! See ya at that discussion! 3428:

That sounds like a weird tangle of jealousy, admiration, potential plagiarism (by Žižek, or you, who can say?), and of course hero-worshiping. Your statement that you wish you had written something that you do not understand is both funny and a terrifying prospect for the future of the Humanities, so

3366:

It is in your own dissertation (pp. 131 - 132), the one that references ten Žižek books, while simultaneously only 'touching' on Žižek (75 touches by my count). I would like to think you could remember it, or maybe it is easily forgotten because it was written by a 3rd (?) rate philosopher? (You said

3177:

What first drew me into Knowledge (for better or for worse!) was: whenever I encountered a philosophical concept I didn't understand, I'd always come to Knowledge and know I could find not only a sharp explanation, but also hours of fascinating tangential reading... From my perspective, you guys must

2705:

In any case, my purpose in commenting here is not to point out this minor inconsistency but rather to raise the following: has any attempt been made to provide terminology guidelines for philosophy articles? Admittedly there is something a little odd about terminology guidelines for articles intended

1772:

Knowledge spreads by word-of-mouth. I suspect that the majority of Wikipedians are college students. If this is so, I'd lay a wager that their professors are well aware of Knowledge. As for scholars, at least the encyclopedia companies and their scholars and writers are hyperaware of Knowledge, as

1736:

If you think you can help best by doing X, go for it. If you're worried about reaction to it, suggest the change on the article's or philosophy project discussion page first, wait a day or 2, and then do it. But whichever way you go, be prepared for criticism, which will hopefully be constructive.

1052:

By all means, include them where they are directly relevant or where they clarify a discussion; relevance and clarity will decide the issue. I certainly do not think that we ought seek out and include such references as a matter of policy, and take the view that to do so would be unjustifiably biased

902:

references to pop culture was POV, too. What fun! The proof will be in the pudding, so go ahead and make the changes, if you wish - but I think that you are opening a can of worms, and one with little gain for us. Far simpler to put references to philosophy in pop culture articles; the fans will love

809:

I enjoy the thought of finding the relations in philosophy to film and literature especially. In fact, even they may seem a bit mainstream, there have been several books on philosophy in the "Matrix", and "Harry Potter" and "Star Wars" etc. "The Matrix" is a classic example of a movie chock full of

736:

We also need to look at the question of which philosophers get more time than others. There is the biography of Anscombe which I just noticed. This is very good. But very long. Why is the article on Geach, her husband ( which I contributed btw) much shorter? They probably deserve about the same.

3644:

I am not here to blame. I propose that you, or someone else, go forth and edit the main Žižek page. You seem to have a rough idea what his major 'points' are. Just take out the stuff that is controversial (i.e. all the interpretations) so that can be left for the criticism page. If that is too hard,

2996:

It's surely true that the alphabetical option would be more orderly, but I think the chronological division would actually have some substantial utility. A person whose major area of emphasis is Ancient Greek philosophy would automatically have a very handy and extensive list of the major and minor

2768:

This isn't just a problem in religion. It's kind of hard to write good articles on basic logical operators without having to re-explain what a statement is every time because I can't just stipulate it. And I can't really find a way around this problem. If you ever find a good way to stipulate, I'd

2701:

While I might try to make the article internally consistent using my own choice of terminology, there is no guarantee that consistency would hold for any of the related articles. I also have no reason to believe that my choices would be likely to reflect any consensus among philosophers on how these

2068:

Yep, you were right, upon rereading it, it did sound a bit authoritative for a WikiProject. And a little misleading. So I gave it a quick once over, changing "requirements" to "guidelines", "duties" to "tasks", "honors" and "recognition" to "award", etc. It reads a bit more casual now. Thanks for

1652:

Hi, I'm a new member of the project and I'd like to compliment the project members and all contributors on the vast quantity of philosophy articles on WP. I'm not aware of any larger single source of philosophy encyclopedia articles on the entire Internet. Many of the articles are already of great

1583:

On another point, I see that Irving Anellis has joined the ranks. He is a noted historian of early 20C logic and mathematics at whose feet we are not worthy &c &c. He has done good work on the Russell article and hopefully more. Welcome, Irving, if you are reading this. Why not help with

1102:

lists almost every philosophy article on Knowledge (and is intended to list them all). It even includes terms that aren't topics yet, and serves as a sort of topic request list as well, so that all one has to do to create a topic for a term missing in Knowledge is click on a red link in this list.

3874:

Actually, skepticism would be not believing something unless you can prove it. If there's anything more I can do to prove that I'm not operating a sock puppet account, then by all means tell me, and I'll do it. I certainly know that there's nothing more you can do to prove that your accusations are

3802:

If or when I come to believe that Ramanpotential, ShowsOn and 58.160.223.124 are "virtual" names of distinct physical human individuals, I will be happy to state that such is my belief. I cannot do so in good faith currently (which means I cannot do so, I never act in bad faith); however, FWIW, my

1710:

I suspect it might be tempting to tell newbs just to read something like the Project's talk page archives and that will tell them what they need to know no doubt. Some newbs, who might have turned out to be very helpful and productive, might be discouraged by such a suggestion. The higher you set

1485:

Looking through the top group (3 mentions) these are mostly what you would intuitively recognise as philosophers of the first rank, though there are exceptions like CS Lewis, who is not a philosopher at all (and not really a very good one at that). Generally there is good coverage in WP of these.

1481:

into a spreadsheet. Someone had the very good idea of tabulating whether the philosophers are in one or all of three separate encyclopedias. Now I am able to rank the 1700 odd philosophers into four groups (listed in all 3, in 2, in 1 or in none). Roughly there are about 300 in top group, 300 in

1452:

needless to say, I hate templates as well as lists, and anything else that means you have to do two or more things whenever you do one thing. Add a philosopher, then find any number of lists and update those &c &c. Can't the system itself be fixed so that, when we add a philosopher we put

1393:

section, that it detracts from readability, and that it is necessarily POV. That external links are included in what is supposed to be an aid to navigating the Wiki shows yet again that the template is too prone to misuse or misguided editing. Kill the whole thing, please - but at the least, delete

377:

I love lists! I've worked on or have tied together most of the philosophy lists. And the term "important" makes your list philosophical indeed. How should we interpret the word "important", and how do we measure the "importance" of any given article (to be sure that it should go on the list)?

110:

There are many long lists everywhere. Has anyone thought of the most important articles that you would want in any philosophy section? My list is below. A similar thing would apply to philosophical biographies. Lots have 'stub' on them even when the philosopher deserves exactly the amount he or

3234:

here has some extremely subjective ideas about what constitutes "notability". I have attempted to enter into a dialogue with him, but he has abjectly refused to go into detail about exactly why the critiques listed on the Zizek page are invalid. Thus far his argument amounts to "these scholars are

2967:

I suppose another way to do it (a way that I recommend against) might be to split it up by tradition, somehow figuring out how to separate Eastern philosophers from Continental philosophers from Analytic philosophers from whatever else there is. This would be sloppy and controversial, but still a

2536:

is pretty awful. Could those interested in this project help to come to its rescue? As the term "philosophy" is notoriously difficult to define, and the activity to explain, and as there are very diffferent and inconsistent views among philosophers of different traditions, the task is a difficult

1814:

The admins kind of police the WP, and are sort of in charge in that respect. Concerning newbs who need help, the WP itself is in charge of that -- the most accessible help available is written down! Currently, help for newbs is on a Knowledge-as-a-whole level, rather than at the subject level.

1791:

might also prove useful (it sure helped me while I was building it). By the way, the Glossary isn't complete, so you may want to try your hand at filling in the missing definitions (they can almost all be found on Knowledge, and can be cut and pasted in). The main article on Philosophy is also a

1659:

I was wondering if there is any one introductory article to Philosophy on the WP (i.e. the Project, Portal, Wikibooks, everything) for newbs like myself. I've already managed to figure out many of the basics, but it would have been a little easier and still could be for other newbs if there was a

1197:

Linking to Wiktionary directly is frowned upon; this is because Wiki links should link only to articles inthe same Wiki, to avoid confusing the reader. While there might be an argument for including a section at the bottom of the article with links to Wiktionary references for weird terms, I think

3013:

list might have much more useful information added to it than birthdate (i.e., institution, area of emphasis, maybe even google hits) that might be useful to someone looking into graduate schools, and trying to figure out whom he or she would like to learn from and study with. (We might even get

1730:

Thanks for the comments. Organization is mostly ad-hoc. Nobody is really in charge (especially not me), but people who make lots of good contributions get more respect. If you DO want to look at a FAQ page, I think the general Knowledge Help (over in the navigation bar) should, well, help with

1604:

In case anyone is wondering, I compiled the list with the references. I did it for personal use long before I put it on wiki; I just thought others could use the same information. Some of these questions are the same questions I asked on the talk page of List of philosophers when I improved it.

3970:

biographical, it is substantially devoted to explaining Zizek's theoretical frameworks. This clearly opens the door for a section alleging flaws in those frameworks. The article wouldn't be NPOV without a section indicating that there is significant criticism of Zizek's work. The only legitimate

3666:

Mostly I've just tried to stop it from getting worse through efforts of misguided POV-mongers. Not sure if I'll get around to any substantial improvement of the article... fighting the brush fires is hard enough, especially the atmosphere of flaming sophomoric "critics" productive work seems to

3273:

The articles on analytic philosophers are much more encyclopedic in focus, of course. Knowledge isn't the right place for original research, and actively engaging in contemporary debates. Professional journals exist for that purpose. An academic biography really isn't an appropriate place for

2956:

is split up (A-C, D-F, or whatever). Another way that might be more useful is something like the following: {List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy, List of philosophers born in the 20th century, List of philosophers born in the 19th century, and so on). Any feedback or other

2747:

You've hit a perennial problem: in matters relating to religion, personal ideas take on the status of absolute truths, and consensus becomes almost impossible to achieve. For example, I've also seen the claim that pantheism is considered to be deism rather than theism — that is, I've seen it on

1768:

There are no organized efforts by the Philosophy Project to get the word out. We pretty much focus our attention inwards upon Knowledge. However, speaking of getting the word out, if the forums you wrote about have links in the reference sections of the relevant articles here, that could lead

3400:

When I first read "three-fourths and half written" I thought of the Gettysburg address, but I must have been freely associating. I am aware that punning, or as you put it, being a "clever writer" who uses "creative word play" counts as well reasoned argument in some university faculties. I am

3378:

Tee hee. I had almost forgotten what a clever writer I was when I got to write philosophy. I'm still pretty good writing about technical topics, but I miss the degree of literary license and creative word play that philosophy allows. Thanks for reminding me of that really nice phrase. I know

3208:

In the past, I've found a similar problem in both the Lacan and Freud articles. A little bit in Adorno too, FWIW. Way too much of biographies of difficult academics get filled up with facile comments by other thinkers whose comments seem to amount to little more than "I don't understand Lacan

1033:

I agree with Banno that it would be better to place philosophical references in the pop-culture articles rather than the other way around, or dedicate a whole article to philosophy in pop-culture. Having pop-culture sections in philosophy articles detracts from the serious subject matter. See

876:

A reference to every science fiction book or film in every philosophy article is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here - what I'd like to see happen is to see more pop culture references that make sense in context, and limit it to that. I do think, however, that many of the articles could well

3340:

Really?! I'm "on record" as saying that? I've written a few essays that touch on Zizek (none exclusively about him, but maybe three or four academic papers in which he's a major source). I don't actually recall that specific comment, but it doesn't sound so terribly different from my style of

2706:

to define terms, but while a particular page may be devoted to detailing all the possible vagaries of a given term, should there not be some definition chosen as a reference point (even if it must be chosen arbitrarily) so that related pages have a chance of reaching some level of consistency?

2460:

I think it might be neat to put one of those boxes at the bottom of the page (like they do with political offices and whatnot with the previous person and the subsequent person) with the prominent teachers and students of the philosophers. Then we'd be able to capture interesting chains like:

1624:

page. I'm not saying that version is very good, but it minimises the reputational damage against WP of what was there this morning. I identified one culprit in the talk page. But does anyone else want to claim responsibility for this act of vandalism? It appears to be a coordinated affair,

1183:

I think this is a good idea, though some terms may not warrant an article. Maybe, in addition to creating articles wherever we can, it would be a good idea to add as many philosophical terms (and philosophical uses of everyday terms) to wikitionary. Of course, the next step there would be to

799:

we need some guidelines for how these sections should work. I'm currently thinking, based on the "no original research" and "cite sources" guidelines, that the requirement should be that someone reputable has written on the particular band, film, book, or whatever (or the author, director, or

3245:

It is interesting that this imperative to present criticisms within academic bios seems to be the sole province of thinkers in a Marxist or psychoanalytic tradition. It probably has to do with some bias in Anglo-American analytic philosophy departments. Just looking at a couple contemporary

2128:

Certified is a guarantee of accuracy by some gang or interest groups on Knowledge. Initially, they are gangs hoping to become teams then a professional league. Stable versions would most importantly be certified and are an endorsement by Knowledge that they are reliable, otherwise they are no

2177:

I voted. Also, I think the task box could be put to good use by having important announcements such as this one highlighted right at the top of it. At the present time, a section called "discuss deletion" is buried in its sourcetext somewhere, and is commented out. Banno's nomination for

1841:

page. It has a list of basic tasks or chores that need to be done to maintain the subject of philosophy on the Knowledge. If you want to start out with something super simple, placing the template {{Philosophy}} at the top of the talk pages for philosophy articles is probably the easiest.

919:

Seth, I would be interested in doing some revamping of Baudrillard articles over my christmas holidays. In particualr I think that article of hyperreal needs some revamping. Also I would like to start an article on Symbolic Exchange. I've got a bunch of differnt ideas if you are interested.

1512:

What do we do with these? Also, there was a discussion a way back on whether philosophy = western philosophy or not. what's the view on this? my view is that philosophy is a well-defined subject that happened to develop in the west. there is no eastern philosophy, except in a sense of

1763:

I'm sorry I didn't answer sooner, I've been somewhat preoccupied with Knowledge as a whole. I may have bitten off more than I can chew. (I'm trying to get a link to the Philosophy Portal put on the Main Page.) But I'm back now, so I'll try to answer your questions point-for-point...

3199:

Basically, a few anonymous editors (and a couple named ones) have written a much-too-long "Critiques" section. This section lists rather impressionistic criticisms by rather unimportant (or maybe of minor importance) thinkers. None of the stuff in the "Critique" section is really

4038:

isn't. Someone needs to edit that article to ensure that readers don't misjudge the amount or prestige of this criticism. As near as I can tell, this guy gets no more criticism than any other continental philosopher of equal repute, and his criticism article should reflect that.

3267:

has a shorter criticism section, in a much longer article than Zizek; but there most of the criticism has to do with popular use/reception of Singer's opinions. The "criticial imperative" by (some) WP editors is definitely slanted towards a very specific type of philosophical

3547:

Yeah that is weird, what would Lacan say about me!? However, I do think the article makes several disputable references to film and film makers. There are references to directors Alfred Hitchcock and David Lynch as if Žižek is an authority on both. Interpretations of parts of

4153:

The user in question has begun making accusative emails to the professors of another user (VisualError). That seems like a serious thing, and falls under the heading of "no personal attacks", a blockworthy offence. This is outlined in the text on the talk page of Plotinus.

3985:

I know nothing about contemporary continental philosophy (nor do I want to know), but my intuitions lean towards supporting Dr. Mertz on this one. The only two (contemporary) philosophers (that I can think of) criticism of whom is notable enough for an entire article are

3209:(Freud/Adorno/Zizek/etc)." For a while there was something in the Lacan article where Chomsky made basically that comment... which is actually fine on Chomsky's part, and was not even a badly phrased comment, but it's hardly of encyclopedic interest when reading about 2793:

article, I've started a project to do so on its Talk page. I'm hoping for discussion, leading to consensus, leading to edits, rather than a bunch of individual unilateral edits (which has been the pattern in the past, and part of the reason for the mess it's in now).

2893:, and trying to deal with the various anons that keep popping up. But, I'm getting sick of it, and I have more interesting things to do. If anyone is interested in trying to mediate this issue, or just get these users banned (my preference), you might review 1660:

FAQ or something like it that gave an overview and answered the most common questions. The WP in general seems quite busy and confusing at first and they seem to direct you in about 20 different directions to find the information you need to get started.

3204:

per se. Some people really did write a few criticisms. But it bumps up against a rather strong "undue weight" problem—both in the number of words in that section as a raw fact, and in the general "who-cares"-ness of the critics and criticisms chosen.

3479:. Lastly, some readers understand that the operation of horror films is a topic open to significant debate in both philosophy and cinema studies, currently the page assumes that Žižek's laughably simplistic interpretation is the only valid explanation. 4111:

Oh, that was more just an expression of frustration than it was a genuine solicitation for help. I think author's intent seems good in this case, he's just really sloppy with words. It's good to know you're keeping an eye on things for us, though.

1592:

If they aren't philosophers, then they don't belong on the List of Philosophers! Though don't religion and religious issues fall under philosophy? Did we ever complete a good definition of philosophy for the philosophy article? Maybe that will

2477:

Yes I think this would be great. My undergraduate advisor claimed that every currently practicing philosopher of science could be traced (via this chain) to the Vienna Circle, Popper, or the Berlin group. I wonder if he's right. --best, kevin

1066:

No doubt - guess it doesn't matter at this point, but what I suggested above wasn't to include such references as a matter of policy, but only where they make sense, and to have policies in place to trim them down when they get out of control.

2537:

one, but it needs to be tackled. At the moment, the article gives the impression of being made up of lots of scraps written independently by various people who have an interested-laity grasp of limited parts of the discipline. Articles like

1636:

There's no need to go insulting everyone. Nobody "coordinated" the "vandalism". You make some good points in your explaination of your revert, but instead of bitching about how crap the article is, why don't you edit it to make it better??

1086:

Would anyone be interested in helping create more definitions for abstract philosophical terms? If so could we maybe start a list under here? I'll start with one for now but I have a bunch written down somewhere that need to have articles!

952:

which says that theses P, Q and R have captured the popular imagination, particularly in works X, Y and Z, and leave a {{seemain|Metaphysical theses in popular culture}} link to the appropriate article expanding on this brief comment. ---

3195:

I reckon a lot of editors here are at least passingly familiar with Zizek. I'm having a bit of a problem over at the Zizek article; minor as such things go, but I think some intervention from some experienced editors here couldn't hurt.

1345:, do not contain external links (and templates in general do not). Futhermore, placement of these external links on the template are redundant with those listed under the external links sections of the respective articles, such as on 3832:

I find your prior comment rather too delightfully charming not to use on my "wish I had said" quotes. However, if you really feel that terrible about what you yourself wrote, I guess I could change the diff link into something like

3379:

you're trying to insult me, but it puts a big smile on my face (though likewise any insults "falling stillborn from the keyboard"; moreover, I offer to send you a million lire if you find enough erudition to recognize the allusion).

3401:

concerned that you are letting it cloud your judgement of what is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article. Apart from that, I found the free associative film interpretations in your dissertation ‘interesting’. I'll have to watch

963:

I agree completely. However, under what guidelines do we keep everyone from adding every movie and book and pop band and whatever they like to the list (and this is exactly what has happened on two articles I've done work on)?

2906: 2278:

Professor Jeff Barrett is allowing graduate student in his graduate level "Epistemology of Science" class to write/rewrite two wikipedia articles in order to receive a grade in his class. The articles will be in the area of

3287:

Nothing in the Critiques section is original research. As for the hysterical "personal attacks" accusations, they constitute far more of an attack than anything I've said about you. Saying it over and over won't make it so.

2811:

Just to put on record that I've given up. Too many inflated egos, and the more inflated the less the corresponding understanding and knowledge. Perhaps this sort of article is just something that Knowledge can't do well.

2516:. But it's pretty ugly (especially if you read the web in an enlarged font, like I do). Is there anybody here who understands wikicode well enough to make it look better before I start putting it in a bunch of articles? 3759:

For as long as you refuse to apologise for and retract your false accusations against me, and for as long as you mock me on your user page, you would not have a leg to stand on even if I HAD personally attacked you. --

3329:

I am aware that you are on record as saying you wish you had written what is in most of Žižek's (english) books, hence I don't consider you qualified to determine what is and what is not legitimate criticism of Žižek's

2002:

Well, might be, but the German article tells more about the human ability to reason and think about "life, universe and everything", or literary translating the meantioned proverb, "talking about god and the world". --

2026:

I find the phrasing of recent edits to this page, together with the structure involved, quite problematic. I have refrained from comment in the hope that some one else would raise the subject, but no one has. Talk of

4060:

is a new user who needs babysitting in philosophy articles. His edits almost invariably contain unsubstantiated and sometimes downright false claims as well as nonstandard English. I have already clashed with him at

2910: 1042:

I agree that this is a potential problem with this sort of section, but I'd like to point out again that considering pop culture treatments of philosophy to be non-serious could represent an anti-postmodernism POV.

1277:

Unfortunately there are too many lists. Why are people writing lists, when they are working on a database, by the way? My proposal was to have one list, of the most important articles, and concentrate on those.

366:

That would depend in part on what a given individual feels is the most important aspect of philosophy. There's no one "list of most important topics". Maybe you're getting at "list of most fundamental topics"?

3305:

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejection of David Bordwell as either a "rather unimportant" or "minor important thinker" condemns his judgement of the entire critique section. Lulu may not be aware, but Bordwell has

718:

I meant important for developing a set of articles that other philosophers will take seriously. As far as I can see, there are no professional philosophers working on the philosophy sections. And it shows.

1769:

readers of Knowledge to those forums, where they are likely to mention their discoveries at WP. If you frequent other Philosophy web-pages, you might want to provide links to the Knowledge philosophy pages.

1418:

The only thing that kept me silent since then, is the disappearance of the template from those article I watch. If someone inserts it there, I'll surely revert - at least while external links are included.

2898: 2931:

could really use more eyes. Another editor and I have come to a disagreement, and rather than have it get out of hand, I would prefer if others would get their fingers into this worthy topic. Thanks. -

826:

want every so-and-so's favorite movie stuck in there. (And I hope I'm not being too authoritarian in expressing my wants as if they were everybody's) What guidelines can we use to help ensure that? -

4095:? Usually users ought to be warned when they have broken a policy before their first block. I would be happy to be of any administrative assistance, but I'd need a little more info. --best, kevin 3341:

writing. I guess it's flattering that someone bothered to read any papers by a third-rate philosopher like myself. FWIW: I'll hereby go on record as also wishing I had written most of what is in

1170:

Hi there! I didn't mean weird as much as I meant abstract relatively new philosophical terms. I will be keen to help out this december... but I wont be able to until about the 16th; exams and such.

1120:. The latter list includes definitions, but is only about half complete. I've been looking for someone to help out with filling it in. Perhaps we can team up and work on each other's projects. 2341:; it's a pretty bad nonsense substub, and it hasn't been touched since its creation in September. Is the phrase "Existential struggle" worthy of an article? Or should we just delete/redirect it? 2178:

adminship, for instance, should be placed announced on the task box. Or we could create a new box for announcements, but the task box is already on many philosophy project members' user pages.

1798:

Your identification of the basic philosophy places on WP is pretty complete, but you missed the lists. There are lots of philosophy lists. Conveniently, almost all of them are listed in the

1103:

And they'll already be represented in the list if somebody creates an article for the listed topic on the fly. Please be sure to add your terms to that list if they are not already there.

3581:

Or for that matter, the fact that Zizek doesn't "read" films in the sense you're referencing (I know what that school of film studies is about, of course, but Zizek doesn't belong to it).

1538:

Delete the lot? What exactly is the point of such a list? What does it do that is not better accommodated in the categories? "I've got them on my list! There's none of 'em be missed!"

114:

Some of the articles have been written (most are not very good). Some have not. That is just my list, heavily biased towards English Analytic School. But what other sort is there?

2979:

I'd go with A-C, D-F, ... etc; relatively uncontroversial. I vote against the living, 20th, 19th century categorization; we already have a list in those particular articles e.g.

3310:

in the field of cinema studies. The fact Slavoj Žižek constantly presents himself as someone who knows something about film makes David Bordwell more than qualified to to

3039:, there are so many "lists of countries by", such as by GDP, by Population, by Area, by Continent by Size, etc. We can have list of philosophers by alphabet and by era. 1773:

Knowledge is rapidly becoming the largest encyclopedia in the world (if it isn't already), and by extension their fiercest competitor. "If you build it, they will come."

2698:

page, that the first sentence above did not cover pantheism. I received an answer stating that pantheism and like ideas were often considered deism rather than theism.

2219:

Hmm. Well, I also edited the article, referencing the disquotational theory. If there's a distinction, you might want to have a look and see if it looks reasonable. --

1918:

The new browsebar from the Philosophy Portal got placed on Knowledge's Main Page (!!!), but some POV'er removed Art and Philosophy from it. He cited the discussion on

97: 3946:

My $ .02: I don't think biographies should have "criticism" sections since the criticisms are not of the article subject. For example, we do not include criticism of

2147:

vote. Only four people voted, none of whom (in my opinion) really had a grasp of what they were doing. I think that we should nominate the category for undeletion. —

2716:, which seems like it could serve the purpose I'm describing. However, it does not appear to be being used as such. For example, the person who answered my query on 1737:

I'm sure other people can help with more specifics about things in philosophy that are getting organized... I tend to just plunge in and learn by making mistakes.

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3353:'s books, I might wish I wrote those too :-). There are lots of philosophers (and other theorists) I have a great admiration for... Zizek is indeed among them. 2952:

has gotten too big to load properly. I would like recommendations on how to split it up into a series of smaller articles. One way I'm considering is the way

3604:

heory) go down. (Oh crap, now I sound like Žižek). I understand how he operates, I think someone should be able to explain his terms using 'basic' principles,

3367:

so yourself...) Specifically, you wrote that Žižek "snatched away three-fourths and half written words" that you "wished to use in my own essays and chapters".

2210:

They are not, on my understanding, quite identical, there being some redundancy theorists who are not distquotationalist... but I think the re-direct is fine.

3009:

a philosopher (and thus a valuable addition to the list), or is he just an academic of philosophy (and thus maybe doesn't belong on the list)?" Furthermore,

1553:

Which Encyclopedias did you use? I can think of at least four you might have used. How do you ensure that foreign langauge names are handled correctly (eg.

1249:

That's fine with me, as long as the title on the list and the references to it on the project page are the same. The title has been changed to "task list".

2626:

Ah, I see. I'd thought that this was a project taken seriously; if it's populated by a bunch of Usenet types, I understand why the article's such a mess. --

1669:

Phil. Wikiproject - is the main place to go if you want to help with Philosophy on the WP, if you just want to look up stuff you should go to the portal.

3018:). I guess basically what I'm saying is that we want to attract academics to wikipedia, and the only way we can really do that is by making it useful. 2258:

is a stub), not just general philo-stubs. I mistakenly tried several times to do {{philo-bio-stub}}, which seems like a good idea to me. How about it? --

1714:

So, in a nutshell, does such a document already exist, if so where is it and should it be moved top, front and center of the Philos. Wikiproject page?

1486:

In the second rank the coverage is much more uneven. In third, there is considerable divergence between the coverage in the encyclopedias, and in WP.

1283:

How should we interpret the word "important", and how do we measure the "importance" of any given article (to be sure that it should go on the list)?

1897:

So, in a nutshell, does such a document already exist, if so where is it and should it be moved top, front and center of the Philos. Wikiproject page?

2086:

I hope that the Philosophy Project participants have an interest that one of their own might have admin powers. You are invited to cast your vote at

800:

whatever has written about it), in the given context, and that that source should be cited, with all others being deleted on sight. Any thoughts? -

1795:

There are Knowledge FAQs, so creating a FAQ about WP's philosophy resources isn't a bad idea! The Knowledge provides many ways to access knowledge.

1461:

In any case, I have a lot of stuff on spreadsheet now, and very easy to dump a textfile that has the right format, if lists and stuff are needed.

356:

Let's start from the premiss that I've seen these lists. There are lots of lists. What is the list of the most important philosophy articles?

4133:

My pleasure, I understand how frustrating these folks can be. Anytime you need anything administrative, please drop me a line. --best, kevin

977:

Each thesis will not usually benefit from more than two or three examples, so insisting on the most notable examples should be easy to do. ---

3002: 2902: 2728: 2091: 2080: 1881: 47: 17: 3471:

In the interest of being constructive, I invite you to re-write most of the Žižek page, the fanboy stuff relies too much on highly disputed

3246:

analytic thinkers of fairly major stature, I notice a complete absence of "Critique" sections. For example, take a look at the articles on

4017: 3917: 3769: 3697: 3062:. It meets the minimum standards for attractiveness to put in articles. Hopefully, someone can make it look pretty. Here's Quine's box: 3998:

doesn't meet any "criticism of me is itself notable" criteria. His article should include 2-3 normal-sized sentences of criticism, max.

2043:

are, it seems to me, profoundly against the spirit of the Wiki. Am I alone in thinking that the tone of this page has become too strong?

1887:

Is there a single simple, concise document that tells people all the basics they need to know to begin helping on philosophy on Knowledge

2265: 839:

I would object to having such sections in articles. It would be far preferable to have philosophy sections in the pop culture articles.

1878:

Should I turn to the general forums for help or is there one primary forum that I can ask questions specific to the Philosophy project?

1780: 1349:. I don't see any good reason why external links should be on this template, and would like the opinion of other Wikiproject members.— 1113: 339: 335: 1706:

Should I turn to the general forums for help or is there one primary forum that I can ask questions specific to the Philos. project?

1678:

The main Philosophy WP article - appears to be the primary starting point article that all other philosophy articles branch off of.

111:

she has been given. There should also be the opposite: a sign to show when inordinate amounts have been devoted to non-entities.

2846:) and now there seems to be some disagreement about what the hell to do with it, so I thought I'd ask some philosophers. Thanks. – 695:

are relevant to philosophy (especially if we have agnosticism and atheism - of which theism should be classified with). Also, if

3254:(neither of whom lack critics, of course). Let alone more "traditional" thinkers like Kant, Hume, Hegel, J.S. Mill, or the like. 1890: 1838: 117: 1779:

Well that depends on what you already know, and what you want to learn. Therefore perhaps the best place to start would be the

3015: 1663:

For example, here are some of the basic Philosophy places on WP I've discovered that would probably help a newb to know about:

747:

Since you contributed the article on Geach, my guess as to why that article is shorter, is that you didn't write as much :-) --

2490:

Definantly. I've seen them before, but mostly in fictional articles. Very handy. I think we should tap the well, so to speak.

3511:

Wow, the old "you can't criticise Žižek because you don't understand Žižek" argument, that arrived a bit later than expected.

2913:

for some history regarding this site's relationship with Knowledge. I'd appreciate any help anyone has to offer. Thanks. -

2727:

Maybe the best answer to my question is the fact that some of the more useful information I've found is in a section called '

2713: 2431:

way of determining whether there are limits beyond which human knowledge cannot go? Please respond to adster69@hotmail.com

1788: 692: 1489:

Finally the last group: those not mentioned in the encyclopedias at all, except WP. These fall into the following classes:

2381:

Sorry I didn't have time to look through all the old discussions, but I would just like to make everyone involved aware of

1852:

Placing the template {{Philosophy portal}} (which is a link box that leads to the philosophy portal) in philosophy articles

1012:

You're probably right. I'd still like to think, though, that there's a way to do it while avoiding the likely problems. -

3975:

has failed to demonstrate either that the criticisms are illegitimate or that the critics cited are not "notable" enough.

3972: 3838: 3731: 3668: 3600:

explain concepts that he is unable to clearly define in words. The film is the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine (

3455: 3380: 3354: 3323: 3275: 3231: 3217: 2509: 3140:. I don't know the details or the specifics, but someone who does, could they please do something about it? Thanks :) -- 2881:

Hey all, a bunch of trolls associated with www.anus.com insist on adding a link to their site in the See also section of

1415:. And my even more fundamental disagreement with putting external links in navigation templates I stated a long time ago. 2953: 1784: 1099: 2674:

Even the broadest definitions of atheism often do not include belief in a conceptual or metaphysical God, categorizing

2255: 723: 2144: 1919: 3908:

As for the quote, that's not good enough either. It was and remains a personal attack, whether attributed or not. --

2724:

seems to be a fairly active Wikipedian with a decent background in philosophy (though not a member of this project).

1825:

has been nominated for adminship, and should be an admin within a few days. He will definitely have his hands full.

1453:

one or more tags on (date of birth, date of flourish and date of death if applicable, plus any other bits and pieces?

1057:

post modern ideas, since pop cultural treatments of philosophical ideas on occasion simplify and trivialise them ;-)

948:

in the metaphysics article would be inappropriate, but using summary style would not be: one could have a section on

2104: 1259:

Similarly, I would have thought Wikiproject Philosophy was a proper name, but philosophy Wikiproject a description.

149: 2197: 1856: 1383: 1311: 1117: 934:

myself! I just didn't feel quite qualified to do it. I'd be glad to throw in what I can here and there though. -

856: 757: 696: 649: 38: 664: 3730:

else to do on WP other than such attacks. If not, maybe your time could be better spent in some other activity.

2709:

Is there some method used by the Knowledge community for achieving this kind of consistency that I'm unaware of?

1799: 4013: 3913: 3765: 3693: 3688:

Still with the unearned condescention at every turn, I see. It really doesn't help your case in the least. --

1236: 859:

might save us from a reference to every science fiction book or film ever written in every philosophy article

2200:, which looks the same to me. But if I've missed some subtlety (I'm not a philosopher) please let me know. -- 1522:

I say cut out 1,3,4,5. 4 and 5 unless the person is a philosopher too (which most 4 and some 5 in fact are).

4158: 4136: 4116: 4098: 4082: 4072: 4043: 4021: 4002: 3979: 3960: 3921: 3841: 3773: 3734: 3701: 3671: 3649: 3612: 3564: 3515: 3483: 3458: 3433: 3413: 3383: 3357: 3334: 3318: 3292: 3278: 3239: 3220: 3182: 3167: 3149: 3119: 3106: 3043: 3022: 2987: 2980: 2972: 2961: 2935: 2917: 2871: 2850: 2823: 2805: 2773: 2759: 2741: 2637: 2618: 2599: 2584: 2572: 2520: 2496: 2481: 2471: 2450: 2414: 2401: 2389: 2368: 2359: 2345: 2321: 2304: 2294: 2268: 2262: 2232: 2223: 2214: 2204: 2182: 2171: 2154: 2133: 2123: 2114: 2098: 2073: 2063: 2013: 1997: 1983: 1955: 1926: 1908: 1752: 1741: 1724: 1641: 1629: 1609: 1598: 1565: 1542: 1517: 1465: 1441: 1424: 1398: 1372: 1358: 1297: 1263: 1253: 1243: 1225: 1202: 1192: 1174: 1164: 1155: 1137: 1124: 1107: 1071: 1061: 1047: 1016: 1007: 998: 981: 968: 957: 938: 924: 907: 881: 863: 830: 804: 764: 751: 741: 707: 673: 400: 391: 382: 371: 360: 349: 328: 259: 2712:

I'm still trying to figure out if I'm even asking the right question. After writing the above, I found the

2446:'s opposition to Meta-Narratives. (sorry if opposition wasn't the right word here, but yeah...) Thanks!-- 3081: 1990: 1434: 737:

This is not a complaint, just an observation that what we call a "stub" is an entirely relative concept.

581: 555: 525: 475: 254: 209: 2427:

Hello there, Would love to hear back from anyone who has a comment or theory on whether or not there is

2284: 2280: 3875:

correct (simply because they are not), so an apology and retraction from you is quite clearly in order.

3006: 2300:

This is an excellent use of the Knowledge, and I'm sure the contributions will be most welcome. Great!

1098:

Ooh, another list!!! I love lists! Are you familiar with the philosophical lists? The comprehensive

3947: 3137: 3133: 3112: 2949: 2942: 2890: 2817: 2799: 2789:

If there's anyone here who'd like to take part in an attempt to develop a concensus on improving the

2753: 2631: 2566: 2334: 2327: 1574: 1478: 1471: 234: 3629:

I don't think the current Zizek article is all that great; I didn't write much anything in it, FWIW.

2867:

of philosophy. If anybody knows anything on the topic, or simply has comments, please contribute. --

510: 204: 4113: 4079: 4040: 4009: 3999: 3994:, yet only one of these has such an article. Slavoj Whoever meets the notability criteria, but he 3976: 3958: 3909: 3761: 3689: 3289: 3236: 3164: 3145: 3116: 3103: 3019: 2969: 2958: 2770: 2596: 2517: 2468: 2288: 2048: 1626: 1606: 1514: 1462: 1294: 931: 738: 720: 470: 409: 357: 343: 325: 1700:

I think I can best help by doing X, is that ok or should I really be working the task/todo lists?

1133:

article. Join in on revamping it, and you'll get to know the other members of this WikiProject.

405:

Here's my list of the philosophical terms I've found so far to be the most important/interesting:

4078:

You're absolutely right. Can somebody put a 24-hour block on him so we can clean up his messes?

4069: 4008:

Can you direct me toward Knowledge's policy on "criticism of me is itself notable" criteria? --

2843: 2259: 2168: 2151: 1866:

I think I can best help by doing X, is that ok or should I really be working the task/todo lists?

1368:

page, and not on the navigation template. (The rest of the template looks pretty good though.)

1339: 1146: 639: 540: 422: 264: 169: 1171: 921: 903:

it, thinking it gives their stuff more credibility, and we may attract new editors in that way.

3608:. If someone interprets the films differently, does that change the meaning of Žižek's terms?. 3450:

to folks whose books I wish I had written. Do the youth today still read her rather delighful

2395:

I've actually used this resource myself on an occasion or two, and have found it very helpful.

3532:

It's pretty weird to fail to notice the majority of the current article that isn't about film.

3059: 3036: 2513: 2406:

Just in case you're googling for it some day, note that it uses the American English spelling

2193: 1862:

Another easy task would be proofreading philosophy articles for grammatical errors and typos.

1350: 1329: 1221:

stuff to a sub-page since it is reference material rather than stuff we need to access daily.

3040: 2984: 2914: 2505: 2317:

The section on Gettier has been promoted. Does this decrease readability? Comments welcome.

2095: 2009: 1979: 1948: 1940: 1482:

second, 700 in third and about 500 who are not mentioned in any of the three encyclopedias.

1437:

or one that exists already (I don't know if there is one) and link to it from the template?

1364:

I agree. The external links go to good sites, but I think these links should be put on the

1189: 1068: 1044: 1013: 995: 965: 935: 878: 827: 801: 704: 566: 450: 427: 418: 368: 3496:

Certainly this indicates that you are probably not a good candidate to work on the article.

2467:

Anyone else think this might be a clever and/or interesting addition to this encyclopedia?

994:

Maybe, but how might we define 'notable'? The most google hits seems arbitrary to me... -

4092: 4057: 3991: 3346: 3160: 3129: 3086: 2868: 2813: 2795: 2782: 2749: 2627: 2562: 2352: 2179: 2120: 2070: 1923: 1905: 1749: 1595: 1318: 1250: 1161: 1152: 1134: 1121: 1104: 1035: 811: 670: 550: 397: 388: 379: 314: 3322:("first edit": by editor apparently intimately familiar with both me and with Knowledge) 2983:. I'm also against the split by tradition as reason given. (sloppy and controversial). 1389:

is at best superfluous if the article involved is properly categorised and has a decent

4035: 3955: 3951: 3350: 3342: 3260: 3141: 3094: 2835: 2411: 2356: 2338: 2220: 2201: 1966: 1721: 1638: 1523: 1438: 1322: 796: 788: 748: 560: 495: 455: 445: 289: 269: 224: 184: 159: 154: 3311: 1656:

Is there or should there be any effort to recruit the help of academics and scholars?

1411:. It's a miracle, that the navigation survived two TfDs, as both ended effectively in 1198:

that it would be preferable to just make new articles for each. Stubs are underrated.

1184:

actually link to wikitionary whenever those terms occur, which would be a big task (I

4155: 4066: 4062: 3251: 2894: 2885:. I've been dealing with it for a couple months now, deleting the links, talking to 2864: 2447: 2386: 2365: 2342: 2165: 2148: 2087: 1970: 1354: 654: 219: 144: 139: 1675:

Phil. categories - is basically a quick index of philosophy areas, subjects, topics

3987: 3723: 3646: 3609: 3561: 3512: 3480: 3447: 3430: 3410: 3331: 3315: 3264: 3188: 3179: 2847: 2721: 2717: 2695: 2691: 2613: 2579: 2491: 2396: 2311: 1944: 1421: 612: 500: 485: 441: 239: 214: 3645:

or impossible, then I guess that is Žižek's problem, or should that be 'symptom'?

3263:, who is somewhat controversial, but lacks a "criticism" section in his article. 2901:

to get up to speed on what the dialogue looks like (warning: It isn't pretty) and

1274:

I love lists! I've worked on or have tied together most of the philosophy lists.

3178:

be doing something right. I think WP's philosophy articles are among its best. --

1682:

These are some questions I think most newbs that want to hang around might have:

4031: 3090: 2932: 2886: 2738: 2720:

did not refer to the glossary and provided an answer inconsistent with it – and

2546: 2130: 2111: 2004: 1974: 1952: 1738: 1666:

Phil. Portal - is the main entry point for Philosophy overview, searching, etc.

1562: 1513:'philosophy' that does not apply to the philosophy we are talking about here. 1369: 978: 954: 844: 607: 602: 545: 520: 460: 414: 274: 244: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2385:. I apologise if this has already been brought to the attention of everyone... 2161: 822:

want to be able to have sections like these in lots of philosophy articles. I

3247: 2790: 2538: 2533: 2526: 2318: 2301: 2229: 2211: 2060: 2044: 1994: 1936: 1822: 1672:

Phil. Wikiproject Talk pages - seems to act as the main forum for the project

1621: 1539: 1408: 1395: 1365: 1346: 1260: 1240: 1222: 1199: 1130: 1058: 1004: 904: 860: 852: 761: 634: 626: 617: 597: 587: 505: 480: 346: 299: 294: 249: 164: 2928: 2839: 1893:

page. You could help us make it simpler by critiquing it on its talk page.

1558: 644: 630: 622: 592: 576: 530: 465: 309: 279: 199: 194: 179: 134: 129: 3259:

Additional data points (and people roughly the same age as Zizek) might be

2907:

Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society

1188:

wish there was a way to use mouseovers to show wikitionary definitions). -

4056:

This is probably not the correct place to put this request, but oh well.

2882: 2554: 2439: 1554: 792: 784: 700: 680: 571: 515: 432: 229: 189: 124: 2666: 2652: 2648: 2609: 2558: 2550: 2542: 2443: 2251: 2055:

standards - although we can make recommendations. The project does not

437: 284: 174: 3307: 2997:

figures (and an occasional Eastern ancient that can be easily ignored

1717:

These are just questions and suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

2911:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society

2464:...Cassirer taught Reichenbach who taught Putnam who taught Field... 2435: 1282:

And the term "important" makes your list philosophical indeed. : -->

1239:", shouldn't we standardise on "Task List" rather than "to do list"? 930:

Yes! I thought about starting symbolic exchange and adding a bit in

684: 659: 490: 2734:

Anyway, I don't mean to complain. Just file me under confused newb.

1868:

Both. Do what you enjoy, but help out with what needs to done too.

1697:

What are some easy things that almost anyone can do to get started?

1620:

I have removed most of the rubbish created since 12 December on the

1286:

Important to the development of a successful internet encyclopedia.

3405:

again and get back to you, after all, I can use the term 'feminine

1846:

What are some easy things that almost anyone can do to get started?

1748:

Thanks for the questions. My response is under the next heading.

2842:

article, because what was there before was all about physics (see

2592: 2250:

A lot of our stubs are biographical stubs (for instance, earlier,

1943:. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to 1585: 688: 535: 319: 1703:

Is there a Philosophy help desk or where can I turn to for help?

1433:

Alright, move those external links to a separate article, maybe

304: 2899:

Knowledge:Requests for mediation/User:Seth Mahoney and Nihilism

396:

What should the main missions/objectives of a philosopher be?

2110:

would you like to create certified articles in philosophy? --

1902:

I hope I've been of help. Where do you want to go from here?

25: 3596:

He uses films as free associated metaphors (or analogies) to

2660:

Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists.

2382: 2364:

Done! Future readers, feel free to revert me if appropriate.

1872:

Is there a Philosophy help desk where can I turn to for help?

1848:

Some other easy things (listed on the project page) include:

1293:

To ensure that Knowledge is taken seriously by philosophers.

1920:

Template talk:MainPageIntro#portal:art and portal:philosophy

4091:

Has she broken any wikipedia policies that would warrent a

1691:

Is anyone paid or employed to work on the Philos. project?

1496:

Scholars who were not philosophers pur sang (e.g. Scaliger)

703:

more broadly construed is relevant. Just my two cents! --

3606:

instead of using film interpretations as if they are facts

2143:

The Category:Contemporary philosophers was deleted due to

1829:

Is anyone paid or employed to work on the Philos. project?

1547:

Generally I agree, as you know. But this list was useful.

1129:

Be sure to check out this month's collaboration, the main

679:

This is probably out of bias, but I would also think that

1688:

Who are the philosophy administrators, if there are any?

1493:

Charlatans and self-promoters who have put themselves in.

3035:

If you think it's necessary then by all means. Look at

1812:

Is any one person or group(s) in charge, and if so, who?

3003:

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

1792:

very good place to start, as is the Philosophy Portal.

2595:. I want a sloop. (I'll try to look at that soon.) 387:

In your opinion, what is the purpose of philosophy?

3349:'s books. If I could understand anything in any of 3111:

P.S. I'd still like some feedback on that splitting

3005:

will allow us to avoid making judgement calls: "Is

2731:' hidden in the middle of a long discussion page... 3132:has a backlog of two "things to do". Specifically, 1787:. From those you can decide where to go next. The 1003:A recipe for endless edit wars, says this old vet. 1499:Journalists and hacks who wrote popular philosophy 1407:Nobody will be surprised, that I fully agree with 1290:What would the purpose of your list be, exactly? 2105:Knowledge talk:Stable versions#Certification gang 1969:? In german language it's already existing, see 4065:, so I'm not a good candidate for diplomacy. — 2139:Deletion of Category: Contemporary philosophers 1142:So, you like weird terms? Here's one for you: 4034:is satisfied by this article. But, probably, 1685:Is any one person or group(s) in charge, who? 760:that would seek to remedy these difficulties. 2651:article, I noticed an inconsistency. In the ' 1807:Questions newbs might have, and their answers 8: 3454:? Or just echo third generation knock offs? 2690:When I was initially reading the article, I 2164:the category for undeletion. Please vote! — 1505:Mystics and spiritual leaders, and deities. 1160:By the way, what did you mean by "weird"? 118:List of most important philosophical topics 3134:Talk:Problem_of_evil#Some_extra_content.3F 2687:refers to pantheism and related concepts. 3971:question here is one of weighting, since 3138:Talk:Problem_of_evil#.22Moral_argument.22 2022:Proofreading and editing the project page 1874:The talk page of the philosophy project. 1082:A Dictionary of weird Philosophical Terms 855:. At the least, setting up an article on 3064: 3966:Ah, but the article in question is not 2834:Can somebody please have a look at the 2512:was nice enough to make me a template: 1899:It is the Philosophy Wikiproject page. 1777:Where is the best place to get started? 898:I think I could mount an argument that 783:Many philosophy articles, particularly 4030:You're right, of course. Ultimately, 2863:Hi, I have just started an article on 1819:Who are the philosophy administrators? 950:Metaphysical theses in popular culture 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2903:Knowledge:Votes_for_deletion/Anus.com 2557:of an encyclopædia, but this one's a 2047:08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) See also 1648:Project FAQ or overview/introduction? 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 7: 2377:Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2069:proofreading, it really needed it! 1616:Who is responsible for this project? 1573:This information was already in the 1531:whoops I forgot to add class 6! dean 1303:Template:Philosophy navigation issue 3159:Please go vote against deletion on 1379:My view, stated elsewhere, is that 3477:understand it is an ambiguous term 3001:). Furthermore, the benefit of a 2957:recommendations would be helpful. 2655:' section, there is the sentence: 1781:List of basic philosophical topics 1317:have been dominated by two users, 1307:Additions and subtractions to the 1114:List of basic philosophical topics 779:Philosophy in pop culture sections 340:List of basic philosophical topics 336:List of philosophical topics (A-C) 24: 1989:Would our equivalent be the stub 818:Right! Now here's the trick. I 3037:List_of_countries#Other_listings 2434:Could someone explain to me how 2254:could have been a bio stub, and 1891:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 1882:WikiProject Philosophy talk page 1839:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 29: 3312:engage Žižek in academic debate 3016:Knowledge:WikiProject Academics 2423:asking a question here directly 1091:Symbolic Exchange (Baudrillard) 2714:Glossary of philosophical isms 1914:We made it to the Main Page!!! 1789:Glossary of philosophical isms 1235:Since the template is called " 563:(the philosophy of philosophy) 150:Continuum Problem (philosophy) 1: 3023:20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 2988:20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 2973:19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 2962:19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 2936:07:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 2918:21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2872:15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2851:01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2806:23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2774:02:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 2760:09:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2742:07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2638:09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2619:08:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 2600:17:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 2585:05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 2573:10:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 2521:15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 2119:Please define "certified" -- 1956:08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 1927:08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1821:I don't know of any. Though 1742:04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1725:02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1642:22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1630:21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 1566:20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1543:20:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1518:20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1466:20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1442:16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1425:08:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1399:06:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1373:04:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1359:02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1298:21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 1264:01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 1254:22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1244:21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 1072:20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 857:philosophy in popular culture 724:14:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 693:arguments for God's existence 2954:List of philosophical topics 2667:Belief in God as a non-being 2497:05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 2482:04:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 2472:03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 2451:16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 2415:04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2402:04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2390:14:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 2369:21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 2360:20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 2346:20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 2322:22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2305:00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 2295:00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 2283:somewhere, likely in either 2014:20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1785:List of philosophical topics 1610:03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 1226:19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1203:20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1193:17:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1175:14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1165:22:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1156:22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1138:21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1125:21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1108:21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1100:List of philosophical topics 1062:19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1048:18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1017:18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1008:07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 999:01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 982:00:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 969:00:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 958:00:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 939:17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 925:07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 908:05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 882:00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 864:20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 831:17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 810:philosophical references. - 805:19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 765:20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 752:22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 742:20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 708:01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 674:22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 401:22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 392:22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 383:22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 372:22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 361:20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 350:20:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 329:17:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 3216:Please help! All the best, 2643:Terminology and consistency 2269:06:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2233:01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2224:00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2215:23:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2205:22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2192:I've added a redirect from 2183:11:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2172:16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2155:15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2134:01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 2124:22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2115:03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2099:02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2074:22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 2064:08:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 1998:03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 1984:19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 1965:What about an article like 1909:11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 1831:No. It's a labor of love. 1800:List of Philosophical Lists 1759:A make-shift philosophy FAQ 1753:11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 1599:22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 4179: 4073:18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 4044:19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 4022:08:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 4003:00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 3980:11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3961:09:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3922:02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 3842:20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3774:15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3735:09:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3702:08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3672:07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3650:10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3613:10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3565:10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3516:10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3484:06:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3459:07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3434:10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3414:10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3384:07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3358:02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3335:01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 3319:12:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3293:09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3279:08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3240:08:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3221:07:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3191:article getting unbalanced 3183:05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 2198:Redundancy theory of truth 1939:is currently nominated on 1857:List of philosophical isms 1855:Adding definitions to the 1118:List of philosophical isms 944:An extended discussion of 697:Theological noncognitivism 650:Theological noncognitivism 4159:03:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 4137:02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 4117:02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 4099:21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 4083:17:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 3942:Opinions from the project 3446:If you like, you can add 3168:18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 3150:16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 3120:05:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 3107:05:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 3075: 3072: 3067: 3044:05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 2999:if the scholar so desires 2824:15:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 2702:terms should be defined. 1584:the collaboration on the 1038:for and example of this. 3973:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3839:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3732:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3669:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3456:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3381:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3355:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3324:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3276:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3232:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 3218:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2968:possibility, I suppose. 2274:UC, Irvine class project 1694:How do I begin helping? 1237:Template:PhilosophyTasks 851:might be appropriate in 713: 338:and related pages; also 3226:Notability of criticism 3102:Hope you guys like it. 2981:19th century philosophy 2653:Weak and strong atheism 2383:this fantastic resource 2256:Abu Ya‘qub al-Sijistani 2246:Stub suggestion/request 1835:How do I begin helping? 814:17:39, 6 December 2005 342:; But the main list is 260:Perception (philosophy) 106:Most important articles 3556:, an analogy between 3452:Against Interpretation 3082:Alfred North Whitehead 2927:Recent major edits of 2553:, etc., should be the 2059:the philosophy pages! 1991:Philosophical analysis 1625:organised on this page 756:See my proposal for a 714:meaning of 'important' 582:Objectivist philosophy 556:Mechanism (philosophy) 526:Induction (philosophy) 3722:Please stop with the 2678:under theism instead. 2285:Philosophy of physics 2281:Philosophy of Science 1947:, please vote for it 42:of past discussions. 3948:evolutionary biology 3345:'s books too; or in 3113:List of philosophers 3058:Here's this thing: 2950:List of philosophers 2943:List of philosophers 2335:Existential struggle 2328:Existential struggle 1575:List of philosophers 1479:List of philosophers 1472:List of philosophers 1435:Philosophy resources 1394:the external links. 843:has no place in the 235:Logical behaviourism 3835:(identity redacted) 3403:Thelma & Louise 3308:written extensively 3068:Academic Genealogy 2289:Formal epistemology 2049:Template:Philosophy 1508:Actual philosophers 932:commodity fetishism 699:is important, then 476:Emergent philosophy 471:Deductive reasoning 410:Abductive reasoning 344:category:philosophy 255:Object (Philosophy) 210:Identity (relation) 3950:in the article on 3726:. Don't you have 2844:physical cosmology 2838:page? I wrote the 2669:' section states: 2647:In looking at the 2442:is different from 1269:Important Articles 1147:Singularitarianism 640:Singularitarianism 541:Logical positivism 423:Strong agnosticism 265:Philosophy of Mind 170:English Philosophy 3301:Special pleadings 3100: 3099: 3076:Notable students 3073:Notable teachers 3060:Template:Academia 3054:Academia Template 3007:Anthony Brueckner 2769:love to hear it. 2438:'s opposition to 2194:Disquotationalism 2188:Disquotationalism 2012: 1982: 1971:de:Philosophieren 1945:featured standard 1932:Improvement drive 1561:in another)? --- 1384:Philosophy topics 1312:Philosophy topics 1112:There's also the 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4170: 3230:I'm afraid that 3148: 3065: 2820: 2802: 2756: 2634: 2616: 2582: 2569: 2494: 2456:Who taught whom? 2399: 2228:Looks OK to me. 2094:'s candidacy. -- 2079:Publicity for an 2008: 1978: 1557:in one might be 1388: 1382: 1344: 1338: 1334: 1328: 1316: 1310: 1273:Go for it! : --> 567:Moral relativism 451:Consequentialism 428:Agnostic atheism 419:Weak agnosticism 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4058:User:LoveMonkey 4054: 3992:Jacques Derrida 3944: 3550:The Truman Show 3473:interpretations 3347:Michel Foucault 3303: 3228: 3193: 3175: 3161:Paul Boghossian 3157: 3144: 3130:Problem of evil 3127: 3125:Problem of evil 3087:Donald Davidson 3056: 3014:some help from 2946: 2925: 2891:User:Iconoclast 2879: 2877:Nihilism issues 2861: 2832: 2818: 2800: 2787: 2783:Talk:Philosophy 2754: 2645: 2632: 2614: 2591:I think it's a 2580: 2567: 2532:The article on 2530: 2492: 2458: 2425: 2397: 2379: 2353:meaning of life 2331: 2315: 2276: 2248: 2190: 2141: 2108: 2084: 2024: 1963: 1961:Missing article 1934: 1916: 1809: 1761: 1650: 1618: 1588:article. DEan 1563:Charles Stewart 1475: 1386: 1380: 1342: 1336: 1332: 1326: 1314: 1308: 1305: 1271: 1233: 1231:To do or tasks? 1217:I've moved the 1215: 1084: 1036:meaning of life 979:Charles Stewart 955:Charles Stewart 781: 734: 716: 551:Meaning of life 315:Theory of Ideas 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4176: 4174: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4086: 4085: 4053: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4025: 4024: 4010:Ramanpotential 3983: 3982: 3977:Ramanpotential 3952:Charles Darwin 3943: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3910:Ramanpotential 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3837:in the quote. 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3762:Ramanpotential 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3690:Ramanpotential 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3554:The Full Monty 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3361: 3360: 3351:Theodor Adorno 3343:W. V. O. Quine 3302: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3290:Ramanpotential 3282: 3281: 3270: 3269: 3261:Daniel Dennett 3256: 3255: 3237:Ramanpotential 3227: 3224: 3192: 3186: 3174: 3171: 3156: 3153: 3126: 3123: 3098: 3097: 3095:Daniel Dennett 3093: 3089: 3084: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3055: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 2991: 2990: 2976: 2975: 2945: 2939: 2924: 2921: 2878: 2875: 2860: 2857: 2855: 2836:Talk:Cosmology 2831: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2786: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2763: 2762: 2681: 2680: 2665:However, the ' 2663: 2662: 2644: 2641: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2612:ship I think. 2603: 2602: 2588: 2587: 2529: 2524: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2485: 2484: 2457: 2454: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2339:Special:Random 2330: 2325: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2275: 2272: 2247: 2244: 2242: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2189: 2186: 2175: 2174: 2140: 2137: 2107: 2102: 2083: 2077: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 1967:Philosophizing 1962: 1959: 1933: 1930: 1915: 1912: 1860: 1859: 1853: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1796: 1793: 1774: 1770: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1745: 1744: 1733: 1732: 1709: 1681: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1494: 1474: 1469: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1445: 1444: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1419: 1416: 1402: 1401: 1376: 1375: 1304: 1301: 1270: 1267: 1257: 1256: 1232: 1229: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1178: 1177: 1150: 1149: 1093: 1092: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 987: 986: 985: 984: 972: 971: 942: 941: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 869: 868: 867: 866: 834: 833: 797:existentialism 789:existentialism 780: 777: 775: 772: 770: 769: 768: 767: 733: 730: 728: 715: 712: 711: 710: 691:, or at least 668: 667: 662: 657: 652: 647: 642: 637: 620: 615: 610: 605: 600: 595: 590: 585: 579: 574: 569: 564: 561:Metaphilosophy 558: 553: 548: 543: 538: 533: 528: 523: 518: 513: 511:Homo Excelsior 508: 503: 498: 496:Existentialism 493: 488: 483: 478: 473: 468: 463: 458: 456:Constructivism 453: 448: 446:Strong atheism 435: 430: 425: 412: 375: 374: 355: 353: 352: 323: 322: 317: 312: 307: 302: 297: 292: 290:Representation 287: 282: 277: 272: 270:Predestination 267: 262: 257: 252: 247: 242: 237: 232: 227: 225:Intentionality 222: 217: 212: 207: 205:Ideal Language 202: 197: 192: 187: 185:Existentialism 182: 177: 172: 167: 162: 160:Direct realism 157: 155:Demonstratives 152: 147: 142: 137: 132: 127: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4175: 4160: 4157: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4138: 4135: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4118: 4115: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4100: 4097: 4094: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4084: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4071: 4068: 4064: 4063:Talk:Plotinus 4059: 4051: 4045: 4042: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3981: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3959: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3941: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3843: 3840: 3836: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3736: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3673: 3670: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3651: 3648: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3566: 3563: 3559: 3558:Objet Petit a 3555: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3517: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3485: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3460: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3435: 3432: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3415: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3385: 3382: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3333: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3320: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3300: 3294: 3291: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3280: 3277: 3272: 3271: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3253: 3252:Robert Nozick 3249: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3233: 3225: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3214: 3212: 3206: 3203: 3197: 3190: 3187: 3185: 3184: 3181: 3172: 3170: 3169: 3166: 3162: 3154: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3124: 3122: 3121: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3108: 3105: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3079: 3071: 3066: 3063: 3061: 3053: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3024: 3021: 3017: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2960: 2955: 2951: 2944: 2940: 2938: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2922: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2895:Talk:Nihilism 2892: 2888: 2884: 2876: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2865:Praxis school 2859:Praxis School 2858: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2815: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2803: 2797: 2792: 2784: 2781: 2775: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2761: 2757: 2751: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2740: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2729:Makeshift FAQ 2725: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2688: 2686: 2679: 2677: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2668: 2661: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2654: 2650: 2642: 2640: 2639: 2635: 2629: 2620: 2617: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2535: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2522: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2498: 2495: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2470: 2465: 2462: 2455: 2453: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2430: 2422: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2400: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2376: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2329: 2326: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2313: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2273: 2271: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2245: 2243: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2222: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2187: 2185: 2184: 2181: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2146: 2138: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2106: 2103: 2101: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2082: 2078: 2076: 2075: 2072: 2066: 2065: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2021: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1960: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1931: 1929: 1928: 1925: 1921: 1913: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1898: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1873: 1869: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1847: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1830: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1806: 1801: 1797: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1735: 1734: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1718: 1715: 1712: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1647: 1643: 1640: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1631: 1628: 1623: 1615: 1611: 1608: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1594: 1589: 1587: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1477:I downloaded 1473: 1470: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1400: 1397: 1392: 1385: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1341: 1331: 1324: 1320: 1313: 1302: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1268: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1230: 1228: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1212: 1204: 1201: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1158: 1157: 1154: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1081: 1073: 1070: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1032: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 983: 980: 976: 975: 974: 973: 970: 967: 962: 961: 960: 959: 956: 951: 947: 940: 937: 933: 929: 928: 927: 926: 923: 909: 906: 901: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 883: 880: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 865: 862: 858: 854: 850: 847:article, but 846: 842: 838: 837: 836: 835: 832: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 815: 813: 807: 806: 803: 798: 794: 790: 786: 778: 776: 773: 766: 763: 759: 758:collaboration 755: 754: 753: 750: 746: 745: 744: 743: 740: 731: 729: 726: 725: 722: 709: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 677: 676: 675: 672: 666: 663: 661: 658: 656: 655:Transhumanism 653: 651: 648: 646: 643: 641: 638: 636: 632: 628: 624: 621: 619: 616: 614: 611: 609: 606: 604: 601: 599: 596: 594: 591: 589: 586: 583: 580: 578: 575: 573: 570: 568: 565: 562: 559: 557: 554: 552: 549: 547: 544: 542: 539: 537: 534: 532: 529: 527: 524: 522: 519: 517: 514: 512: 509: 507: 504: 502: 499: 497: 494: 492: 489: 487: 484: 482: 479: 477: 474: 472: 469: 467: 464: 462: 459: 457: 454: 452: 449: 447: 443: 439: 436: 434: 431: 429: 426: 424: 420: 416: 413: 411: 408: 407: 406: 403: 402: 399: 394: 393: 390: 385: 384: 381: 373: 370: 365: 364: 363: 362: 359: 351: 348: 345: 341: 337: 333: 332: 331: 330: 327: 321: 318: 316: 313: 311: 308: 306: 303: 301: 298: 296: 293: 291: 288: 286: 283: 281: 278: 276: 273: 271: 268: 266: 263: 261: 258: 256: 253: 251: 248: 246: 243: 241: 238: 236: 233: 231: 228: 226: 223: 221: 220:Individuation 218: 216: 213: 211: 208: 206: 203: 201: 198: 196: 193: 191: 188: 186: 183: 181: 178: 176: 173: 171: 168: 166: 163: 161: 158: 156: 153: 151: 148: 146: 145:Consciousness 143: 141: 140:Conceptualism 138: 136: 133: 131: 128: 126: 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 112: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4134: 4096: 4055: 3995: 3988:Noam Chomsky 3984: 3967: 3945: 3834: 3727: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3476: 3472: 3451: 3448:Susan Sontag 3406: 3402: 3328: 3321: 3304: 3265:Peter Singer 3229: 3215: 3210: 3207: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3189:Slavoj Zizek 3176: 3158: 3128: 3110: 3101: 3057: 3010: 2998: 2948:The article 2947: 2926: 2915:Seth Mahoney 2880: 2862: 2854: 2833: 2788: 2736: 2733: 2726: 2718:Talk:Atheism 2711: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696:Talk:Atheism 2689: 2684: 2682: 2675: 2673: 2664: 2659: 2646: 2625: 2531: 2503: 2479: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2433: 2428: 2426: 2408:encyclopedia 2407: 2380: 2351:Sounds like 2332: 2316: 2312:Epistemology 2292: 2277: 2249: 2241: 2191: 2176: 2142: 2127: 2118: 2109: 2085: 2067: 2056: 2052: 2051:. We do not 2041:Requirements 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2025: 1964: 1935: 1917: 1904: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1889:. It's the 1886: 1885: 1877: 1876: 1871: 1870: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1845: 1844: 1834: 1833: 1828: 1827: 1818: 1817: 1811: 1810: 1776: 1762: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1619: 1591: 1590: 1582: 1552: 1521: 1511: 1488: 1484: 1476: 1460: 1412: 1390: 1306: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1258: 1234: 1218: 1216: 1190:Seth Mahoney 1185: 1159: 1151: 1141: 1128: 1111: 1095: 1094: 1085: 1069:Seth Mahoney 1054: 1045:Seth Mahoney 1030: 1029: 1014:Seth Mahoney 996:Seth Mahoney 966:Seth Mahoney 949: 945: 943: 936:Seth Mahoney 918: 899: 879:Seth Mahoney 848: 840: 828:Seth Mahoney 823: 819: 808: 802:Seth Mahoney 782: 774: 771: 735: 727: 717: 669: 613:Reductionism 584:(Randianism) 501:Extropianism 486:Epistemology 442:Weak atheism 404: 395: 386: 376: 369:Seth Mahoney 354: 324: 240:Logical Form 215:Indexicality 123:Reference / 116: 113: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4052:Opportunity 3409:as well... 3407:jouissance' 3091:David Lewis 3041:Poor Yorick 2985:Poor Yorick 2889:, ignoring 2887:User:Prozak 2785:improvement 2722:said person 2561:at best. -- 2547:mathematics 2506:CBDunkerson 2160:Ok, I have 2096:Ancheta Wis 2037:Recognition 1502:Theologians 849:metaphysics 845:metaphysics 732:Biographies 705:FranksValli 608:Rationalism 603:Probabilism 546:Materialism 521:Immortality 461:Creationism 415:Agnosticism 275:Predication 245:Metaphysics 36:This is an 3248:John Rawls 2869:Bora Nesic 2819:Μελ Ετητης 2814:Mel Etitis 2801:Μελ Ετητης 2796:Mel Etitis 2791:Philosophy 2755:Μελ Ετητης 2750:Mel Etitis 2633:Μελ Ετητης 2628:Mel Etitis 2608:More of a 2568:Μελ Ετητης 2563:Mel Etitis 2539:Philosophy 2534:Philosophy 2527:Philosophy 2180:Go for it! 2121:Go for it! 2071:Go for it! 1937:Meditation 1924:Go for it! 1906:Go for it! 1823:User:Banno 1750:Go for it! 1720:Thanks, -- 1622:Philosophy 1596:Go for it! 1366:Philosophy 1347:Philosophy 1319:Go for it! 1251:Go for it! 1162:Go for it! 1153:Go for it! 1135:Go for it! 1131:philosophy 1122:Go for it! 1105:Go for it! 946:The Matrix 853:The Matrix 841:The Matrix 812:Chad Boyko 671:Go for it! 635:Syntactics 627:Pragmatics 618:Relativism 598:Pragmatism 588:Philosophy 506:Futurology 481:Empiricism 398:Go for it! 389:Go for it! 380:Go for it! 300:Skepticism 295:Sense data 250:Nominalism 165:Embodiment 98:Archive 10 3956:causa sui 3667:attract. 3598:amusingly 3268:thinking. 2941:Split of 2929:Solipsism 2923:Solipsism 2840:Cosmology 2830:Cosmology 2578:...Sure. 2555:flagships 2510:this page 2412:Trovatore 2357:Infinity0 2221:Trovatore 2202:Trovatore 2162:nominated 1941:WP:IDRIVE 1837:Read the 1639:Infinity0 1559:Ibn Rushd 1524:Infinity0 1439:Infinity0 1413:Portalize 1340:evolution 1323:Infinity0 900:including 749:Trovatore 645:Teleology 631:Semantics 623:Semiotics 593:Posthuman 577:Nontheism 531:Knowledge 466:Darwinism 310:Substance 280:Quotation 200:Haecceity 195:Free will 180:Existence 135:Causation 130:Bad Faith 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 4156:Lucidish 4114:KSchutte 4080:KSchutte 4067:goethean 4041:KSchutte 4018:contribs 4000:KSchutte 3918:contribs 3770:contribs 3728:anything 3698:contribs 3173:Good job 3165:KSchutte 3142:infinity 3117:KSchutte 3104:KSchutte 3020:KSchutte 2970:KSchutte 2959:KSchutte 2883:nihilism 2771:KSchutte 2597:KSchutte 2518:KSchutte 2514:Academia 2469:KSchutte 2448:Urthogie 2440:totality 2387:Teutanic 2366:Melchoir 2343:Melchoir 2333:I found 2266:Contribs 2166:goethean 2149:goethean 1880:see the 1783:and the 1627:Dbuckner 1607:KSchutte 1555:Averroes 1515:Dbuckner 1463:Dbuckner 1391:See also 1330:Hinduism 1295:Dbuckner 1219:watching 1213:Watching 1116:and the 793:nihilism 785:nihilism 739:Dbuckner 721:Dbuckner 701:Theology 681:Theology 572:Nihilism 516:Humanism 433:Altruism 358:Dbuckner 326:Dbuckner 230:Judgment 190:Fatalism 125:anaphora 4036:WP:NPOV 3647:ShowsOn 3610:ShowsOn 3562:ShowsOn 3513:ShowsOn 3481:ShowsOn 3431:ShowsOn 3411:ShowsOn 3332:ShowsOn 3316:ShowsOn 3180:Hyphen5 3115:thing. 2694:on the 2649:atheism 2615:Eluchil 2610:Clipper 2581:Eluchil 2559:bumboat 2551:History 2543:Science 2493:Eluchil 2444:Lyotard 2398:Eluchil 2252:Proclus 2029:Honours 2010:SNAFU ? 1980:SNAFU ? 1422:Pjacobi 1055:towards 665:Virtues 438:Atheism 285:Realism 175:Essence 39:archive 3996:by far 3968:purely 2933:Harmil 2909:, and 2739:Plover 2683:where 2504:Okay, 2436:Adorno 2263:(talk) 2131:Zondor 2112:Zondor 2088:WP:RFA 2033:Duties 2005:Amtiss 1975:Amtiss 1953:Fenice 1739:WhiteC 1370:WhiteC 1096:Reply: 1031:Reply: 685:Theism 660:Virtue 491:Ethics 4093:block 3724:WP:PA 3330:work. 3211:Lacan 3202:wrong 2692:noted 2593:sloop 2508:from 2319:Banno 2302:Banno 2230:Banno 2212:Banno 2092:Banno 2061:Banno 2045:Banno 1995:Banno 1973:. -- 1593:help. 1586:Logic 1540:Banno 1409:Banno 1396:Banno 1289:: --> 1281:: --> 1261:Banno 1241:Banno 1223:Banno 1200:Banno 1172:Szpak 1059:Banno 1005:Banno 922:Szpak 905:Banno 861:Banno 824:don't 762:Banno 689:Deism 536:Logic 347:Banno 320:Truth 16:< 4032:WP:V 4014:talk 3990:and 3954:. -- 3914:talk 3766:talk 3694:talk 3552:and 3136:and 3011:that 2897:and 2848:Joke 2685:this 2676:this 2410:. -- 2337:via 2260:maru 2145:this 2039:and 1951:! -- 1949:here 1355:talk 1335:and 1321:and 795:and 787:and 334:See 305:Soul 3250:or 3155:AfD 2429:any 2287:or 2196:to 2090:on 2081:RFA 2057:own 2053:set 1722:Jim 1351:jiy 683:or 4020:) 4016:| 3920:) 3916:| 3772:) 3768:| 3700:) 3696:| 3163:. 2905:, 2822:) 2812:-- 2804:) 2794:-- 2758:) 2737:-- 2636:) 2571:) 2549:, 2545:, 2541:, 2355:. 2035:, 2031:, 2007:, 1993:? 1977:, 1632:. 1387:}} 1381:{{ 1357:) 1343:}} 1337:{{ 1333:}} 1327:{{ 1315:}} 1309:{{ 1186:so 820:do 633:, 629:, 625:, 444:, 440:, 421:, 417:, 94:→ 64:← 4070:ॐ 4012:( 3912:( 3764:( 3692:( 3602:T 3146:0 2816:( 2798:( 2752:( 2630:( 2565:( 2169:ॐ 2152:ॐ 1802:. 1353:( 1067:- 1043:- 964:- 687:/ 367:- 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.