Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 9

3555:

interest in a philosopher is going to be intricately connected to his philosophy. So, it seems to me highly likely that if someone is searching through cats for Kant, they will be doing so because they are interested in Kant's philosophy, not how he lived, etc. If they are interested in how he lived, that will in itself be tied up with an interest in his philosophy. The '-ism' or 'Philosophy of' ideas have pros and cons. The 'ism' bit is useful for Kant, because there is a clear ism group, and the Kantianism cat can be nicely linked into the Kant cat. I guess the 'Philosophy of' would work, but it is more typing and you need to sort of think about it sideways to see how it would work (that probably doesn't make sense). In our School's library, we just stick all the Wittgenstein related books, his, biographies, others that relate to his work, under W for Wittgenstein... seems to work... But, it probably means I am biased. P.S. I was kind of thinking of starting one for John Locke before this issue started.

3854:, and I think could be reasonably managed by that group. New Age philosophy's religious overtones lead me to think that the Religion group might be best able to deal with the subject, having the most experience with many of the terms and ideas involved. Ditto Esoterism. Integral thought could, conceivably, fall in that area as well, or perhaps philosophy of mind, as it seemingly deals with the mental/spiritual processes. I think perhaps some alternative "themes" could be suggested as well. One might be for Occult Philosophy, which I think can be seen as being different from Philosophy of religion, which I have a feeling will deal with either religion-specific or religion-in-general ideas, and less so with ideas which tend to be syncretic and/or "alternative" religious ideas. Another might be Holistic Philosophy, which would deal with mental, spiritual, and physical subjects and their interaction with philosophical ideas. Just a few thoughts, anyway. 315:

helpful to have some editors familiar with the disciplines he wrote in help me out a bit (I am an English person myself); his discussions of theology and science often involve the major philosophical topics of the century. Anyone familiar with Priestley or with the 17th-18th centuries more generally would be of great help. I think that the reason that there is so little scholarship on him compared to other figures of his circle is because he worked in so many different fields. No one wants to try and tackle all of that! (The page is ridiculously long - 100kb (perhaps from pictures) - the headings should guide any potential helper, though; it is also not it pristine shape - there are still poorly worded sentences - I'm just trying to get the basics of the article set up, then I will go back over the language with a fine-toothed comb.) I will, of course, be willing to help out anyone who helps me in whatever way they see fit.

4045:. Phenomena according to Kant are objects of sensible intuition, sensible entities coextensive with appearances. A phunokihjohnonoumenon on the other hand is an object exclusively of understanding; it is an object that is given only to a subject's intellect or understanding, i.e., not given by sensibility. As such, the noumenon and Kant's thing-in-itself (Ding an sich) are closely related; for Kant they refer to the same things. However, they differ in that the thing-in-itself is an ontological concept of an object as it is constituted in itself, while the noumenon is an epistemological concept of an object of a certain mode of cognition, namely intellectual intuition. Both, however, cannot be known. The concept of 'phenomena' relates to the tradition of philosophy called 1659:

people seriously involved in these areas who do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I can even handle the extra boxes on the talk page - if they are the same colour and nested, they stop looking like an attempt to mimic highway billboards. However, metaphysics and epistemology are surely the core of philosophy. Why would you need separate projects for them? If you do have separate projects, then are there now going to be separate boxes (containing class and impt?) for philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic and every other branch of philosophy on, for example, Plato's talk page? Keeping separate projects running also seems like a huge waste of time and resources. Why not focus on the artivcles rather than endless categorising and classifying?

2200:

the other 'fields' will tell them what they need to know. I have similar thoughts about the 'philosopher' field - won't people be interested in people in their field? And, likewise for 'contemporary' - okay, people specialise in Medieval philosophy, for example, but by the time you get to the present, people are focussing on branches of philosophy, not the history of now. I am also not sure why a 'Marx' field is needed, why not include these articles under pol phil? 'Eastern' might be the worng name, but something for people who are not continental or analytic philosophers might be good. These people definitely are active in wikipedia - but don't seem to belong to wikiproject philosophy.

2289:, I'm not sure that they should all be lumped into one category. Yes, you need to have a background in ethics to understand the fundamental building blocks of Rawls' theory of justice and the various objections to it, but you need to have an understanding of postmodernism to understand some of the basic ideas in Habermas' philosophy. That doesn't justify putting them in the same category, however. It seems to me that we just have different categories that have strong connections. Thus is philosophy. Then again, this is from a theoretical stand point. What works best for the project may be totally different. 1180: 424: 1232:

manage to get the logical aspect of theorem into the article, but it was only begrudgingly so. Several of these people are of the opinion that "mathematical logic" isn't "logic." Also, the opinion of not wanting anything to do with philosophy, or not understanding the connection with philosophy is prevalent. This has lead to some conflict in organizing the project. There are stubs for "mathematical logic" and just "logic." The latter may be interpreted as "philosophical logic" or as "non-mathematical logic" or more appropriately "logic the math people don't care about."

3636:

specifically at CfR, as it is a radical departure from the principle that category trees should only contain material that is correctly described all the way up the line. I think that doing this likely to provoke new applications to delete or rename these categories (not from me), although of course it's possible no one will notice. A much better place to put them would be the "philosophy by school or tradition" category, which at the moment only has a few of them.

31: 3487:. I think the whole prohibition on eponymous categories should be scrapped. Then you wouldn't have to worry about it. It seems an arbitrary choice to say we are going to save on category clutter by banning X type of categories. Find something else to prohibit. Why don't we ban the whole "works by ..." pattern? After all we have literature categories? I think the camel's nose is under the tent here. My goodness. 3872:

would include a big overlap of the other fields. However, it would allow us to capture these articles in the hierarchy. Perhaps it is not needed at all, and we just need to try harder to find a place for them in the current structure. I wouldn't put MOQ under religion, as it is more a commentary on morals, technology, and metaphysics that touches on some mysticism, rather than being about mysticism centrally.

685:

guess the only regular exceptions to this are comparatively recent works, and generally there won't be so much attention paid to these before they get published in book in either the original or revised form that they can be generally not included. However, I doubt very seriously if that is an official policy, just the way things tend to work most easily and effectively in general.

665:, it seems that the "Works" section for philosophers focuses exclusively on books, and not articles. Is this policy, or did this happen because it's just easier to focus on books than it is to track down articles? After all, Dennett's "Quining Qualia" is probably just as "major" a work as some of his books when we look at citation frequency and impact on the debate. 1730:

would be a good idea to set these up. In that area, many of them do not see what they do as anything to do with philosophy. I wanted to bring all of these areas together early. I wanted to make navigating for philosophy people as easy and accessible to those areas as possible. I was also concerned that some new agers would sculpt their own metaphysics portal, etc.

2488:

will see what I mean. Yes, Bacon is undoubtedly important for History of science, and even somewhat important for phil of sci - although I wil never include him in any phil of sci course I teach - too much to get through in too little time, but as far as phil in general is concerned, as I say, I disagree. Looks like I am definitely on the out on that one though!

479:

causality theory to the nth degree. I would love to learn the high points about causality in a way that I can comprehend, but I can't here (although I am a well-read PhD student in a "hard" science at a top-ten university - albeit not well-read in philosophy, causality, or logic, but I should certainly be qualified to understand an encyclopedia).

2349:

chance of capturing it within the project. Then we may go through and add the additional fields later. This will produce a banner almost the same size as without, but we will have that data. The whole thing is really quite efficient, and one of the best schemes in all the wikiprojects. In most cases the tagging will merely consist of adding the

2497:{ahem} Not to get snooty, but try looking at courses taught by schools that excel in British Empiricism. I suspect you'll find Bacon there (though syllabi can be misleading). And just to clarify, I don't think you need to learn about Bacon to understand the scientific method. I was just mentioning it by way of suggesting how important he is 2541:(or something like that), which is related, but not quite the same. Is it okay for me to cut and paste the info in cat: prof eth, and use it to start a new article prof ethics? I know that doing so will lose the page history, but that is really just one edit, and the person who created it does not seem to have edited wikipedia for a year... 213:{sigh} The "article" reads more like an essay ("concluding remarks," for example), but I suspect we'll have a lot of trouble finding an expert to write anything NPOV on the subject. The reason is that formal axiology is not taken very seriously by anyone other than its proponents, who have a distinct tendency to be a bit... 482:(One solution to still keep the depth is to drill down with more subtle concepts in links. Check out something like the sections on finance or financial economics; these are huge complicated fields, but the layman can read and read, first getting the overview and then getting more depth as requested. I learned a lot there.) 4128:. Another issue: Aside from an occassional book on semiotics, my reading of hermaneutics literature stopped somewhere around the early 1990's and I think this term might have come into use after that point. I don't know whether the term has enough material to justify its own article or if it should be merged into the 2223:? Given that someone is going to have to recognize that an article belongs to a certain category/task force to begin with before the bot can go around tagging things, why not just have that person add it to the task force? But again, maybe I'm totally missing something here. It wouldn't be the first time. 3305:. This resulted in the page being kept, but re-named. The discussion was overwhelmingly in favour of the use of an eponymous category, and was broad enough to be applied in principle to other major philosophers. I will argue that this case forms a precedent for retaining categories for major philosophers. 5360:

on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more

4320:

I get the sense by your portrayal of my actions as "Plaster"-ing that you may have an undue aversion to any tagging at all. That is unfortunate. The aesthetics of banner placement is another zero priority. If it was not, there would be no ability to put together a meaningful assessment program. Maybe

4237:

needs some attention from a person familiar with the subject. I know that some philosophers have been associated with "object theory", so that some sort of article could be written on the subject. But I don't know that the content currently in the article is actually related to object theory (because

3871:

I've been rethinking it a bit. I still think something should be done to have a place in the philosophy hierarchy that will capture these miscellaneous topics. However, perhaps a field for Philosophical systems, isms, belief systems, or something that covers some of these more generally. Such a field

2769:

of all kinds here. I am of the position that it is more intellectual to be inclusionist. This article already has several contributors. I think it should stay but then, I am very inclusionist. The topic doesn't necessarily seem to fit in an academic encyclopedia vision, but inevitably this topic will

2314:

I'm wondering exactly what people think is gained or lost by having more or less fields. I just don't think there is any downside to more fields at all. My goal is covering everything. In fact creating an "alternative" field might solve our problem with 'true believers', and 'new agers' etc. They can

2199:

Gah! I will not be much help with these decisions. I am afraid I would prefer a minimalist approach. I assume that as this is for wiki workers rather than readers, there is no need for a books or literature field, as people are likely to want to work on things in their field rather than 'books', and

1717:

I am finding that working on the discussion side of wp is much easier than research. I have made some researched contributions as well, but I am not an academic. I'm working off of my notes and my own library. So my proper role here is not hardcore reasearch necessarily. I certainly don't pertend you

1408:

I am having problems interpreting the importance assessment criteria. I have had one discussion about whether a book on phil of education should be high, mid or low importance, and have ended up revising some of my own ratings because the criteria descriptions seem to conflict. I have written more on

5319:

The psychology article seems to have been created in response to the discussion between me and an anonymous editor bemoaning how "misleading" the philosophy article was for not mentioning the (unrelated) psychological concept. I can't speak to the psychology issue, but the philosophy page has a lot

4264:

is doing? Are you are actually going to be able to do anything useful in the way of patrolling or improving these articles, either in terms of manpower or knowledge? It will be confusing to most people as the visible template just referes to the philosophy project without reference to aesthetics.

3780:

In theory, a good idea. I do see a few problems. One, I personally think Mysticism and the like could be included in the Philosophy of Religion group fairly easily. Two, the bigger one, it would be hard to create a scope definition for such widely-divergent schools of thought, in such a way that the

3515:

personal categorisation was on his category, with next to nothing on his own article. That is just wrong. Most of the eponymous categories were in several Philosophers categories, but no Philosophy categories. That is also wrong. Good luck trying to change the policy on eponymous cats, which as you

2948:

Johnbod, I have read what you say. I'm afraid I have either lost your reasoning, or I should be VERY worried about you. Please tell me you realize that the category relationship is not transitive. The articles in category X (a subcategory of cat Y) are not necessarily members of category Z (of which

2487:

Happy to go with the majority. Still disagree. Few philosophy degrees include more than a passing mention of Bacon. And, I just plain disagree with you about needing to understand Bacon to understand either scientific method or empiricism - do a quick chec on courses on empiricism on the net and you

2334:

My reasons are selfish. I found the old system very usable - and made good use of it for tagging, categorising and evaluating articles. I felt like I could do a lot quickly and easily. I hate going to the assessment page now because of the large number of boxes, I can't see many of them on my screen

1735:

This configuration will result in a propaganda effect. Membership in wp:phil will increase due to people just interested in one or the other area. It will also strengthen the wp:phil by connecting those areas. The noticeboard is a collection of transclusions from each of the projects. I think we can

5027:

I think the interpretation we should take is that if it is at least of x importance to a sub-field, it should hold that importance rating under philosophy in general. I don't think importance-inflation is a problem under this interpretation. There is plenty of room under "top" and "high" to cover a

4418:

Modus tollens (MT) is the second most famous one. If P implies Q, and not-Q is true, then not-P is true. The orginal name was "Modus Ponendo Tollens" (the way that denies by affirming). It denies P by affirming P implies Q. Please note that both of the famous ones have "Ponendo" in the middle. This

4310:

The wonderful Visual Arts project is certainly welcome to tag any articles they wish, and place the banner in any position they wish. Since it is a zero priority, I will be placing the philosophy banner on the very bottom from now on, just to avoid the complaint of anyone who has a notion that this

4290:

Long answer: Not every article in the category was tagged, and it is understood that the tagging will need to be reviewed for over-inclusiveness. Some of this has already occurred. There is more to come. Feel free to remove any that have no relation at all. Given the category selection there should

2463:

All of your worries can be alleviated if we show a little team work. In the long term, the academic view can win if we stick together. The importance rating isn't very important in itself, unless there's a pattern across a bunch of pages. Hey, there is an interpretation under which Bacon was highly

2239:

page has all the data on philosophy. You can see that there is almost no data broken down into task forces. That is because there are no tags for task forces yet. It could be thousands. That's why I'd like to get a bot to automatically tag all of the articles in the categories listed under scope on

1729:

There is a proliferation of different portals and projects. I was thinking in the long term that there would eventually be ones for each area. From the looks of some of them (particular musical groups?) there is plenty of room. There were a few things going on with the logic project that told me it

1658:

Is there a general consensus that it is worth having numerous offshoot projects of Wikiproject philosophy? I could sort of understand having an 'ethics' or 'moral philosophy' group and a 'logic' group, and History and Philosophy of Science overlaps, but needs a separate group. There are, after all,

373:

no, that is a debate for here, not there. that is an afd debate, and the category argument i think is moot in those terms. I think you've done good work getting things together in lists, but i'm not convinced that lists end up as anything other than pov tarpits. afd is also not a place for policy

217:

about it. So we're likely to have only people who don't know or who care too much editing the article. This is unfortunate, since it strikes me as a topic that could truly benefit from a strong Knowledge article. I can put it on my list, but it'll have to go at the bottom. Here's hoping someone

5014:

If something is important to a subproject (work group), e.g. ethics, but not the whole project, what should one rate importance as? Articles are placed in daughter categories as the same importance as the whole project, which doesn't seem very accurate. Is there a way to have a separate importance

4408:

Modus ponens (MP) is the most famous one. There will be little controversy over the fact that If P then Q, and P is true, then Q will always be true. However, the original name for which modus ponens is an abbreviated version is "Modus Ponendo Ponens" (i.e. the way that affirms by affirming). This

3617:

explicitly allow for the creation of Eponymous cats, but noting that this should be the exception rather than the rule. This should allow for John to empty some of the cats if he wishes, and provide a grounding for project members to revert itinerant editing. I am also going to add all the cats we

3451:

I have added some to the list. The strange thing is... I was thinking of ways to improve Knowledge, in the course of my day over a week ago. Making a list of philosophers who should have a category for associated articles was one of my thoughts. Then this whole eponymous cat thing cropped up. Talk

2993:

If what you are saying is that the Cat:Russell may not belong under Cat:philosophers, while the article:B.Russell does. That makes sense. However, if you are saying that all the members of all the subcategories of cat:analytic philosophers must also all be only philosophers. That makes no sense at

2705:

This is a result of the previous arrangement of multiple banners. The current proposal is to unite all of these under one banner with an option for fields. The reason there may be two is that one is a transclusion from one of the formerly specialized field banners, the other is one that was placed

2348:

Incorporating all those fields is for the purpose of preventing a proliferation of banners under many fields. So the collection on the assessment page is just one page. There will be people adding content who categorize it under only one category. By having all these fields we greatly increase our

1701:

It is start of the project. So what we can do is, first give importance rating only to high and top importance articles and tidy only those articles. But anyone(including me and you) will have interest in some perticular low importance articles, let them improve those articles. But as a project we

929:

article. If anyone would like to look it over, please do so. (The only part I didn't touch was the latter half of the "Change" section, which I didn't understand. I personally think that part, at least as it's currently worded, isn't helpful to the average reader, but I refrained from removing it:

5167:

Dates are bound to be shaky and overlap as to when exactly a philosophy/era (the Age of Enlightenment) begins and ends. But shouldn't there at least be an article defined by the name of the philosophy, as opposed to the century? These should probably still be organized in chronological order, and

2448:

Problem is I have not been involved in an intractable Knowledge dispute before. Do I just figure it doesn't really matter what is in the category and what the importance rating is? (The thought makes me feel a bit like I have been wasting my time trying to tidy them up these past weeks... nothing

1669:

a good point. It is far easier to set up a project than to keep it running, and much, much harder to actualy write stuff. I think it is similar to the "lists" phenomena, where editors produce endless and pointless lists, then argue about who or what should be included. Again, this is much simpler

1235:

I always used to think of activism on the wikipedia as somewhat distasteful. However, I am now living thoroughly within the pragmatic realities of this place now; so here it is. I don't think npov tags are going to work in this phil v. math political environment. I would like to request a renewed

1231:

contained all the mathematical aspects, but the logical definition (the more broad, and fundamental definition) was completely absent. Furthermore, the very organized WikiProject Math has its people monitoring those articles like academic mother ... hens (I was going to say something else). I did

474:

A few articles are getting very tough to read by the layman. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia; not one man's unreadable treatise of the history of all thought on one minute sub-field of philosophy. Hit the points, but in plainer English. Here is just one of scores of examples from the text on

4300:

I don't think it is really very productive to ask if we have the manpower or knowledge to assess the worklist that is given to us by the content of the wp. The goal is to identify those articles within the scope of the project. I am pretty sure that Knowledge is a going concern, and there are no

4123:

I'm wondering if anyone on this project might want to adopt this article. It makes some important points about the interpretive process in connection to whole-part perceptions and post-modernism but they have only partial cites and probably need some amplification. There is also an unattributed

3790:

You are correct about mysticism, and the goal should be to find a place for these articles elsewhere if they can be properly classified. However, I think what transcends the divergent schools is A) academia's rejection of them, and B) their adherents insisting that it belongs under philosophy. I

3554:

I think Banno has nicely stated the arguments for these cats, here and in other places. I really don't mind very much whether the name cats are put in philosophy or philosopher. I would prefer philosopher partly to keep the cats nice and easy to search through, and partly because a philosopher's

3053:

I (and many others more vociferously) would question whether those categories are correctly set up, but for people category trees (and most other sorts) it really is that simple. All people, nothing else. Everywhere. That is one reason why many people hate eponymous categories so much, because

2477:

I would certainly argue that Bacon is of high importance. While Descartes may have been the first "big name" of the New Science/mechanical philosophy, Bacon is often considered to be the school's founder/originator. Any thorough study of the British Empiricists needs to start with him, and you

2353:

to an already existing banner which is a nominal change. Perhaps we should do it by hand? Perhaps we should just let the assessment data languish? My goodness, I'm excited to get all the data. At some point we will be able to get a list of most bluelinked articles in each section, redlinks, etc.

684:

Articles tend to be much harder to track down, particularly for writers several hundred years old. That's presumably the main reason that books are listed almost exclusively. Also, I would guess, most articles are later collected into books, which by definition then include the articles. I would

485:

Again, thanks for your writing. It is very interesting stuff. Just please don't go overboard on complexity and assumed knowledge. Yes, I understand there is a balance here between too complicated and too simple. But even directly compared to other complicated wiki topics (math, physics, etc) the

1535:

I removed the tags since the AfD proposal was sparse and inconclusive, and none of the AfD participants (who were most likely unacquainted with the topics) went through with the merge or voiced the proposal on either talk page. I don't think these articles should be merged given the fundamental

777:

As above, I found these pages while tidying 'Category:Philosophy'. Is there any support for shifting the material into the Quine page, and altering the wording on the few pages that link to these ones to briefly explain the ideas? It seems highly unlikely that any decent encyclopedia would have

531:

Yea, I did make some sweeping generalizations about the topics. And, althouth relativity has a lot of unknown terms, they are very well linked or else not used. And I am prolly biased by the fact that I know so much more about physics and relativiy than about philosophy. But, as you said, my

4008:

and Physical Phenomenon pages. Unfortunately, we did not understand the section on Kant, so we left it out and wrote the best section we could for "Use in philosophy". We would value any any input you have for the section as the current section is very small. Here is a copy of the old section:

314:

biography article right now; he was a dissenting theologian, scientist, educator, political writer and theorist (in a loose sense) in eighteenth-century Britain. Currently, I have tried to mix in a discussion of his works with his life. Because he wrote on so many different topics, it would be

3970:

Playing a lip service to findings in neurology (Libet’s findings for example) does not seem encouraging. There is one and one only, concept of consciousness for example. Memory is also one and one only concept. Entries that turn their “blind eye” to this cannot claim a credibility. Sincerely,

3635:

I have no objection myself to the existing categories, except as noted, and on this issue I don't think the Project Guidelines will cut much ice at CfR. I do object strongly to the inclusion of general categories in biographical categories. If you want to do this you should raise that issue

478:

I understand that causation is not a simple concept, but even so an "encyclopedia" entry should be readable and understandable by an intelligent, educated person without philosophical expertise or training. This is also not meant to be a forum for philosophers to debate the subtler points of

1723:

After reading your comments, I folded some of the features of the individual projects into the philosophy project (membership, deletion sorting, stubs, etc.) We can fold it up even more if that's what people would like. Perhaps the aesthetics, and moral phil people would agree to fold their

3707:

The goal of the reorganized task forces should be to A) be general enough to cover a significant enough number of articles to merit a task force, B) be specific enough to produce a meaningful worklist for each task force, and C) be a convenient way to organize the content for the editor.

4446:

Unfortunately, there are reliable sources that use these terms in different ways. At some point I set out and got to the bottom of it. To complicate matters greatly, MP and MT are also referred to as "Affirming the anticident" and "Denying the consequent." This would be fine except that

1556:

There is a category named "Philosophers of Metaphysics"!! WTF? I have never heard this term used anywhere, in any context, in any of my philosophical studies. Those who are more expert than myself (i.e. professors and PhDs) may certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the general term is

2612:

Could everyone chime in on the Wittgenstein issue? I have proposed that the soft prohibition on eponymous categories specifically make an exception for philosophers. Very often a survey class is a 'philosopher of the week' type of class. The policy change proposal is being discussed

1724:

membership into wp:phil also. (I don't think they would go for that at all in logic). I'm certainly open to moving the nav bar lower, or changing colors, etc. Perhaps we can still place the whole thing as a subdirectory of wp:phil. I'm open to working on anything along those lines.

5161:

era in philosophy, extending that era to two centuries. <!-- and begging the question why centuries and eras line up at all! Seems likely to be shakey reasoning, unphilosophical even; combines two different methods of classification! Kick that around! Love, user:Fabartus ---:

4979:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are 3766:. I think that it is better to have a place for these things rather than let them hang out there. I think we have an intellectual responsibility to deal with the fringe with some degree of respect. Perhaps this task force should cooperate-with/resurrect-the-charge-of the 1557:"metaphysicians". It also sounds much more common-sensical and appropriate to the grammatical ear. P of M gives me the willies, in other words. But this may be subjective. Anyway, not that big a deal, but I suggest deletion of cat and replacement with "metaphysicians. -- 814:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are 3267:

The problem, as I would summarise it, is that there are a number of editors, who have been actively working on Wiki categories who object to the way that the Philosophy project editors have dealt with categories for particular philosophers. The basis appears to be

4826:

to discuss the intellectual history of the progressive movement. The discussion I think needs some nuanced exploration of the thinkers. If there are members of this project with an interest in this area, your contributions would be more than welcome. Many thanks,

3622:

because: This is a natural place for them; there are so few, they will not disrupt that cat; it will be convenient to have them grouped together, at least while we sort through them; this avoids the ubiquitous problem in in the philosophy cats - excessive depth.

2748:

Hi guys, I have been being bolder, I promise - I will probably be bold to the point of obnoxious after another year or so! However, I do want advice on this one. Is it worth having as an article in wikipedia? If so, I will recategorise to 'sources of knowledge'.

2315:

feel included and the academics can feel reassured of some distance also. It reminds me of the "Free Speech Area" on the Chico State campus: it's not next to the administration building because they don't want to hear it. They put it where it is for a reason.

3461:

You've missed Marx, though that is mainly for "personal" articles, as there is Cat:Marxism too. Thoreau is dubious - I have moved the great majority into a new sub-cat for "Works by..", and there is a good template. Really Cat:Kant should go into the larger

336: 5320:

of room for growth and probably deserves its own article. Then again, it is quite common to merge articles with the understanding that they may be split again should one or both grow into its own. As such, I would have no serious objections to a merge.

5304:

I can see why the second article (psychology) was started. The two concepts really do seem to be different. The other option would have been to have one article with separate sections. If you think this is a better idea, why not propose a merge? Regards,

3791:

think we are able to deal with these situations with the WP:PHILO because I think we have a good academic foundation. I think we can sustain any category structure that we decide to set up. I am increasingly leaning toward one of the first two:

3275:

It is worth pointing out that this is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines ought to be followed, except when doing so would detract from the encyclopedia. This is the point made in the template that heads all guidelines, an application of the

975:

The importance rating for many of the articles is either obviously misjudged or absent in many cases; something I would like to remedy. I have been reclassifying articles and rating the unclassified articles according to a fairly broad schema.

1702:

focus only on top level articles of respective branches. This tidying is important, which includes naviagation templates etc., and will simplify future work. Later we sort even mid and low level articles, after we tidy main article contents.

1683:. But at start what i would suggest is making only top-importance and high-importance articles categorised, and mid and low are left, and focus on top level articles. Mid and low, only people interested in specific topic may do all the work. 197:. It's written like an advert for one person, who I suspect is not the only person working in the field. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this topic nor where to begin. Anyone familiar, please have a go at bringing in neutrality. ·· 3263:

Let's see if we can nut this out. First off, the conversation has spread out over several talk pages. I suggest that we use this one to bring the various discussions together. If that is a problem, I'm happy to move this stuff elsewhere.

4901:

are considering whether this article should include religious answers to the question as well. There is also some discussion about deleting the article. I imagine any comments from the members of this project might be welcome. Thank you.

3219:

Could someone please take a look at the Aesthetics categories and recent changes? Someone other than me. Please update the task force categories as necessary. At some point we have to choose whether art is under aesthetics or vice versa.

2335:

at one time and end up having to hunt for the one I want. I.e. it just takes me longer to find what I want and I find all the boxes unpleasant to look at and search through. As in the first sentence - selfish reasons only. No big deal.

126:

Don't worry, no one understands Lacan! Seriously, though, the page is at least accurate, even if not of the highest quality. It definitely needs to be fleshed out and brought down to a level where it can be read by an average reader.

3966:

I’m again calling for interdisciplinary approach. No encyclopaedia can afford entries limited within one discipline only if it aims to be a credible reference. And the silence my previous calls were met with does not seem encouraging.

5249:....Just take a look and you'll see what I mean. I outlined my problems with the article in detail on the talk page, and have contacted the article's authors to give them a chance to defend/jsutify the article before I move to AfD. 4953:

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks.

2726:

I would agree it's not "low", but only perhaps "mid." You should feel free to change or add those. If it's a big change leave a comment. For any big changes, a bot will make a list for people to review at the bottom of the

1772:'s page than for this one. (I left a request over there too.) However, there's been a long-standing "WP Philosophy" tag on the Eliade article's talk page, so I thought some people over here might be interested in helping. 1765:. (Eliade was a historian of religions.) So far, I haven't gotten much feedback. I realize that most people probably don't know much about Eliade, but any feedback (on the Eliade article's talk page) would be appreciated. 1083:

I've seen the criteria. I'm just interpreting them, considering how some of the previous interpretations were somewhat odd. I wasn't too sure where to put this, so I figured I'd leave it here for 24 hours, then move it.

2706:

there as part of the original philosophy banner. If you see these feel free to delete the specialized one ("moral", "logic2", "metaphysics") There shouldn't be to many out there. I'll take care of them sooner or later.

3949:(which is also somewhat of a mess), and perhaps with other articles. But the idea for the article is probably okay. Could someone with a bit more wikipedia experience than me offer some advice to the editor concerned? 2374:. I've already heard from most of the key players in this area, and they are either supportive or ambivalent about it. I will give the discussion some more time to develop, but I am planning on forwarding a request to 470:

Hi, I first want to thank you for your efforts. I am a philosophy novice, and I think this is great. I am having a real problem with a few of the articles though, and I was hoping you would keep the following in mind:

4385:

article in a bit of a mess though, because I have never used the 'math' symbol system before and dont know how to put in spaces. Sorry. Let me know on the talk pages if you want more references to back up my changes.

1168:

Maybe your knowledge of English language or Kantian philosophy is better than mine. If you could help me (strengthen me in my translations or correct them) I'll be very grateful. Use my Polish home page to answer.

4174:

Oh dear, I hadn't looked at the preview and realized there was an article for the last one. Actually a quick search would have brought it up rather easily, though I was fairly sure I had looked for this before.

940:

Actually, I took a second look, and I understand what the second half of the "Change" section is saying. But it could definitely use some rewording, especially for those who don't know what "bundle theory" is.

4796:

was tagged for speedy A7 (failure to assert importance). He is a professor, which is an assertion. Can someone from the project review for notability, and either improve the article, PROD, or AFD? Thanks.

3516:

know is not a prohibition. In this case it is not really about category clutter - many philosophy categories are excessively uncluttered - but clarity, and people finding things where they expect them to be.

2509:

get it (or why later contractualists felt compelled to address some rather odd issues) unless you read his version (as well as the criticisms of contractualism by Hume--but now I'm just demanding perfection).

2854:

This will meet strong opposition from an editor named otto. If I could get some input as to the language, and some support when the time comes, we will avoid some battles later. (Although I am quite proud of

3885: 908:

Any objection to me renaming this 'theoretical reason', and a redirect being made for 'speculative reason' to the renamed page? (I don't know how to do redirects, sorry). And, yes, the page is diabololical.

4572:

Even more unfortunate, and more complicated is the fact that different sources refer variously to both a fallacy and a theorem as "Denying the anticident," and the same goes for "Affirming the consequent."

2386:

banner. Please take a look to see especially if any categories are missing. However, keep in mind that they are pared down so as to only include categories in which almost all of the articles belong under

227:

nominated it for deletion. it strikes me as a topic that is fundamentally about relabeling someone else's conceptions in terms of axiologies then arguing they can be formalized. i'd call it problematic.--

3720:

There didn't seem to be any concerns, so I moved CT into the continental phil space, and added the Continental task force info. It includes everything except Marxism, which I think can stand on its own.

3510:

is impregnable. Although I am generally a supporter of more eponymous categories, I am finding that the more I look at the way they have been used in Philosophy, the more my stance weakens. Nearly all

1634:

I've always thought that it should by "metaphysicists" since "metaphysics" is related to "physics," but I've never heard "philosopher of metaphysics" either. Sadly, the correct term is "metaphysician."

4774:

I have found multiple sources in reliable logic books that support the changes I made - I will put them in the relevant articles. I don't at all doubt that people have differed on this one though!

2505:

understand the issues and motivations behind later Brits, you're going to need to understand how it all started. You may be able to understand contractualism without reading Hobbes, but you won't

4265:

The Visual arts project should be the primary one for articles without a specific link to aesthetics, and should be added where it does not exist, and should not be left below the aesthetics one.

3704:. Perhaps it could be broken into two task forces in a way that makes sense? One big one? A field for each? (I don't see why not frankly). I stated some goals in the organization at Crit theory: 2257:

Could we just pare them down a little? Ethics, politics and social could even be put together as well... the pol phil in our dept insists you can't do pol phil or social without doing ethics...

3311:

Given that we are going to maintain these categories, the problem arises of how they should themselves be categorized. Certainly it is unacceptable to orphan these categories, as was done here

2478:

can't really understand Locke (and thus Berkeley and Hume) without understanding Bacon. Plus, he invented a little known process called "the scientific method." That might be important. ;)

2675:

I doubt anyone would search for such an article. (You have already proved that wrong!) And I susoect that it would be mostly OR. BUt, I could be worng. What were youthinking would go in it?

455:

I think these kinds of charts are very helpful for all levels of readers, and I would note that they are used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thanks for taking up this project!

2370:

on the talk pages of all the categories delineated under metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics. This is listed on the pages of each of the task force pages and transcluded onto

594:

Did someone call for a metaethicist? The information in the article is pretty accurate as is, but I've given the entry top priority on my "to do" list. I should get to it within the week.

2408:, which now includes the information on fields. The bot is only doing ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, and metaphysics for now. If things go smoothly, we will do the rest later. Be well. 2968:

should be biographies (or lists etc of same). This is wading through sludge, I'll go and do it myself. Cat:Russell should be in Cat:Analytic PhilosOPHY, and doubtless others, but not in

3302: 2641: 2621: 2599: 409:

Hi there, this article is being proposed for deletion, is this a real philosophical position described in a badly-sourced article, or is it original research? Thanks for any feedback.

4200:. The essay does contain some useful information, but it is weakly referenced, primarily about one form of contractualism, POV and needs wikifying. There is already an article about 4179:

seems to cover both issues, so I've redirected the other link above. If anyone is interested in creating an article for the former, there's a detailed SEP article on the subject.

4984: 3700:

like the other projects. I am not sure how it should be organized so as to be most useful. Currently, I have a potential category list for a combined task force listed under the

1964: 4437:

Modus Tollendo Tollens is the way of denying by denying. It says that if not-Q is true, and not-P implies Q, then P is true. In a sense, you are denying P in order to derive P.

152:

there is no school in philosophy that holds that position, nor could there be, if one thinks about it a while, and one holds that our lifeworld must be logically consistent. --

1236:

attention to the logic articles by philosophers, and logicians from the philosophical perspective. Please join with WikiProject Logic, and keep in touch. I had to struggle on

5028:

large number of articles and still be meaningful. I think we use the same type of reasoning as it concerns importance and quality ratings as compared to other wikiprojects.

4214:

I find the article to be way too POV for my tastes. We should revert it to a redirect. Perhaps an article on Scanlon's view is worthwhile, but (1) I doubt it deserves the

2882:, which is a biographical category, sub-cats of which should only contain biographies. Please find some appropriate other categories & then remove the one it is now in. 2219:

I have a general question. Maybe I'm just not seeing something here, but what exactly is this tagging supposed to do? Who does it help? What does it organize? What is the

2501:. I stand firm on the point about Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, however. Perhaps you do not need to understand Bacon to understand Empiricism in a "good enough" way, but to 4148:, and the clash between what people believe is ethical and what benefits their genes the most. I'm not sure what the second case could be titled; some related entries are 3484: 3041: 2209:

I think this bot proposal is completely unnecessary and likely a waste of time and promotion of bureaucracy... just let things be until there is a real problem please. --

1472:

Is this suitable for wikipedia or should it be in Wiktionary? It needs a few changes - info about epistemology, for e.g. - but, I am not sure if the page is worth having.

4428:

Modus Tollendo Ponens is different. It is the way of affirming by denying. It affirms Q by denying P. It says that if not-P is true, and not-P implies Q, then Q is true.

4082:

We don't think the section needs a definition on noumenons or a list of phenomenologists- but it's your decision. You could leave a revision on my talk page or place it

819: 1410: 97: 89: 84: 5061:

as well, but the latter category doesn't exist! Ideally it would contain most of the articles that are currently held together only by the "See also" section of the

4744: 4710: 4690: 4656: 4622: 4602: 4550: 4530: 4488: 4468: 5345: 4351:

didn't make sense, and its history seems to contradict with itself, so I edited it. If an expert can please correct the article, that would be nice. --Dragontamer

2279:- Thanks for the explanation, both here and on my talk page. Sometimes it's difficult to tell what is useful to the project and what is just habitual bureaucracy. 1680: 694:

There are philosophers who have articles listed among their works, and there are articles about articles. I don't see any precedent, just a tendency to list books.

72: 67: 59: 2235:

The benefit of tagging, is that we can assess the quality and importance of articles using the data that a bot collects from tagged articles every three days. The

1227:. I have come to realize that the entire Logic component of the Knowledge is very "math"-centric, and very "philosophy"-deficient. For instance, the article about 2132: 2032: 1920: 547:. While in some topics (e.g. Arcane mathematics or medical topics), this can be difficult to accomplish, it should be reasonably doable in philosophy articles. 2839:"Persons who are often studied in academia as individuals, such as philosophers, and who may have a body of terminology, or works associated with them such as 3537:

John suggests replacing these cats with either "ism" or"philosophy of..." categories. I want to repeat here that this will not always work, as I argued before

3846:

probably more or less covers Ayn Rand fairly well. MOQ looks to me like it might also fall within the scope of religion, given its ties to Asian philosophy.

3701: 3188:

there is not a problem, as everything fits somehow. But categories with more specific titles should follow that all the way down, and normally do, just like

2064: 1908: 5252:

I'd appreciate it if some of you took a look and backed me up. The bastards even went and brought Ponty, Heidegger, Frankl, and Descartes into this mess. --

1586:"Metaphysicians" is the correct term. The recent trend of naming new areas of philosophy by "philosophy of..." comes well after metaphysics got its name. - 3918: 2728: 2401: 2371: 2236: 1896: 1107: 2453:!) Do I ask for mediation or something like that? I have no idea whether that is appropriate in cases like this. This whole thing seems a bit ridiculous. 1329:

to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with

564:

Could someone please give some immediate attention to this? The article is so jargonistic it's close to gibberish, and reeks of original research to me.

3452:

about twilight zone time! I think we should keep this list of hands-off cats for deletion (and a list for future cats) with the Philosopher task force.

1313:. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the 2195:

Shall we designate other fields such as Eastern, Mysticism, Alternative, New Age, Integral thought, Books (or literature), or any others? Remove any?

2108: 2052: 2020: 1996: 1663: 3981:

For a balanced approach, you will need a variety of experts, but I'm sure most experts have better things to do than edit Knowledge. For others, see

2096: 2076: 1984: 3925:, irrelevant changes might appear at the project's recent changes lists. So, maybe someone who knows a bit can make a stub and link to it instead? 3982: 3767: 2143:

of its articles. It is recommended since the bot only tags whole categories, that the designated categories be substantially related to the field.

2120: 142:

Question. Which school of philisophical thought would hold closest to the idea that individual privacy is valued above all other societal needs?--

4976: 3083:

If that is the way it is supposed to be, then there is no end to the work correcting it. People do not assign categories based on the principle:

1782:

I am probably missing something, but does this page make any sense? The title seems a plausible one for a page. It isn;t sutable for Afd is it?

811: 1944: 1932: 1318: 1199: 865: 582: 518: 2533:

More advice needed, I am afraid. Cat:Prof ethics has a very nice introduction to professional ethics above the linked in pages. At the moment

1529: 4946: 4105: 3781:

editors working on them would see some degree of commonality between them. If you can think of a way to make it work, though, no objections.

3693: 2008: 1159:

What uses categories to create concepts (my translation of Polish term “rozsądek” is “sense” or “reason” -- I'm not sure which one is better)

340: 274: 47: 17: 4278: 4100: 3427: 3037: 2914:

In that you are quite correct. But I see no reason why the cat for Russell should not contain his major works. On the discussion page at

3540:. But the number of philosophers for whom there is a need for such a category may be quite small. One thing I still don't understand is 1164:

What creates practical reason, for example the idea of categorical imperative (my translation of Polish term “postulaty” is “postulates”)

4358: 383:

Personally, I find the categories to be quite hellish to maintain. Thus, I avoid having anything to do with them (most of the time). -

1880:

banner. The banner is designed so the each article may be designated as a part of one or more of 16 fields with a corresponding field:

778:

entires with these headings, and as unlikely that anyone reading the few pages that link to these would bother to follow up the links.

621:

It's in the same format as many "argument from" fallacy articles, and it's so uttely incomprehensible the confusion is not surprising.

4939: 4853: 4132:

article. Any help from someone familiar with the literature relating to this topic would be appreciated. 06:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

3922: 3613:

The discussion does not seem to be progressing at present. Unless there are strong objections, I am going to re-jig the guidelines at

1413:. Help would be appreciated. I am steadily working my way through the articles and would prefer to just get it right the first time! 4980: 4972: 3843: 3578: 2645: 2617: 2441:

About what fits into Cat:metaphysics. The discussion is at the bottom of the ascended master talk page, and I have put an RfC on it.

815: 807: 1569:

If google numbers have any value here: c. 220,000 for Metaphysicians and 38,000 for exact term "philosophers of metaphysics". --

1149:

What creates some ideas, for example of God, soul etc. (my translation of Polish term “rozum teoretyczny” is “theoretical reason”)

4852:

whose development should probably be coordinated/merged/sub-main'd with this article. A topic has been created to discuss this:

2802: 1294: 3914: 2661:

Hmmmm. "The unexamined life" --one of the most famous philosophical phrases of all time-- comes up with scanty results on WP.

277:. There goes many months of my work and a somewhat valuable resource for new philosophers. I hate the policies of the 'pedia. 5054: 4925: 3851: 3566:

You can't count on that. For example because Aristotle was in P-ers, but not P-phy categories, his cat was not findable through

1816: 1322: 1298: 603:

Thanks. I've always figured that fallacy articles should be reasonably understandable for laymen, but this one is Greek to me.

1494:

Not worth having. Anyone interested in alethiology would be better advised to go to the "truth" page. Perhaps a redirect from

5283: 5279: 5226: 4996: 3189: 2969: 2965: 2879: 475:

causality: "the asymmetry of the causal relation is unrelated to the asymmetry of any mode of implication that contraposes."

3895: 2692:

The WikiProject Philosophy template on this article appears twice, with different ratings. I don't find a way to fix this.

1607:

Second that. I'm not a PhD holder, but I don't think I've ever heard someone described as a "philosopher of metaphysics." —

174:

ahh, then republicanism as described by machiavelli, montaigne, and pettit, as liberty in their models implies a privacy. --

757:

I found this page while tidying 'Category:philosophy', and can see no useful purpose for it. I suggest that it be deleted.

4932: 4898: 4050: 3411: 3246: 2844: 1179: 1058:

I'd welcome any comments on or help with this endeavor. If you want to or drop a note on my talk page, feel free. Thanks,

771: 423: 255:

is notable for Knowledge. If someone could spare some time to have a look at the article, please add your comments to its

2774:. I think it would be wonderful if everywhere people use the phrase "unexamined life" it linked to that entry in the wp. 2285:- While ethics, political philosophy, and social philosophy (and aesthetics, while we're at it) are all subcategories of 1736:

take advantage of that feature in other areas. The various philosophy projects need not all employ an assessment program.

165:

to the idea" I already knew the notion on its own is not tenable as a philispohical school. So which one comes closest?--

5325: 3381: 3366: 3356: 3341: 3298: 3284: 3269: 2591: 2585: 2527: 1008: 751: 4399:

Folks, I am at a distinct disadvantage because I did not record my sources long ago when I resolved this very question.

3506:

The reference you give was to a silly category that merely collected all -isms of all sorts together. I can assure you

2354:

These will be valuable tools in the future. Please take a look at those categories on each "task force" page. Be well,

434:, I was thinking in making many of this for philosophical ideas and its author, hope it makes reading here more easy.-- 3249:, is the fact that it is an eponymous category. It no longer has any connection to the top level philosophy category. 3054:

those setting them up tend to include the category, as well or instead of the biographical article, in the bio tree.

1290: 1220: 5168:

include within the first paragraph what dates it usually is assumed to cover, but the name of the article should not

3184:

Actually you will find people trees, and many others, are normally fine. With most abstract trees, starting with say

5117:

On that note, it seems that the French Knowledge has put Néant in Catégorie:Zéro, but we don't have to follow suit.

3574: 3649: 3401: 3280: 2378:

on Monday 10 Sept (after noon UTC) to tag just those four areas, and see how things go. These categories will have

2139:

The proposal is to go to each of the task force pages and designate a set of categories for which the bot will tag

1387: 1348: 38: 2367: 4989: 4975:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to 4881:

but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? --

4204:

theory, but it contains different material at the moment. Any thoughts on what should be done with this new one?

3738:

I am thinking about creating this task force for articles not easily classified. I am thinking about a place for

3528:

Well, I would certainly include the Cheshire Cat. Some of Heinlein's feline characters might qualify, as well. --

3406: 3386: 3346: 2872: 2848: 1302: 810:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to 4381:. I checked this very carefully in multiple places, on line and in the philosophy library here. I have left the 3033: 2770:

improve to an academic level gradually (more gradually for some articles than others.) I have the same view for

1219:

Over the past few months, I have been working many of the Logic articles. In doing so, I managed to upstart the

4849: 4141: 4095: 4077:

models of psychology, and of theories concerning the ways in which the brain, mind and external world interact.

3614: 1391: 1372: 544: 442: 1830: 1762: 1145:

The transcendental idealism chart is nearly finished. I'm not sure of translations of four Kantian concepts:

4362: 2187:

Will it be necessary to tag the talk page of each category so as to notify the community of the bot tagging?

5370: 5329: 5321: 5314: 5298: 5261: 5231: 5213: 5208: 5193: 5130: 5121: 5112: 5091: 5077: 5032: 5019: 5004: 4958: 4906: 4903: 4885: 4860: 4831: 4811: 4801: 4778: 4761: 4390: 4366: 4334: 4269: 4250: 4222: 4219: 4208: 4183: 4168: 4110: 4041: 3989: 3975: 3953: 3929: 3876: 3858: 3855: 3795: 3785: 3782: 3774: 3725: 3712: 3681: 3663: 3640: 3627: 3619: 3601: 3585: 3559: 3548: 3532: 3520: 3491: 3474: 3456: 3443: 3421: 3322: 3253: 3234: 3224: 3196: 3179: 3058: 3048: 3009: 2998: 2976: 2953: 2935: 2922: 2909: 2896: 2886: 2866: 2821: 2810: 2778: 2753: 2735: 2720: 2710: 2699: 2679: 2669: 2651: 2627: 2606: 2576: 2567: 2558: 2545: 2514: 2511: 2492: 2482: 2479: 2468: 2457: 2412: 2395: 2358: 2339: 2319: 2293: 2290: 2261: 2244: 2227: 2224: 2213: 2204: 2156: 2147: 1862: 1850: 1841: 1823: 1802: 1790: 1744: 1706: 1696: 1687: 1674: 1639: 1636: 1613: 1590: 1573: 1561: 1542: 1506: 1488: 1476: 1460: 1451: 1417: 1398: 1365: 1271: 1251: 1206: 1114: 1090: 1077: 1064: 962: 945: 934: 913: 896: 872: 834: 792: 782: 761: 745: 698: 689: 686: 679: 676: 669: 666: 634: 631: 625: 616: 613: 607: 598: 595: 589: 568: 558: 551: 536: 525: 490: 459: 456: 449: 431: 413: 387: 378: 368: 359: 347: 325: 297: 281: 263: 231: 222: 219: 207: 178: 169: 156: 146: 131: 128: 120: 3294: 2595: 5366: 5150: 5104:. This would be a slightly inefficient use of the subcategory structure, but still meaningful and useful. 4348: 3945:

These pages have recently been started by a new philosophy editor who needs help. They overlap a bit with

3935: 3371: 2806: 1310: 952: 830: 1129: 4382: 4378: 4145: 4062: 4018: 3432: 3391: 3315: 3032:

It's not a transitive relation. For instance, when running through WP:Chicago's categories, you'll find

730: 612:

It's not a fallacy article. I'm not sure why the fallacy template was included, and I have removed it.

1071: 893: 737:

to mention a few (IMVHO) questionable cases. (note I've made a similar query to the category's creator

5058: 3763: 3308:

One task we might profitably set ourselves is to list those philosophers who already have a category.

1776: 5257: 5158: 5154: 4354: 4161: 4153: 4073:

and many other thinkers. Kant's account of phenomena has also been influential in the development of

3847: 3361: 2902: 2798: 2686: 2419: 1502:? There should be a wiktionary entry for "alethiology", though, since other dictionaries have them. ( 1286: 1111: 942: 931: 194: 5246:

This page has been classified as a philosophy article, but it looks much closer to bullshit to me.

4261: 3906: 3466:, and I am coming to think all would be better as -isms or "Philosophy of ...". Most of these were 1815:

This is a proposal to upgrade the project banner to include fields. I have a working prototype at {{

5294: 5046: 4968: 4823: 4176: 4090: 3972: 3480: 3463: 3351: 2915: 2771: 2534: 2405: 1834: 1326: 1257: 1194: 1087: 1061: 860: 577: 513: 437: 384: 365: 344: 291:. I will interpret this statement as a request by you to undelete it, and will do so promptly. -- 278: 2435: 1309:

notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on

1224: 5310: 5204: 4917: 4842: 4117: 3470:

in the relevant philosophy cats, which is to me clearly where people would expect to find them.

3376: 3336: 2840: 1769: 1444: 1342: 1333: 1154:

What use time and space to create experience (my translation of Polish term “zmysły” is “senses”)

1103: 1097: 988: 902: 851: 844: 767: 503: 320: 260: 204: 117: 4144:, and I also feel we need something on ethics and evolution. There are two aspects to this: the 2918:

I have made a suggestion. I suggest we move this discussion there. I worry about us people too.

1244:(which, after all, is just a theorem not dignified enough to be called a theorem) and others... 889: 2761:

This question cuts across the wikipedia. I'm a cab driver, so who am I to say? Well, there are

2602:. Should we have an epynomous category in this case? Please chime in at the CfD discussion. 788:

Not sure a merge would work - the content is quite specific. Perhaps put them up for deletion?

5362: 5272: 5073:. Before I expend the effort, may I ask for a second opinion on whether these are good ideas? 5070: 5066: 5050: 4001: 3939: 2717: 2696: 2449:

like invested energy to make you care about something, no matter how unimportant it is in the

1028: 823: 574:

hmm these articles can be a little tough for me, we need experts on philosophical subjects. --

533: 487: 256: 4260:

Is it really helpful to plaster every article on the visual arts with the aesthetics tag, as

1443:, which I don't think is a good idea. Could any of you take a look at this discussion at the 5286:. The former is a one-line quote/definition, while the latter is just one paragraph long ! 4321:

someday there will be a "meta" namespace to put all this tagged information from talk pages.

4157: 4149: 4058: 3910: 3507: 3439:

It is interesting to note who is missing from this list - Socrates and Sartre, for example.

3185: 2892:

Are you claiming that Russell was not an analytic philosopher, or that he is was not human?

2742: 1436: 1424: 1003:: Major philosophers, classic works of philosophy, schools of branches of philosophy, etc. ( 738: 726: 311: 304: 4164:

would be suitable, touching on both the evolution of ethics and the clash between the two.

2152:

You are creating and deleting so many pages that, i will come after everything is settled.

1536:

differences, but if others disagree please direct the proposal to one of the talk pages. —

5338: 5253: 5187: 5182: 5016: 4891: 4201: 4180: 4165: 4066: 3986: 3926: 3697: 3678: 3670: 2856: 2538: 2423: 2388: 1570: 1558: 803: 630:

I guess you're right. Anyway, I do have a draft in progress. It should be done shortly.

410: 166: 143: 4729: 4695: 4675: 4641: 4607: 4587: 4535: 4515: 4473: 4453: 4160:, though I'm still confused over this is/ought nature of that school of thought. Perhaps 1293:

process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Knowledge's

4877:

article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on

4409:

makes sense in English and in Latin: we confirm P, in order to confirm Q. Simple enough.

2464:

important to philosophy. I think if it's out of place we will figure it out eventually.

1846:

If you are trying to shorten template you can do it like this: {{Philosophy|small=yes}}

1032: 497:

Oh, I am NOT talking about the free will page or philosophy main page. Those are great.

5357: 5290: 4793: 4215: 4197: 4190: 4125: 4070: 4054: 3529: 3512: 3396: 2833: 2153: 1847: 1703: 1684: 1518: 1314: 886: 742: 722: 662: 654: 288: 248: 4238:

I don't know anything about object theory). Expert attention would be helpful. — Carl

5353: 5306: 5217: 5200: 5127: 5118: 5109: 5088: 5074: 5029: 4955: 4808: 4775: 4758: 4387: 4374: 4331: 4245: 4234: 4205: 4074: 4049:. Leading figures in phenomenology - the science of objects as they appear - include 4046: 4026: 3983:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#A Notable Absence of Findings in Neuroscience

3950: 3873: 3792: 3771: 3722: 3709: 3660: 3598: 3556: 3488: 3453: 3250: 3231: 3221: 3176: 3045: 2995: 2950: 2863: 2775: 2762: 2750: 2732: 2707: 2676: 2666: 2662: 2648: 2642:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_6#Category:Ludwig_Wittgenstein

2624: 2622:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_6#Category:Ludwig_Wittgenstein

2573: 2542: 2489: 2465: 2454: 2427: 2409: 2392: 2375: 2355: 2336: 2316: 2258: 2241: 2201: 2144: 1873: 1859: 1838: 1820: 1783: 1758: 1751: 1741: 1693: 1660: 1609: 1538: 1526: 1484: 1473: 1440: 1428: 1414: 1395: 1362: 1282: 1268: 1248: 1074: 1047:

The aim is to rate with respect to the average Knowledge reader, not specialists- ie

1012: 959: 910: 779: 758: 695: 658: 403: 316: 198: 113: 106: 502:

Actually as an analog example against your argument would be that the article about

5349: 4857: 4828: 4798: 4266: 4129: 3892: 3637: 3582: 3517: 3471: 3193: 3055: 3006: 2973: 2932: 2906: 2883: 2766: 2603: 2555: 2210: 1787: 1503: 1394:. The latter has a note on the talk page by Rats saying that it should be deleted. 1264: 1052: 926: 919: 622: 604: 565: 548: 375: 364:

If you think categories are as useful, you're welcome to say as much on that page.

356: 252: 228: 175: 153: 5108:, on the other hand, would be a member of Category:Nothing and not Category:Zero. 2391:. This is kind of a big opportunity that will pass, so let's make the most of it. 2240:

the task force pages. Then the collection in each task force will be easily seen.

4140:

We are in dire need of some ethics/morality related articles. We have nothing on

3921:

doesn't seem relevant either. To be sure, as long as this list remains linked at

2665:

links to a book by Robert Nozick. Seems a shame to neglect this. Any takers? --

1191:

Hope you check correct translation of the Transcendental Idealism chart, thanks--

5083:

I am open-minded and intrigued by this idea. I would be interested to see where

4882: 3751: 2400:

I have placed the request. At some point, a bot will tag all of the articles in

1587: 1522: 1495: 1466: 1354: 983:: Major branches of philosophy in the broadest sense, that which appears on the 46:

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

2695:

Also, I think assigning this important topic "low" priority is a bad mistake.

161:

You misunderstand... I asked "Which school of philisophical thought would hold

5344:

With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is

5177: 5101: 4083: 4022: 4005: 3624: 3545: 3440: 3319: 3303:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 5#Category:Wittgenstein

2919: 2893: 2818: 2716:

Thanks. Now, how should I bring up the subject of the "low" importance flag?

2600:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 5#Category:Wittgenstein

2564: 1799: 1671: 1456:

Thanks for your attention. This discussion is closed and the merger is off. -

984: 882: 789: 734: 675:

I'm still curious as to whether or not anyone has an answer to this question.

4916:

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the

3696:

group to see if they want to be subsumed into the task force organization of

5348:. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is 5097: 5084: 3759: 3739: 3674: 2788: 1383: 1024: 718: 507: 3905:

I don't know what exactly makes it into a notable philosophical topic, but

2859:

for being the prevailing view on the Wittgenstein issue. Way to go team.)

1170: 1125: 2878:

This category is only in one category itself, and that one is a mistake -

2644:

it is going to be a war about categories from now on unless we change the

5240: 4874: 4866: 4241: 4035: 3743: 1718:

are not correct. Good articles are hard work. My hat's off to all of you.

1482:

Why not both? You can't fit much of a summary into a Wiktionary entry. —

1457: 1448: 1263:

Absolute truth still has a talk page even though it has been merged with

3659:

please...or tell me what to do. Just change the name? Yours confusedly,

2179:

How long shall we take to finalize the designation of these categories?

5105: 5062: 3946: 3755: 2551: 1819:}}. This will allow more assessment abilities at the subproject level. 1761:

article, dealing with Eliade's philosophy of religion. See the section

1237: 1228: 3283:. The guideline itself lists several reasonable exceptions, including 2563:

yes, go ahead - Professional ethics and Code of conduct are distinct.

2434:

I seem to have gotten myself into two intractable disagreements with

1361:

Hi, I've added Jean Piaget in this project without any rates. Cheers

992: 1023:: Philosophers, treatises of reasonable acclaim, subbranches, etc. ( 2795:

there are some www adresses referring to a commercial company....

2618:

Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Rewrite_of_eponymous_category_bit

713:

Hey All, Could someone look at the use of ]? it seems to me to be

510:, however you are right, there's something we need to do abot it -- 1876:

automatically tag all articles in designated categories with the

1786:

11:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC) looks like original research. afd it--

1499: 1241: 1178: 1048: 430:

Hi, I looked at this image from the polish wikipedia about Kant's

3544:

there is a prohibition on eponymous cats; what the rationale is.

3245:

I'm afraid someone thinks that the only thing that matters about

3044:, and suddenly you're in a whole different part of the country. 5100:

should be a top-level member of each category, and the same for

4878: 3886:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Philosophers' Football Match

3485:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_9#Category:Isms

2972:. God knows how you cope with the back covers of Wittgenstein. 2851:

are also appropriate candidates for expansion into categories."

2444:

About whether Francis Bacon is of high importance to philosophy.

1073:

for the criteria. And wouldn't this be better on the talk page?

1004: 1240:, maybe I can have some help by time I get up the strength for 3747: 1552:

Category names that do not correspond to general academic uses

1390:, which I just changed from 'Philosophical explanations', and 251:, I'm in need of an expert in philosophy for deciding whether 25: 4845:

article has been marked as within the scope of this project.

1837:

that assignes articles to one or more task forces. Comments?

1409:

the assessment talk page, but I suspect few people read this

4196:

Someone has copied an essay into Knowledge as a new article

3270:

Knowledge:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people

1317:, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the 486:

philosophy articles are still the most intractible. Thanks.

422: 3005:

I suggest you look at what is actually there. Whereof ....

4807:

Fixed. He is notable. More info added to make that clear.

3318:. This is where I think a user would expect to find them. 1305:). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the 3293:

A recent case for deletion was bought against the former

3146:

Y is related substantially to X, Y belongs in category X.

2964:

That is not the case here. All members of all subcats of

355:

can't we just get rid of the lists and use categories? --

4818:

Development of Progressive Judaism - philosophical roots

3673:, which is even less appropriate. Try a stubby merge to 1435:

At the moment there is a proposal to merge the articles

335:

Interested parties are encouraged to participate in the

4281:. However, I will take your comment under advisement... 3538: 3312: 3288: 2901:

I worry about you people sometimes. I am claiming that

1653: 532:

general point about the layman still stands. Thanks.

341:

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

275:

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy

1447:

and give your point of view on this subject. Thanks -

4854:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism#Gender and Judaism

4732: 4698: 4678: 4644: 4610: 4590: 4538: 4518: 4476: 4456: 1858:

It was working so well, I went ahead and upgraded it.

5157:, but, some consider it as the earliest part of the 4279:

Knowledge:WikiProject_best_practices#Article_tagging

3688:

Continental, Marxism, Critical theory, Phenomenology

3655:It isn't. That is, it isn't a disambiguation page. 1513:

Proposed merge of 'Brain in a vat' and 'Evil genius'

5356:. There also seems to be difficulty complying with 4669:"Affirming the consequent." refers to the theorem: 3314:. The simplest solution would be to place these in 3230:That area is one of my areas of ignorance - sorry. 972:(I'm placing this here temporarily for visibility) 218:else decides to put in the work faster than I can. 5069:, and it would likely have some relationship with 4738: 4704: 4684: 4650: 4616: 4596: 4544: 4524: 4482: 4462: 3042:Category:New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad 2598:following the latter's nomination for deletion at 2594:was created as a clearly superior replacement for 1768:I know this is probably more of a request for the 1297:, and the deletion notice explains why (see also " 1106:, who is tagged for your project, is currently at 1289:, suggesting that it be deleted according to the 4581:"Denying the anticident" refers to the theorem: 2949:Y is a sub cat)? This is the case all over WP. 1411:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment 930:whoever put it there must have had a reason.) -- 543:For the record, the relevant style guideline is 4347:Hey, I was browsing through and I noticed that 2787:Why are there commercials on the bottom of the 1681:Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Philosophy 1512: 1404:Help with assessing importance of phil articles 3581:, which are highly plausible approach routes. 4501:is also called "Affirming the anticident" and 4089:Thanks for any input you have time to give, 2620:. The Wittgenstein category discussion is at 116:? I have absolutely no idea what it means. 8: 1679:Categorization helps in the sense like this 5065:article. It would probably be a subcat of 1654:'Child' projects of WikiProject:philosophy 1285:}} template has been added to the article 4731: 4697: 4677: 4643: 4609: 4589: 4537: 4517: 4475: 4455: 925:I made some large-scale additions to the 5015:assessment for a particular work group? 4563:is also called "Denying the consequent." 4086:in a subsection in "Use in philosophy". 5057:. I'd like to make it a subcategory of 4218:namespace and (2) it needs to be NPOV. 3768:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative Views 273:So, I guess somebody decided to delete 4723:and the non-sequitur type of fallacy: 4635:and the non-sequitur type of fallacy: 3959:A call for interdiscliplinary approach 3112:Y is an X, so Y belongs in category X. 1757:I recently added a new section to the 1670:than doing real research and writing. 1378:There are two pages on Nozick's book, 1051:would be known by almost all, whereas 968:paste from article - should be in talk 857:, for managing our workload on them -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4947:List of basic thinking-related topics 4277:Short answer: yes it is. Please see, 3694:Knowledge:WikiProject Critical Theory 2635:And now the discussion has moved to : 1963:) if the article is supported by the 1872:This is a proposal to request that a 1868:Proposal for automatic banner tagging 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 7: 5271:Please could someone have a look at 3435:, lots of other eponymous -isms too. 3428:Category:Philosophy of Robert Nozick 3038:Category:Penn Central Transportation 2131:if the article is supported by the 2119:if the article is supported by the 2107:if the article is supported by the 2095:if the article is supported by the 2075:if the article is supported by the 2063:if the article is supported by the 2051:if the article is supported by the 2031:if the article is supported by the 2019:if the article is supported by the 2007:if the article is supported by the 1995:if the article is supported by the 1983:if the article is supported by the 1943:if the article is supported by the 1931:if the article is supported by the 1919:if the article is supported by the 1907:if the article is supported by the 1895:if the article is supported by the 466:Should Read Like Encyclopedia Entry 5278:This is a disambiguation page for 4940:List of basic transhumanism topics 3923:List of philosophical topics (A-C) 3913:. The page currently redirects to 2133:Contemporary philosophy task force 1043:: Specialized, lesser known topics 752:List of philosophy component types 24: 5149:and is considered to succeed the 4373:Fixed the logic on this page and 3844:Knowledge:WikiProject Objectivism 3734:Alternative philosophy task force 3702:Continental philosophy task force 3579:Category:Ancient Greek literature 2065:Continental philosophy task force 2021:Philosophy of language task force 1997:Philosophy of religion task force 1124:Here's a copy of Cezary M. Kruk ( 4822:A new section has been added to 3618:found above to the top level of 2931:(and analyse) what I say above! 2905:is not an analytic philosopher. 1985:Philosophy of science task force 1267:. Is this what usually happens? 1120:About PHILOtheory charts (again) 138:Philosophical Aspects of Privacy 29: 5055:Category:Mathematical constants 4926:List of basic philosophy topics 3852:Category:Continental philosophy 3287:. See also my reply to Otho4711 2382:of their pages tagged with the 1965:Social and political task force 1571:Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 1559:Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 419:About philosophic theory charts 5284:Cognitive closure (philosophy) 5280:Cognitive closure (psychology) 4789:New stub, debatable notability 4733: 4699: 4679: 4645: 4611: 4591: 4539: 4519: 4477: 4457: 3930:00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 3896:19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 3859:17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 3796:09:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 3786:13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3775:10:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3713:10:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3664:21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3641:21:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3628:20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3602:23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3586:22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3575:Category:Ancient Greek culture 3560:21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3549:21:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3533:18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3521:20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3492:20:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3475:16:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3457:09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3444:09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3323:08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3254:05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3235:09:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3225:04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3197:00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3190:Category:Analytic philosophers 3180:00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3059:00:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3049:00:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 3010:00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 2999:00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 2977:00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 2970:Category:Analytic philosophers 2966:Category:Analytic philosophers 2954:23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2936:22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2923:22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2910:21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2897:21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2887:20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2880:Category:Analytic philosophers 2867:01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 2832:I am planning on amending the 2822:08:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 2811:05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 2779:02:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 2413:14:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 2372:one page for the whole project 2109:Medieval philosophy task force 2053:Analytic philosophy task force 847:Maybe we should tag them with 112:Would somebody please look at 1: 5371:03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 5352:without its being at best an 5330:01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 5315:21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 5299:21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 5262:05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 5232:02:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 5209:01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 5194:19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 5131:22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5122:22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5113:22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5092:12:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5078:11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5033:12:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4964:Ludwig Wittgenstein FA review 4933:List of basic humanism topics 4899:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism 4301:deadlines that I am aware of. 3915:List_of_Latin_phrases_(A–E)#A 3884: 2836:guideline so as to include: 2754:22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 2736:15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 2721:15:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 2711:14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 2700:14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 2680:21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 2670:17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 2652:02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 2628:23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 2607:14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 2577:10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 2568:08:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 2559:14:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 2546:06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 2515:03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 2493:06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2483:04:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2469:02:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2396:12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 2359:01:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 2340:21:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2320:12:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2294:04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 2097:Ancient philosophy task force 2009:Philosophy of mind task force 1325:, where it may be deleted if 772:Hold more stubbornly at least 310:I am attempting to write the 5020:05:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 5005:16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 4959:19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 4907:15:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 4886:16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 4861:03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 4832:15:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 4812:08:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 4802:03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 4779:03:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4762:02:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 4391:23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 4367:21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC) 4335:22:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 4270:13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 4251:13:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 4223:01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 4209:06:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4184:04:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC) 4169:10:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC) 4111:20:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC) 3382:Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein 3367:Category:Henry David Thoreau 3357:Category:Friedrich Nietzsche 3342:Category:Arthur Schopenhauer 3299:Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein 3285:Category:Alexander the Great 3036:, which then has the subcat 2592:Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein 2586:Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein 2528:Category:Professional ethics 2121:Modern philosophy task force 1009:Philosophical Investigations 5354:original research synthesis 4848:There is a related article 3990:21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 3976:23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 3954:20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 3877:01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 3726:01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 3682:22:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 2458:20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC) 2262:23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 2245:22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 2228:15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 2214:13:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 2205:09:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 2157:08:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 2148:01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1863:01:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) 1851:07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 1842:14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 1824:14:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 1803:13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1791:12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1745:06:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1707:14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1697:06:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1692:Sorry - I don't understand. 1688:04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1675:00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC) 1664:22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 1640:21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 1614:04:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 1543:07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1530:08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC) 1507:22:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1489:07:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 1477:00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC) 1303:Knowledge's deletion policy 717:broadly applied, including 699:22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 690:19:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 680:15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 5386: 5126:Okay, I'm starting it up. 4983:. Reviewers' concerns are 4029:, who contrasted the term 4004:, we have reorganized the 3650:Principle (disambiguation) 3615:Category talk:Philosophyto 3412:Category:Søren Kierkegaard 3281:Knowledge:Ignore all rules 3247:Category:Søren Kierkegaard 3040:, which then sends you to 3034:Category:Chicago railroads 2845:Category:Søren Kierkegaard 1798:Proposed deletion for OR. 1574:09:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1562:09:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1461:12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) 1452:19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1418:06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1399:05:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1388:Philosophical Explanations 1380:Philosophical Explanations 1366:12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 1349:19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC) 1272:04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 840:about jargonistic articles 818:. Reviewers' concerns are 649:Policy on "Works" Section? 189:need help with POV article 5139:Classification by century 5010:Importance in assessments 4971:has been nominated for a 4084:directly into the article 3891:Thought you should know! 3850:already falls within the 3407:Category:Robert M. Pirsig 3387:Category:Martin Heidegger 3347:Category:Bertrand Russell 3332:Please extend this list: 2873:Category:Bertrand Russell 2849:Category:Martin Heidegger 1392:Philosophical Explanation 1373:Philosophical Explanation 1371:Call for speedy deletion 1315:proposed deletion process 1252:13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1207:22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1115:11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1091:20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1078:09:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 1065:07:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 963:11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 946:22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 935:22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 914:22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 897:18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 873:02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 835:15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 806:has been nominated for a 793:22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 783:05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC) 762:09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 653:Based on the entries for 635:13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) 626:19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 617:16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 537:19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 526:16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 491:08:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 460:13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 450:15:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 414:15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 388:02:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 379:13:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 369:07:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC) 360:21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 348:03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 326:20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 298:02:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 282:02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 232:21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 223:19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC) 132:13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 4869:: call for participation 4850:Role of women in Judaism 4142:intergenerational ethics 3826:Miscelleneous philosophy 3817:Unassimilated philosophy 3328:list of philosopher cats 3141:They use the principle: 2384:{{philosophy|field=yes}} 1952:social-and-political=yes 1319:speedy deletion criteria 958:I have tagged this AfD. 746:18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 670:18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 608:21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 599:17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 590:02:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 569:08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 552:08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 545:Knowledge:Explain jargon 264:12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 208:08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 179:10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 170:06:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 157:03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 147:17:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 121:04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC) 5267:Cognitive closure x 2 ! 5214:17th century philosophy 5145:It is often called the 4973:featured article review 4912:Notice of List articles 4042:Critique of Pure Reason 3829:Unclassified philosophy 3820:Non-academic philosophy 3422:Category:Thomas Carlyle 3402:Category:René Descartes 2426:and related pages, and 1921:Epistemology task force 1591:19:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 808:featured article review 709:Contextualism category? 559:Argument from queerness 432:Transcendental idealism 5151:Renaissance philosophy 4920:subpages (not by me). 4740: 4706: 4686: 4652: 4618: 4598: 4546: 4526: 4484: 4464: 4349:Modus tollendo tollens 4343:Modus tollendo tollens 4136:Ethics articles needed 3936:Desire (in Philosophy) 3814:Alternative philosophy 3692:I have approached the 3620:categories:philosphers 3372:Category:Immanuel Kant 3301:which can be found at 3215:Aesthetics categoriees 2451:grand scheme of things 2171:Shall we or shant we? 2033:Philosopher task force 1909:Metaphysics task force 1817:WikiProject Philosophy 1295:criteria for inclusion 1212:Math v Phil over Logic 1183: 427: 249:Notability wikiproject 193:Please have a look at 5199:What is the article? 4741: 4707: 4687: 4653: 4619: 4599: 4547: 4527: 4485: 4465: 4383:modus ponendo tollens 4379:modus ponendo tollens 4146:evolution of morality 3433:Category:Confucianism 3392:Category:Noam Chomsky 3316:Category:philosophers 3295:Category:Wittgenstein 2596:Category:Wittgenstein 1897:Aesthetics task force 1323:Articles for Deletion 1321:or it can be sent to 1299:What Knowledge is not 1182: 1128:) that he left at my 731:Nature versus nurture 426: 42:of past discussions. 5155:Age of Enlightenment 5153:era and precede the 5049:as a subcategory of 4991:One Night In Hackney 4739:{\displaystyle \to } 4730: 4705:{\displaystyle \to } 4696: 4685:{\displaystyle \to } 4676: 4651:{\displaystyle \to } 4642: 4617:{\displaystyle \to } 4608: 4597:{\displaystyle \to } 4588: 4545:{\displaystyle \to } 4536: 4525:{\displaystyle \to } 4516: 4483:{\displaystyle \to } 4474: 4463:{\displaystyle \to } 4454: 4162:evolution and ethics 4154:naturalistic fallacy 3848:Category:Pataphysics 3362:Category:Georg Hegel 2903:Definite description 2687:Entscheidungsproblem 2420:Category:Metaphysics 1276: 953:Philosophy of travel 331:List of philosophers 4969:Ludwig Wittgenstein 4824:Progressive Judaism 4177:Evolutionary ethics 4019:specialized meaning 3927:trespassers william 3464:Category:Kantianism 3352:Category:David Hume 3175:Good luck on that. 2916:category:Philosophy 2772:the unexamined life 2535:Professional ethics 1525:has been proposed. 1258:Talk:Absolute truth 799:Galileo Galilei FAR 287:It was deleted via 5322:Postmodern Beatnik 5172:the date/century. 5045:So I just created 4918:Knowledge:Contents 4843:Gender and Judaism 4837:Gender and Judaism 4736: 4702: 4682: 4658:B, ~A therefore ~B 4648: 4614: 4594: 4542: 4522: 4480: 4460: 4291:be relatively few. 4220:Postmodern Beatnik 4118:Hermeneutic circle 3811:Notable philosophy 3808:Popular philosophy 3669:It was moved from 3377:Category:Karl Marx 3337:Category:Aristotle 2841:Category:Aristotle 2834:eponymous category 2817:Linkspam removed. 2512:Postmodern Beatnik 2480:Postmodern Beatnik 2291:Postmodern Beatnik 2225:Postmodern Beatnik 2077:Marxism task force 1637:Postmodern Beatnik 1445:Talk:Formal system 1184: 989:Philosophy of mind 903:Speculative reason 878:Cosmosophy prodded 845:Template:Technical 768:Hold come what may 677:Postmodern Beatnik 667:Postmodern Beatnik 632:Postmodern Beatnik 614:Postmodern Beatnik 596:Postmodern Beatnik 504:General relativity 457:Postmodern Beatnik 428: 220:Postmodern Beatnik 129:Postmodern Beatnik 5361:pleased. Best, -- 5273:Cognitive closure 5192: 5089:Pontiff Greg Bard 5071:Category:Nihilism 5067:Category:Ontology 5051:Category:Integers 5041:Category:Nothing? 5030:Pontiff Greg Bard 4759:Pontiff Greg Bard 4369: 4357:comment added by 4332:Pontiff Greg Bard 4249: 3973:Damir Ibrisimovic 3940:Desire Philosophy 3917:, and a previous 3823:Fringe philosophy 3241:Soren Kierkegaard 2813: 2801:comment added by 2430:importance rating 2406:Philosophy banner 1933:Ethics task force 1346: 1339:. User:Ceyockey ( 1291:proposed deletion 1221:WikiProject Logic 1216:Greetings folks, 1189: 1188: 488:user:Artman772000 323: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5377: 5350:reliably sourced 5222: 5190: 5185: 5180: 5176: 5059:Category:Nothing 5003: 4999: 4992: 4977:featured quality 4856:. Best to all, 4746:B, B therefore A 4745: 4743: 4742: 4737: 4711: 4709: 4708: 4703: 4691: 4689: 4688: 4683: 4657: 4655: 4654: 4649: 4623: 4621: 4620: 4615: 4603: 4601: 4600: 4595: 4551: 4549: 4548: 4543: 4531: 4529: 4528: 4523: 4489: 4487: 4486: 4481: 4469: 4467: 4466: 4461: 4419:is not an error. 4352: 4239: 4158:social Darwinism 4150:appeal to nature 4108: 4103: 4098: 4093: 3764:Integral thought 3508:Category:Marxism 3259:Philosopher cats 3186:Category:History 2828:Need some backup 2796: 2743:Advice (opinion) 2402:these categories 2366:I have placed a 2352: 2129: 2128:contemporary=yes 2117: 2105: 2093: 2073: 2061: 2049: 2040:Major traditions 2029: 2017: 2005: 1993: 1981: 1953: 1945:Logic task force 1941: 1929: 1917: 1916:epistemology=yes 1905: 1893: 1777:Political choice 1770:religion project 1612: 1541: 1487: 1437:Axiomatic system 1425:Axiomatic system 1382:both started by 1340: 1338: 1332: 1308: 1202: 1197: 1135: 1134: 1130:commons talkpage 885:on July 12 2007 868: 863: 856: 850: 827: 812:featured quality 727:Dynamical system 585: 580: 521: 516: 445: 440: 321: 312:Joseph Priestley 305:Joseph Priestley 215:overenthusiastic 202: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5385: 5384: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5342: 5339:Meaning of life 5269: 5244: 5229: 5218: 5188: 5183: 5178: 5141: 5043: 5012: 5002: 4997: 4990: 4988: 4966: 4914: 4897:The members of 4895: 4892:Meaning of life 4871: 4839: 4820: 4791: 4728: 4727: 4694: 4693: 4674: 4673: 4640: 4639: 4606: 4605: 4586: 4585: 4534: 4533: 4514: 4513: 4472: 4471: 4452: 4451: 4345: 4311:matters AT ALL. 4258: 4231: 4202:Social contract 4194: 4138: 4121: 4113:Beast of traal 4106: 4101: 4096: 4091: 4065:and influenced 3998: 3961: 3943: 3919:deleted version 3903: 3889: 3736: 3690: 3671:Law (principle) 3653: 3479:Interestingly, 3330: 3261: 3243: 3217: 2876: 2830: 2793: 2746: 2729:assessment page 2690: 2659: 2589: 2572:Thanks - done! 2539:Code of conduct 2531: 2432: 2424:Ascended Master 2350: 2193: 2185: 2177: 2169: 2164: 2127: 2115: 2103: 2091: 2071: 2060:continental=yes 2059: 2047: 2028:philosopher=yes 2027: 2015: 2003: 1991: 1979: 1951: 1939: 1927: 1915: 1904:metaphysics=yes 1903: 1891: 1870: 1813: 1811:Banner proposal 1780: 1755: 1656: 1608: 1554: 1537: 1515: 1483: 1470: 1433: 1406: 1376: 1359: 1336: 1330: 1306: 1287:Khalufid's Fork 1279: 1277:Khalufid's Fork 1261: 1214: 1200: 1195: 1185: 1174: 1143: 1122: 1112:Espresso Addict 1101: 1001:High importance 970: 956: 943:Phatius McBluff 932:Phatius McBluff 923: 906: 880: 866: 861: 854: 848: 842: 825: 804:Galileo Galilei 801: 775: 755: 711: 651: 583: 578: 562: 519: 514: 506:is written for 493:artman772000 468: 443: 438: 421: 407: 337:deletion debate 333: 308: 271: 259:. Thank you! -- 247:as part of the 242: 200: 195:formal axiology 191: 140: 110: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5383: 5381: 5341: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5268: 5265: 5243: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5225: 5140: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5124: 5115: 5042: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5011: 5008: 4994: 4965: 4962: 4951: 4950: 4943: 4936: 4929: 4913: 4910: 4894: 4889: 4870: 4864: 4838: 4835: 4819: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4794:Paul R. Patton 4790: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4735: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4701: 4681: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4647: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4613: 4593: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4541: 4521: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4479: 4459: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4394: 4393: 4344: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4262:User:Greg bard 4257: 4254: 4230: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4216:Contractualism 4198:Contractualism 4193: 4191:Contractualism 4188: 4187: 4186: 4156:, and perhaps 4137: 4134: 4126:Schleiermacher 4120: 4115: 4092:Beast of traal 3997: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3985:for context. – 3960: 3957: 3942: 3933: 3902: 3899: 3888: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3827: 3824: 3821: 3818: 3815: 3812: 3809: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3735: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3689: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3652: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3513:Thomas Carlyle 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3483:was rejected: 3437: 3436: 3430: 3425: 3415: 3414: 3409: 3404: 3399: 3397:Category:Plato 3394: 3389: 3384: 3379: 3374: 3369: 3364: 3359: 3354: 3349: 3344: 3339: 3329: 3326: 3260: 3257: 3242: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2957: 2956: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2875: 2870: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2792: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2745: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2714: 2713: 2689: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2658: 2657:Examined Life? 2655: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2615: 2614: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2561: 2530: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2472: 2471: 2446: 2445: 2442: 2431: 2418:Advice needed 2416: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2343: 2342: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2217: 2216: 2207: 2192: 2189: 2184: 2181: 2176: 2173: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2160: 2137: 2136: 2124: 2112: 2100: 2081: 2080: 2068: 2056: 2037: 2036: 2024: 2012: 2000: 1988: 1969: 1968: 1948: 1936: 1924: 1912: 1900: 1892:aesthetics=yes 1878:{{philosophy}} 1869: 1866: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1812: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1779: 1774: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1738: 1737: 1732: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1655: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1546: 1545: 1519:Brain in a vat 1514: 1511: 1492: 1491: 1469: 1464: 1432: 1421: 1405: 1402: 1375: 1369: 1358: 1352: 1307:{{dated prod}} 1278: 1275: 1260: 1255: 1213: 1210: 1196:Andersmusician 1187: 1186: 1177: 1175: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1121: 1118: 1100: 1094: 1088:The Rhymesmith 1081: 1080: 1062:The Rhymesmith 1045: 1044: 1041:Low importance 1037: 1036: 1021:Mid importance 1017: 1016: 997: 996: 981:Top importance 969: 966: 955: 950: 949: 948: 922: 917: 905: 900: 879: 876: 862:Andersmusician 841: 838: 800: 797: 796: 795: 774: 765: 754: 749: 723:World Wide Web 710: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 663:Charles Taylor 655:Daniel Dennett 650: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 601: 579:Andersmusician 561: 556: 555: 554: 529: 528: 515:Andersmusician 499: 498: 467: 464: 463: 462: 439:Andersmusician 420: 417: 406: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 332: 329: 307: 302: 301: 300: 270: 267: 241: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 190: 187: 186: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 139: 136: 135: 134: 109: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5382: 5373: 5372: 5368: 5364: 5359: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5340: 5337: 5331: 5327: 5323: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5312: 5308: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5287: 5285: 5281: 5276: 5274: 5266: 5264: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5250: 5247: 5242: 5239: 5233: 5228: 5223: 5221: 5215: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5191: 5186: 5181: 5173: 5171: 5165: 5163: 5160: 5159:Enlightenment 5156: 5152: 5148: 5147:Age of Reason 5138: 5132: 5129: 5125: 5123: 5120: 5116: 5114: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5076: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5047:Category:Zero 5040: 5034: 5031: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5018: 5009: 5007: 5006: 5001: 5000: 4993: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4963: 4961: 4960: 4957: 4949: 4948: 4944: 4942: 4941: 4937: 4935: 4934: 4930: 4928: 4927: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4919: 4911: 4909: 4908: 4905: 4900: 4893: 4890: 4888: 4887: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4868: 4865: 4863: 4862: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4846: 4844: 4836: 4834: 4833: 4830: 4825: 4817: 4813: 4810: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4800: 4795: 4788: 4780: 4777: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4763: 4760: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4725: 4724: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4671: 4670: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4637: 4636: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4583: 4582: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4449: 4448: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4392: 4389: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4375:modus tollens 4372: 4371: 4370: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4359:128.8.128.134 4356: 4350: 4342: 4336: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4280: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4268: 4263: 4255: 4253: 4252: 4247: 4243: 4236: 4235:Object theory 4229:Object theory 4228: 4224: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4192: 4189: 4185: 4182: 4178: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4135: 4133: 4131: 4127: 4119: 4116: 4114: 4112: 4109: 4104: 4099: 4094: 4087: 4085: 4080: 4078: 4076: 4075:psychodynamic 4072: 4068: 4064: 4063:Merleau-Ponty 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4047:phenomenology 4043: 4040: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4028: 4027:Immanuel Kant 4024: 4020: 4014: 4010: 4007: 4003: 3995: 3991: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3974: 3968: 3964: 3958: 3956: 3955: 3952: 3948: 3941: 3937: 3934: 3932: 3931: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3900: 3898: 3897: 3894: 3887: 3878: 3875: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3860: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3842:A few ideas. 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3828: 3825: 3822: 3819: 3816: 3813: 3810: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3797: 3794: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3784: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3733: 3727: 3724: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3711: 3705: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3687: 3683: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3651: 3648: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3626: 3621: 3616: 3603: 3600: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3558: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3534: 3531: 3522: 3519: 3514: 3509: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3493: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3481:Category:isms 3478: 3477: 3476: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3434: 3431: 3429: 3426: 3423: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3413: 3410: 3408: 3405: 3403: 3400: 3398: 3395: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3385: 3383: 3380: 3378: 3375: 3373: 3370: 3368: 3365: 3363: 3360: 3358: 3355: 3353: 3350: 3348: 3345: 3343: 3340: 3338: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3327: 3325: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3306: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3291: 3289: 3286: 3282: 3279: 3273: 3271: 3265: 3258: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3223: 3214: 3198: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3060: 3057: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3011: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2997: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2978: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2947: 2946: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2885: 2881: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2868: 2865: 2860: 2858: 2852: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2835: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2790: 2786: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2764: 2763:inclusionists 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2752: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2730: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2719: 2712: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2698: 2693: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2663:Examined Life 2656: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2643: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2587: 2584: 2578: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2566: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2540: 2537:redirects to 2536: 2529: 2526: 2516: 2513: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2443: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2429: 2428:Francis Bacon 2425: 2421: 2417: 2415: 2414: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2376:User:SatyrBot 2373: 2369: 2360: 2357: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2321: 2318: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2246: 2243: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2206: 2203: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2190: 2188: 2182: 2180: 2174: 2172: 2166: 2161: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2085: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2066: 2062: 2057: 2054: 2050: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2041: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1986: 1982: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1973: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1885: 1881: 1879: 1875: 1867: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1818: 1810: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1778: 1775: 1773: 1771: 1766: 1764: 1760: 1759:Mircea Eliade 1753: 1752:Mircea Eliade 1750: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1716: 1708: 1705: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1662: 1641: 1638: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1615: 1611: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1551: 1549: 1544: 1540: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1510: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1490: 1486: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1468: 1465: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441:Formal system 1438: 1430: 1429:Formal system 1426: 1422: 1420: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1403: 1401: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1374: 1370: 1368: 1367: 1364: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1335: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311:its talk page 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1259: 1256: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1245: 1243: 1239: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1211: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1181: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1119: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1099: 1095: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1056: 1054: 1050: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1033:Buridan's ass 1030: 1026: 1022: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1013:Functionalism 1010: 1006: 1002: 999: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 979: 978: 977: 973: 967: 965: 964: 961: 954: 951: 947: 944: 939: 938: 937: 936: 933: 928: 921: 918: 916: 915: 912: 904: 901: 899: 898: 895: 891: 888: 884: 877: 875: 874: 871: 870: 869: 864: 853: 846: 839: 837: 836: 832: 828: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 798: 794: 791: 787: 786: 785: 784: 781: 773: 769: 766: 764: 763: 760: 753: 750: 748: 747: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 708: 700: 697: 693: 692: 691: 688: 683: 682: 681: 678: 674: 673: 672: 671: 668: 664: 660: 659:Robert Nozick 656: 648: 636: 633: 629: 628: 627: 624: 620: 619: 618: 615: 611: 610: 609: 606: 602: 600: 597: 593: 592: 591: 588: 587: 586: 581: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 560: 557: 553: 550: 546: 542: 541: 540: 539:artman772000 538: 535: 527: 524: 523: 522: 517: 509: 505: 501: 500: 496: 495: 494: 492: 489: 483: 480: 476: 472: 465: 461: 458: 454: 453: 452: 451: 448: 447: 446: 441: 433: 425: 418: 416: 415: 412: 405: 404:Fragmentalism 401: 389: 386: 382: 381: 380: 377: 372: 371: 370: 367: 363: 362: 361: 358: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 346: 342: 338: 330: 328: 327: 324: 318: 313: 306: 303: 299: 296: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 283: 280: 276: 268: 266: 265: 262: 261:B. Wolterding 258: 254: 250: 245: 239: 233: 230: 226: 225: 224: 221: 216: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 203: 196: 188: 180: 177: 173: 172: 171: 168: 164: 160: 159: 158: 155: 151: 150: 149: 148: 145: 137: 133: 130: 125: 124: 123: 122: 119: 118:Corvus cornix 115: 114:Lack (manque) 108: 107:Lack (manque) 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: 5363:Shirahadasha 5343: 5288: 5277: 5270: 5251: 5248: 5245: 5219: 5174: 5169: 5166: 5146: 5144: 5142: 5044: 5013: 4995: 4967: 4952: 4945: 4938: 4931: 4924: 4915: 4896: 4872: 4847: 4840: 4821: 4792: 4346: 4259: 4233:The article 4232: 4195: 4139: 4130:Hermaneutics 4122: 4088: 4081: 4044: 4038: 4032: 4016: 4013: 4011: 3999: 3969: 3965: 3962: 3944: 3904: 3890: 3737: 3706: 3691: 3656: 3654: 3612: 3597:Good point. 3573: 3541: 3536: 3527: 3467: 3438: 3417:Others ???? 3416: 3331: 3310: 3307: 3292: 3277: 3274: 3266: 3262: 3244: 3218: 2928: 2877: 2861: 2853: 2838: 2831: 2794: 2767:deletionists 2747: 2718:Rick Norwood 2715: 2697:Rick Norwood 2694: 2691: 2660: 2640: 2616: 2590: 2532: 2506: 2502: 2499:historically 2498: 2450: 2447: 2436:User:Aburesz 2433: 2399: 2383: 2379: 2365: 2287:value theory 2286: 2282: 2276: 2220: 2218: 2194: 2186: 2178: 2170: 2151: 2140: 2138: 2126: 2114: 2104:medieval=yes 2102: 2090: 2083: 2082: 2070: 2058: 2048:analytic=yes 2046: 2039: 2038: 2026: 2016:language=yes 2014: 2002: 1992:religion=yes 1990: 1978: 1972:Major fields 1971: 1970: 1960: 1956: 1950: 1938: 1926: 1914: 1902: 1890: 1883: 1882: 1877: 1871: 1857: 1814: 1781: 1767: 1756: 1657: 1555: 1547: 1516: 1493: 1471: 1455: 1434: 1407: 1379: 1377: 1360: 1341: 1280: 1265:Universality 1262: 1246: 1234: 1225:Logic Portal 1218: 1215: 1193: 1192: 1190: 1171:pl:User:W1k0 1167: 1144: 1141:A few doubts 1126:pl:user:W1k0 1123: 1102: 1086: 1082: 1060: 1057: 1053:Wittgenstein 1046: 1040: 1020: 1000: 987:page, etc. ( 980: 974: 971: 957: 927:hylomorphism 924: 920:Hylomorphism 907: 894:132.205.44.5 881: 859: 858: 843: 802: 776: 756: 714: 712: 652: 576: 575: 563: 534:Artman772000 530: 512: 511: 484: 481: 477: 473: 469: 436: 435: 429: 408: 334: 309: 295: 292: 272: 253:Practicalism 246: 243: 240:Practicalism 214: 192: 162: 141: 111: 78: 43: 37: 4904:John Carter 4353:—Preceding 4256:Visual arts 4124:mention of 3856:John Carter 3783:John Carter 3752:Pataphysics 2927:No, please 2797:—Preceding 2092:ancient=yes 2072:marxism=yes 1980:science=yes 1955:– (or just 1523:Evil genius 1517:A merge of 1496:Alethiology 1467:Alethiology 1386:. They are 1355:Jean Piaget 1104:Agnus Serra 1098:Agnus Serra 1055:would not. 687:John Carter 293:best, kevin 36:This is an 5254:Shaggorama 5102:0 (number) 5017:Richard001 4181:Richard001 4166:Richard001 4031:phenomenon 4023:philosophy 4015:Phenomenon 4006:Phenomenon 4002:WP:PHYSICS 4000:Hello, At 3996:Phenomenon 3963:Dear all, 3907:apparently 3901:A fortiori 3192:does now. 2803:89.0.84.68 2237:assessment 2175:Time frame 2116:modern=yes 1928:ethics=yes 1884:Core areas 1829:This is a 1423:Merger of 1357:in project 1343:talk to me 1223:, and the 985:Philosophy 890:cosmosophy 883:User:Banno 735:David Bohm 508:physicists 411:TimVickers 374:debates.-- 167:Dr who1975 144:Dr who1975 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 5291:thisisace 5098:Empty set 5087:ends up. 5085:empty set 4757:Be well, 4330:Be well. 4059:Heidegger 3874:Greg Bard 3793:Greg Bard 3772:Greg Bard 3760:Esoterism 3740:Mysticism 3723:Greg Bard 3710:Greg Bard 3675:principle 3530:Trovatore 3489:Greg Bard 3454:Greg Bard 3251:Greg Bard 3222:Greg Bard 3177:Greg Bard 3046:Greg Bard 2996:Greg Bard 2951:Greg Bard 2864:Greg Bard 2862:Be well, 2789:Entelechy 2404:with the 2351:field=yes 2283:@Anarchia 2277:@Gregbard 2162:Questions 2154:Lara_bran 1961:political 1940:logic=yes 1848:Lara_bran 1833:of a new 1704:Lara_bran 1685:Lara_bran 1384:User:Rats 1334:db-author 1327:consensus 1247:Be well, 1025:R.M. Hare 887:WP:PRODed 852:Technical 743:Pete.Hurd 719:Hypertext 257:talk page 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 5307:Anarchia 5289:Thanks. 5241:Bodymind 5220:xDanielx 5201:Anarchia 5128:Melchoir 5119:Melchoir 5110:Melchoir 5096:I think 5075:Melchoir 4956:Quiddity 4875:pleasure 4867:Pleasure 4809:Anarchia 4776:Anarchia 4388:Anarchia 4355:unsigned 4206:Anarchia 4036:noumenon 3951:Anarchia 3744:Ayn Rand 3698:WP:PHILO 3661:Anarchia 3599:Anarchia 3557:Anarchia 3232:Anarchia 2857:WP:PHILO 2799:unsigned 2776:Gregbard 2751:Anarchia 2733:Gregbard 2708:Gregbard 2677:Anarchia 2667:Dylanfly 2649:Gregbard 2625:Gregbard 2574:Anarchia 2543:Anarchia 2490:Anarchia 2466:Gregbard 2455:Anarchia 2410:Gregbard 2393:Gregbard 2389:WP:PHILO 2356:Gregbard 2337:Anarchia 2317:Gregbard 2259:Anarchia 2242:Gregbard 2202:Anarchia 2145:Gregbard 2004:mind=yes 1959:or just 1860:Gregbard 1839:Gregbard 1821:Gregbard 1784:Anarchia 1742:Gregbard 1694:Anarchia 1661:Anarchia 1610:xDanielx 1539:xDanielx 1527:Anarchia 1485:xDanielx 1474:Anarchia 1415:Anarchia 1396:Anarchia 1363:Chrisdel 1269:Anarchia 1249:Gregbard 1096:AfD for 1075:Anarchia 1029:The Meno 960:Anarchia 911:Anarchia 780:Anarchia 759:Anarchia 696:Anarchia 402:AfD for 385:KSchutte 366:KSchutte 345:KSchutte 317:Awadewit 279:KSchutte 5358:WP:NPOV 5106:Nothing 5063:Nothing 4858:Egfrank 4829:Egfrank 4799:GRBerry 4267:Johnbod 4071:Deleuze 4067:Derrida 4055:Husserl 4039:in the 4021:in the 3947:Emotion 3893:Johnbod 3756:New Age 3657:Fix it! 3638:Johnbod 3583:Johnbod 3518:Johnbod 3472:Johnbod 3194:Johnbod 3056:Johnbod 3007:Johnbod 2974:Johnbod 2933:Johnbod 2907:Johnbod 2884:Johnbod 2604:GRBerry 2556:Buridan 2552:be bold 2211:Buridan 2167:Tagging 2084:Periods 1788:Buridan 1504:Iolasov 1238:theorem 1229:theorem 826:Georgia 623:Circeus 605:Circeus 566:Circeus 549:Circeus 376:Buridan 357:Buridan 289:WP:PROD 244:Hello, 229:Buridan 176:Buridan 163:closest 154:Buridan 39:archive 4883:Karada 4017:has a 3938:& 3278:policy 2646:policy 2507:really 2503:really 2368:notice 2191:Fields 2183:Notice 1957:social 1835:banner 1588:Atfyfe 1301:" and 1070:Go to: 993:Ethics 661:, and 5179:Akako 4051:Hegel 4033:with 3987:Pomte 3679:Pomte 3625:Banno 3546:Banno 3441:Banno 3320:Banno 2994:all. 2920:Banno 2894:Banno 2819:Banno 2791:page? 2565:Banno 2221:point 1800:Banno 1672:Banno 1500:Truth 1242:lemma 1049:Plato 824:Sandy 790:Banno 16:< 5367:talk 5346:here 5326:talk 5311:talk 5295:talk 5282:and 5258:talk 5216:. — 5205:talk 5053:and 4985:here 4981:here 4879:pain 4873:The 4841:The 4377:and 4363:talk 4246:talk 4152:and 3762:and 3297:now 2929:read 2807:talk 2765:and 2613:at : 1831:test 1763:here 1521:and 1439:and 1427:and 1283:prod 1281:A {{ 1201:VOTE 1005:Hume 867:VOTE 831:Talk 820:here 816:here 770:and 739:here 733:and 715:very 584:VOTE 520:VOTE 339:for 322:talk 205:acan 5275:. 5162:--> 4998:303 4552:~Q) 4532:(~P 4490:~Q) 4470:(~P 4242:CBM 4025:of 3909:it 3748:MOQ 3677:. – 3577:or 3542:why 3468:not 3272:. 2847:or 2380:all 2141:all 1874:bot 1498:to 1458:Mdd 1449:Mdd 1108:AfD 269:WTF 199:coe 5369:) 5328:) 5313:) 5297:) 5260:) 5230:\ 5207:) 5175:-- 5170:be 5164:" 4987:. 4954:-- 4734:→ 4712:Q) 4700:→ 4692:(P 4680:→ 4646:→ 4624:Q) 4612:→ 4604:(P 4592:→ 4584:~P 4540:→ 4520:→ 4512:~Q 4478:→ 4458:→ 4365:) 4244:· 4079:" 4069:, 4061:, 4057:, 4053:, 3911:is 3770:. 3758:, 3754:, 3750:, 3746:, 3742:, 3290:. 2843:, 2809:) 2731:. 2554:-- 2422:, 2086:: 2042:: 1974:: 1886:: 1509:) 1431:?? 1347:) 1337:}} 1331:{{ 1132:: 1110:. 1031:, 1027:, 1011:, 1007:, 991:, 941:-- 892:. 855:}} 849:{{ 833:) 822:. 741:. 729:, 725:, 721:, 657:, 444:$ 343:. 319:| 94:→ 64:← 5365:( 5324:( 5309:( 5293:( 5256:( 5227:C 5224:/ 5203:( 5189:☎ 5184:| 5143:" 4726:A 4672:Q 4638:A 4450:P 4361:( 4248:) 4240:( 4107:_ 4102:C 4097:T 4012:" 3424:? 2805:( 2135:. 2123:. 2111:. 2099:. 2079:. 2067:. 2055:. 2035:. 2023:. 2011:. 1999:. 1987:. 1967:. 1947:. 1935:. 1923:. 1911:. 1899:. 1035:) 1015:, 995:, 829:( 201:l 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 9 - Knowledge

Index