Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 18

1972:

like object-oriented or ontology in that sense. Which is fine. I realize ontology gets gets used (and in fact of course got started as did a lot of things) as a philosophical concept. So I was curious, there are often philosophical concepts that are relevant to computer science research. The more I looked at that article though the more I felt that as it is it is terrible. Barely understandable. What is more the references and the whole "topic" as discussed looks to me like someone's PhD thesis turned into a Knowledge article. There are lots of inline refs but check them out carefully. They have fancy sounding names like "Journal of Ontological Mooginess" but when you go there the "journal" is just a blog trying to look like it represents something more than one or two people's opinions. Also, there are "books" mentioned but the ISBN number of at least one isn't valid and I suspect that that "book" is just a PhD thesis, at best a PhD thesis that got vanity published. I've tagged the article with a tag about the references but I think there is a serious issue as to should any of the content remain. I think it's highly confusing for people looking for information on object-oriented concepts and ontologies. I haven't proposed deletion for the article yet I was curious if anyone here had an opinion.

3143:. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off). 2301:

anything that random people get published in the popular press is just as legitimate. I.e., many influential editors do not think there is a field of ethics like there is a field of biology. They think ethics, metaphysics, etc. are just forms of free-for-all opinionizing. The result is that the unanimous or near-unanimous judgement of everyone writing in the field is regarded as "not neutral" by itself in some cases, and the fringe views of those not even in the field are regarded as significant minority views. I don't despair though; I just try to fix stuff up and contribute new stuff when I have some time. --

4868:

tool for Knowledge. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (

3568:

examples are fallacious in themselves (the examples in the article were taken from his book) and the fact that even being generous in interpreting what he means by "ludic fallacy", it's not really a distinct fallacy, I highly suspect that this concept has not been taken up and used independently, and as such is not likely to be notable on its own merits. Can those in favor of keeping the article suggest anything that would indicate that anyone but Taleb and people explicitly referencing Taleb and the Black Swan are taking this concept up?

2135:

Dillema of Determinism is one. Its a known subject well defined. Making it into a general and somewhat eclectic discussion of determinism (which is what you are trying to do) is both unnecessary and a mistake. Also you do not seem to get the point that most editors on these pages are simply ignoring you, and those who engage after a period of time tell you they are disengaging because of the need to constantly repeat the same points. I can easily list several editors in that category.

3783:

fashion statements, like placing Karl Marx bigger than Adam Smith. Others border on unethical, like Otto Weininger dwarfing simpleton Karl Popper. And quite a few are absurd on their face, like how the little dots contributed from nobodies FA Hayek, Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Thomas Paine, GE Moore, AJ Ayer, A. Whitehead, George Berkeley and Daniel Dennett could all fit inside Murray Rothbard's death star on the graph.

31: 2577: 2263:

Philosophy. This has resulted in a great deal of dumbing-down, and reductions to lowest common denominators. I would like to establish an email list with just WP:PHILO members, but I believe this sort of thing is frowned upon since we don't actually have freedom of speech in Knowledge (which, for some incredibly stupid reason extends to the talk namespace). Perhaps we need to do some outreach to academia.

2439:

sympathy to creating the Standard Argument article again, but that does not imply support for your version of that article (which is what was blocked). In that rewording you simply tried to find another vehicle for material that had already been rejected. As long as you ignore the facts, and other editors who try to help you, you are likely to be ignored. ----

1131:

if the link could benefit some readers, the cost of including it is near zero. Is it possible that your real concern is that the recognition of certain topics as curated PhilPaper categories gives some credence to certain philosophy topics, and certain books and articles, that you think should never see the light of day on WP?

3120:, a BLP article within your scope needs help in establishing a neutral criticism section. There have been concerns that the article's subject and his contemporaries may be editing the article to conform criticism to a specific POV, and that this has been going on for a few years. Anyhow, your expertise is welcome. Regards, 3988:). In the case of a philosopher, I usually include in the 'influenced' list scholars who are both notable enough to have an article of their own and whose work was significantly influenced by that philosopher as per reliable sources. Those two criteria usually suffice to keep a list reasonably small (e.g., see for example 3084: 3070: 1540:

categorizing a person by birthplace and occupation. However, the philosophical theories category, the schools of thought category and the philosophical schools and traditions category need to be tightened up. I had proposed a long time ago to merge the "schools of thought" but it was kept unfortunately.

4497:

There's no requirement that sourced material can't be added to an article unless it's discussed in full. Adding influences with a source to an infobox is often very helpful. Whether to expand on it in the article will depend on whether anyone wants to, whether there's much to say about it, and so on,

3782:

Somewhat offotopic but the graphing project is downright depressing; the relationships demonstrated bouncing from absurd to travesty. Some look like fashion statements, like Hegel eclipsing the freshman ne'er-do-well Aristotle or Noam Chomsky edging past that nobody Thomas Aquinas. Some are obviously

2862:

is not a publisher of reliable philosophy-related books. Moreover, the claims inserted by the anon. editor (e.g. "One should not whitewash the unmistakable neo-Platonic/neo-Aristotelian defense of human inequality Schopenhauer thrust against the more radically egalitarian revolutions of his age") are

2725: 2483:

Brews, if you had shown any indication that you had listened to the extended comments from Pfhorrest in your draft then it might have provided a starting point. As it is, all you did was expand and extend the original contested additions. Sorry, you are simply not listening and its difficult to pay

2422:

as a separate article is supported by Vesal and BlueMist, but Blackburne and Snowded continue to block any such change, claiming insufficient support, but themselves registering zero comment on the issues involved, simply muttering about enforcement of bureaucracy. The Project Philosophy participants

2300:

I think there are two reasons: the Stanford Encyclopedia is (usually) so good, that there seems to be no good reason to recreate the wheel in so many cases. Another reason is what people are already referring to: There are some editors who just don't get what academic philosophy is, and think that

1622:

Now, it might be a valid new category for Philosophy or the folks at this WikiProject might think it is not useful. I'll leave that up to consensus. But I definitely think this question should be decided through conversation with WikiProject Philosophy and not just from those well-meaning Editors who

897:

In my understanding, Snowded's argument implies that only a link to an official page of the article's subject is allowed. However, that phrase in bold print in WP:EL is more specifically part of WP:ELNO and is given as a case of exemption from general avoidance: "Except for a link to an official page

3886:

aspect. Perhaps we all need to be vigilant about making sure these parameters don't get out of control, because then the parameter does become useless in terms of providing an overview of someone's place in the history of philosophy. If someone has influenced just about everyone, it isn't helpful to

3822:

since it does not reflect what has been common practice among the active members of Wikiproject Philosophy since the inception of the infobox in 2005: the documentation says that "It is a requirement that any entry in the influences/influenced parameter be explained and sourced in the article text."

3524:

I agree that it needs to be rewritten, but the article should probably stay. (It could be rolled into the book's article, but I don't think that's needed.) The examples are terrible, though: in the first example, as written, the fallacious result is actually correct and the supposedly correct result

2723:

The article is very richly supplied with redirects from a variety of phrases, some of which I have seen in specialized dictionaries on some of the related academic disciplines. I find it interesting that as a matter of phrase history there is one phrase that has consistently been the dominant phrase

2278:

Agreed, Gregbard. Unfortunately, the problem is much wider than just Knowledge. Academic, mainstream philosophy is suffering from endemic, inbred dogmatism. Traditional, duplicate ideas are reinforced by ease of publication, whereas non-standard (even for people like Kant and Wittgenstein) ideas are

4752:

or other articles. I've always felt that Knowledge should change the name of requirements like "notable". Really, it's just a term of art, and being non-notable says nothing bad, but in common parlance being "non-notable" sounds derogatory. E.g., if you're reading a review of Houston's book that

3455:

While I'm not typically a Knowledge editor, I am a Philosophy Professor. Hegel is the perfect example of an author who can be interpreted in so many ways, each with their own valid and stimulating defenses. Seeing somebody so boldly state one interpretation as solid fact is not just misleading to

2670:

I have been active in the talk page discussion on the article, asking other editors to cite sources. I would be especially glad to hear from people who approach the issue from the discipline of philosophy. My late father was a student of philosophy, and his philosophy reference books from more than

2225:

Ignoring your particular issue, yes, philosophy is pretty moribund. I think part of the reason might be the structure of the featured content process. It's set up to give us lots of great articles on battleships. But general academic topics are much harder to get to a state where they can become GA

1539:

A "field" is a study of a particular subject matter (i.e. ethics as opposed to logic), and the "traditions" category contains the various historical schools of thought (i.e. major philosophical theories and methodologies) from which these areas are studied. So they are fundamentally as different as

1130:

Snowded: Thank you for that decision. It is a chilling thought that you will have no qualms about disputing the addition of PhilPapers links as 'external links' despite all this discussion (made necessary by yourself). Have you ever wondered what the cost-benefit analysis of such a link is? Surely

4867:

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration

4172:

Facts that require no unpacking are one thing; however, there is a very big difference between such facts and what we are discussing here. That an element has a particular atomic weight, a boat a certain length, etc, are simple facts and can be presented in the infobox without further explanation;

4117:

It does reflect common practices and standards wiki-wide. Looking at the implementation, though, makes it clear that "a dozen" is a significant underestimation of potential unwieldiness, an that in many cases your proposed criteria are not being followed; perhaps that would be one way of improving

3512:

Well for one thing it's not a fallacy per se, he just calls it that. The article is about a concept in a single book. Where the sources are relevant, they're referring only to that book. The question is whether the concept in the book is notable by itself. Certainly if kept it needs to be entirely

3039:

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Knowledge community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop,

2262:

The situation is dire. The philosophy has always been worse off than any other academic area. If you keep an eye on the proposals that arise affecting our department (i.e. categories and articles for deletion, etc.) the results invariably depend on the collective will of non-members of WikiProject

2110:

I believe the answer is yes. There are so few editors interested in this topic that many articles have received no attention since their creation years ago. Any suggestions for changes of these articles is met with indifference, or worse, unexplained resistance. Constructive exchange of views with

1099:

If there is to be vacillation about this matter, the notion of what is an 'adequate' representation will require discussion. I'd argue that it is impossible to say that the contents of a curated list of sources is 'adequately' replaced by other links, if only because of the role of the curator and

1095:

There is no need for a special use of 'judgment' in each case to decide whether a curated PhilPapers link should be supplied. That decision is readily made here once and for all. Leaving inclusion open to special pleading about what is 'adequate' in each individual case is just opening the door to

587:

Snowded: Not the case at all. Your statement of my position is entirely your own. I have no problem with discussion, but MachineElf won't do it. It would be folly indeed to suggest that changes to WP articles can be reverted at will, without any need for discussion, as MachineElf has done. That is

4244:

Often those connections will end up being explained in the article (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly), and sometimes not at all. Everything depends on the local decisions of the writers, how long the article is, which direction it takes, and so on. Attempts to control this kind of thing

4160:

I think it's fair enough to ask for sources, but I see no reason to insist that it also be expanded in the text. Material can be in leads and infoboxes without needing to be repeated; indeed that is one of the points of an infobox, namely to highlight key "facts at a glance" that might require no

1971:

Ontology is a very hot area of applied research in computer science these days because of the Semantic Web and languages like OWL (which is object oriented) so I was excited to see that someone started a page on the topic. However, what is currently in that article has nothing to do with concepts

725:

The PhilPapers categories are a valuable resource for relevant literature on specific topics as they are well-maintained and hand-picked by experts in the respective area. They are a prime example of what makes sense to go in the External links section, even if they might look a bit random to the

4601:

Pfhorest tried to salvage some of your material and you rejected it. You find it impossible to work with other editors. More eyes would indeed be welcome, not just here but on the overall pattern of your behaviour which is almost identical to that which got you permanently banned from Physics

4550:

for the above article. I'm a nurse, but I don't have subject matter expertise in ethics or whistleblowing. This is a GA that I am thinking of nominating for FA at some point. I'm hoping to ensure that the treatment of the issues is robust enough for FA. I would love any comments that you have to

3481:

here or on the web. It's a bit tough, because it's a pop culture book, so there are a number of places that reference it, but the idea is exclusively tied to Nicholas Nassim Taleb. From what I can tell, this idea is not an ongoing scholarly concern and does not exist independent of the corpus of

1371:

The issue here seems to be centered around the idea of a "core" issue, and not categorizing issues in general. However, they apprear to be ready to delete the whole thing, when a simple rename would suffice. This is a well developed category, and it can serve to organize many articles. Please do

1202:

Will someone please ask MachineElf to stop interfering with the editing process in this article. I've asked for comments, hoping for people with appropriate expertise. Instead, MachineElf has decided to throw his weight around without demonstrating any knowledge of the subject. Editors should be

1006:

No one has taken it up on policy so I think per the discussion above it can be allowed. But before we get mass edits over multiple pages I suggest the criteria for inclusion should be that (i) there is a named academic of note curating the section in person and (ii) its not done where there is

3827:, but need not be in the form of prose. The purpose of that list is to offer a quick glance or easy navigation between different articles. It would be nice to have this piece of information in prose form as well (and eventually we will have it), but this should not be an absolute requirement. -- 3545:

Yes, the examples are insane. From a personal perspective, it's not clear at all that this is anything but a crazy strawman, and the examples show that. The definition is very vague - it seems to me that the closest thing to a clear definition is "using the wrong model" - i.e. your model is not

3341:

At least three editors (including me) have been participating in the discussions above since early November. Atticusattor still refuses to engage in productive discussion with us. I am going το revert many of his edits with caution; some specific pieces of information he inserted are adequately

2134:

You think it is nonsensical, but that is your opinion. I think its is yet another example of you adding your own commentary to a section that is already properly referenced. You might want to consider that a fair amount of the material relates to subjects that are reasonably well established,

1966:

I've been editing articles on various object-oriented topics in computer science. (BTW, I make my living in IT but I have a deep knowledge of philosophy, in areas that overlap computer science such as philosophy of mind but also in areas that are outside computer science such as ethics). I came

3864:

The influences/influenced section of infoboxes is important in philosophy. It immediately tells philosophers and philosophy students (the groups that probably count for the bulk of the readership of these articles) a lot about the subject of the article. There's no need for it to be invariably

3678:

that uses this parameter to map influences of philosophers graphically (and you should check it out). Also, just to be forthright about things in general, I have discovered on Knowledge, that the best way to guarantee for sure that the change you want will never be accomplished... is to make a

3629:

We need to consider changing the way influences are dealt with in infoboxes. Significant philosophers like Hegel accumulate 80+ people who were influenced by them (and I'm sure many more could be added), but there's little indication of the nature of the influence, and the lists quickly become

3567:

That said, it's not for me to decide to delete this because my reasoning shows it's the same thing - I'm just looking to see if philosophy/logic can give me an idea about the degree to which this is a concept that's been adopted among mainstream philosophers. Based on the fact that Taleb's own

1521:

When discussing contemporary philosophers, it's not clear to me that there is a distinct difference between "tradition" and "field" since they both seem like academic specializations. But I'm not going to recategorize any of them, I thought I'd just bring it to your attention and maybe you can

1114:

You can never compromise on anything can you? How many RfCs, how many lengthy talk page expositions? How many personal attacks and lack of good faith? Ok this is a minor issue and I am not going to waste any more time on it. If no one else responds consider point (ii) dropped as it can be

4449:

It would in no way be either content forking or undue: if someone has had a significant influence, whether it's "X's ideas impacted all subsequent Y philosophers" or "A taught B", that should be explained and sourced at the article about that "ancestor". A bluelink to another article does not

2438:

Brews try and get your facts straight. On Dillema Pfhorrest but a huge effort into trying to explain why your proposed expansion of the article was wrong but you didn't want to listen to him. Trying to portray it as a personal conflict is misleading to say the least. Secondly there is some

927:

It is not the prerogative of any WikiProject to decide pretty much anything except what it puts on its own project pages (including, e.g., which articles are within its scope). Whether to include these links is first of all up to the editors at each individual article, and secondly up to the

3942:

a good example. I added all of those names (minus one or two); and I accept the burden to provide reliable sources for every one of them. I still think though that sloppily removing any name in those lists that does not appear in the article body is not helpful in any way. Challenge was not

3734:

reason why this parameter should not be deprecated. Moreover, it is vital for that project to include influences that came via the study of works or books, not just via physical contact between two philosophers; anyone knowledgeable in the history of philosophy knows that the most important

2036:

Just to note my concern (I have mentioned that of Lonjers) I am worried about whether trying to define reason in a non-human-centric way forces us to equate it to logic, more or less, and removes the distinction between reason and other ways of coming to logical conclusions such as animals,

2805: 2793: 2323:

I use the SEP a great deal for sourcing. One difference between the SEP and Knowledge is that the SEP is not bound by NPOV. For their readership, a good, obviously biased article is more valuable than a shallow, well balanced one. Then, someone else can always contribute a complementary

2226:

or FA. So we get dozens and dozens of cookie cutter articles about hurricanes or US roads go through DYK then GA then FA. But doing the same for philosophy (or mathematics or equivalent theoretical subjects) will require an enormous amount more work. The reward structure is messed up. —

2894:

A user suggested number of quotes allegedly by Voltaire, about Islam and Muhammad, none of which are supported by any reliable sources or even multiple sources other than the wikipedia page itself, of Voltaire where he added. Till now, haven't seen any reliable sources from the user.

2020:

is concerned that the article is too "human-centric". While the article can certainly do with a fresh perspective, this is a critical philosophical term and I have suggested some more talkpage discussion first before making major changes. I suggest this requires more input from the

1843:. Ranges of pages work fine too. And so do common alternative names and shortforms for titles. You can specify Greek by adding a "|greek" or even just a "|g" parameter at the end. You can't link just a book right now, you need to specify a Stephanus page (maybe I'll fix that). 3673:

I am not sure anything can be done to adequately address Nikkimaria's concern. I think we are fated to live with that situation and perhaps we should be grateful that the issue arises in an infobox, rather than in a text. Removing the parameter from the infobox is not an option.

2458:. As you say the support of BlueMist and Vesal is for a return to an article on the 'standard argument' instead of a redirect to 'dilemma', as the 'standard argument' is the more basic approach. I don't intend to claim they support the particular version of 'standard argument' 822:: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." If there is to be a debate here over whether this action is compatible with policy, let's first decide what we want to do, and then decide whether a change in 2244:

Tom: The reward structure is not only messed up - it is interfered with. The main reward (stripped of WP incentives like featured article status) is that one is contributing useful content, and that reward is nixed by editors that make it clear they do not have that in mind.

1164:

My impression is that the discussion between Snowded and Brews ohare on this matter is dysfunctional. The two subject external links should have been added to the article by now but haven't. I don't have any more time for this and I regret having spent any time at all on it.

4047:

were influenced by Marx but they are not Marxists. Moreover, we cannot have a separate list pages for philosophers' followers; e.g., 'List of philosophers and scholars influenced by Deleuze/Bourdieu/Kropotkin' so that we can link the respective infobox parameters to them.

1943:

Right. And even small efforts can help, for example leaving a note on that article's talk page with comments about what concerns you, or even just copy editing the article or adding a few better sources. Such things can help you or others pick the job up more easily in the

3357:

I support the undoing of much or all of Atticusator's work on articles related to Hegel (and Marx, although I believe that he attempts were less successful there). I found his edits to be contrary to NPOV and attempted to reason with him early on but was not successful. —

1505:

I do a lot of work with categorization and I was working on some philosophers' articles which led me to look at the way philosophers are categorized. It looks like the talk page on the philosophy category page hasn't been used since 2006 so I'm bringing my question here.

4576:

is now an article. Editor Snowded has deleted a good deal more than half of this article, and so far has provided no reasons on the Talk page for his actions other than his personal unsupported opinions. We need some other eyes on this discussion to form a good article.

793:

which clearly excludes such links other than "for a link to an official page of the article's subject". A phrase which is given in bold in that policy. I suggested to Brews that he bring it here, but I am not sure we don't need a policy change to match the words of

1907:. Frankly, it's terrible--especially for an article so important. I check it every once in a while to see if it's been improved but it hasn't been touched since I found it. I'm just posting here in the hope that maybe it'll get fixed up if more people know about it. 2283:

a bit of slack, we, here at Knowledge can actually make a difference in the world, and perhaps speed philosophy out of its dark age. In principle, we are not as tightly restricted to traditional dogma as the published, or other, professional online encyclopedias.

1066:

The need for involvement of a responsible editor for the PhilPaper's category is obvious to all and accepted by everybody. The need for Snowded's judgment as to whether other links already listed are 'adequate', making a PhilPaper's link superfluous, is rubbish.

1828:

I've tried to make it so that it is easy to use with current practices: You should just have to cite with Stephanus pagination mainly as you normally do, but just wrap it with the template, with a couple dividers. All the documentation with usage examples is at

2834:

has been making some very controversial changes to WikiProject Philosophy-related articles; their editing consists in unwarranted editorializing and original research (linking mainstream philosophical figures with esoteric theology). I have recently reverted

2037:

computers, and sometimes people do. I think both my concern and Lonjers concern are on the other hand parts of the history of ideas itself, and somehow needing to be reported. Even just collecting some sources with definitions to consider might be helpful.--

2973:

One can just look at their controversial moves. None of them agrees with the terminology used in most contemporary sources. This editor rarely provides any secondary sources to support their claims. Moreover, Mercer.philosophy is obviously a sockpuppet of

987:

I think that's right. Snowded's concern about them being "search" pages (something that is on the "avoid" list) was understandable, because they do resemble a list of search results. But since the pages are editor-maintained lists, that doesn't apply.

3166:

is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

3761:(the most reputable reference work available in the literature); occasionally, I also used peer-reviewed research papers. While, I did include citations to the research papers, unfortunately, I did not do the legwork to provide any citations to the 817:

I think it is within the prerogative of the philosophy group to decide whether PhilPapers should be included in External Links. This decision concerns only philosophy sources, affects only philosophy pages, and is best decided here. It falls under

898:

of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to …". Also, I am sure that no policy change is needed to match my words. Still, I can't see why there should be a prerogative of WP:PHILO to decide this. Kind regards,

2615:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

349:- that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! 4275:(outdent) I agree with SlimVirgin. Attempts to control these lists centrally does not work. In the meanwhile, Nikkimaria keeps going against consensus and continues her disservice to our readers (philosophy students). She blindly applies an 4173:

however, with influences there is always the question of how the influence occurred or manifested, according to whom the influence exists, and other details that do require unpacking if the information is to be meaningful and encyclopedic.

3869:

is policy and says that sources are needed for material challenged or likely to be challenged, and it's a built-in assumption of the policy that the challenge will be reasonable (not coming from someone who is removing material en masse).

660:

on the basis that "we don't use searches as external sources". I think an editor-maintained list of papers is not equivalent to a Google search, and I also think these lists are useful to readers. We need some decision on this matter.

588:

particularly so in this case, where unsourced material has been replaced with correct and sourced material. The fruitful action is to respond on the Talk page to the explanations I have provided for introducing the sourced material

137:

Referring to Maxwell's information demon, if the total entropy of the Universe is an exponential, and an exponential is merely a number (Euler's joke to Diderot), then numbers (ie. symbols) are spun in and out of existence without

4426:

The explanations you are asking most of the time can be found in the article of a philosopher's descendants. Are you actually suggesting that they should be found in the article of the philosopher-ancestor? This would constitute

3040:

web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (

4517: 4304:. This sort of removals is downright unconstructive (it is of interest to note that she always reverts with the uninformative edit summary "fmt, rm unsupported"). After more than 20 days after her proposal to start enforcing 744:

It is possible to search the site and get keyword matches that are not a category, so some caution is required. If the header of the page says "Search results for 'foo'", then that isn't a category and probably runs afoul of

3342:

sourced, but most of them either constitute original research or have Wheat 2012 as their sole source—the problem being that Wheat 2012 is contradicted by most (if not all) English-speaking authoritative sources on Hegel. --

621:. Changes are held hostage by MachineElf and Snowded, who refuse all discussion. There is nothing that can be done to improve this article (or indeed many philosophy articles on WP) without broader interest from this group. 4308:'s usage note, the consensus remains against this usage note and in favor of long-standing project-specific practice. I am going to change the template documentation to reflect the consensus of this discussion: "Entries in 3881:

I've looked more closely at some of Nikkimaria's edits, and she does seem to be right about some of them, and perhaps all. Nikkimaria, I apologize for posting the above without looking closely first; I was reacting to the

4747:

For the record, I'm sure Beth Houston is a perfectly fine scholar and philosopher. But that doesn't mean her particular theories are "notable" in the Knowledge sense; indeed, they are probably well-worthy of inclusion on

3849:

still apply to these parameters. I'm not suggesting that the parameters be deprecated, but these agreed-upon standards (which are supported by previous discussions regarding the template) need to be consistently applied.

3238:

for the current guideline). As this will affect Knowledge on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here:

4547: 3077: 3065: 2800: 2786: 4596:

and other articles. Editors engage, reject your proposals, you engage in extensive discussion on the talk page, no changes result. Then you take the rejected material and try it on another one, or create one. On

2898:

And then other user suggests some french sources, some of them seems to be incapable for the confirmation. Although I have proposed a lot better version, which includes the information, by multiple reliable sources.

1081:

I am suggesting criteria for the exercise of involved editors judgement Brews, it's the way policy works. It gives a framework for discussion. Nothing there suggests I think it should be my judgement in isolation.

3979:

To draw an analogy: when we list an academic's notable doctoral students we usually include all those who are notable enough to have an article of their own, which is sufficient filtering in most cases (e.g., see

2619:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

1686:, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the 1022:

Snowded: Your item (i) is not in dispute. Your item (ii) is a judgment call and, I am quite sure, you and I will never agree upon what is 'adequate' reading material and what the criteria for 'adequate' are.

1472:, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 1344:, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 855:

MachineElf: Indeed they were and still are present on many article pages. However, Snowded has now decided that a more careful consideration is needed as part of his policy of keeping brews_ohare in line.

141:

Under the grand unified theory (GUT), merging classical and quantum domains and taking a differential over the result would imply that the demon from (4) exists in every dimension, where the dimension d :

133:

Since the Internet is an observable phenomena, but work is produced by mere mental content, then extra-normal activity may be permitted within the constraints of classical and quantum domains, a la Stuart

1881: 2279:

strongly suppressed by political pressure. I am not aware of this condition in any of the sciences, or in any other arts. Consequently, academic support will not be forthcoming. By allowing people like

2931:

Dear philisophers: My request for independent sources went unanswered on this Afc submission. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, or should we let it fade away? —

2062: 1415:

by Peterson & Seligman make up a large portion of this article (the book is cited 10 times). This gives undue prominence to these authors' point of view, theory, and categorization scheme. Per

546:

contains incorrect definitions and a lack of sources. I provided sourced corrections and a Talk page explanation. MachineElf reverted them without comment. That is not how matters can be improved.

4592:

I gave clear reasons Brews and was supported by another editor who you invited to contribute so please try and keep to the facts. The whole cycle is starting with you again here as we had with

4203:, those are very meaningful connections to philosophers and philosophy students (the main readership of these articles). They convey ideas that would otherwise take hundreds of words to explain. 3645:

It actually works the other way round. You first make a proposal and after consensus has been reached, you start enforcing the new policy. In any case, there are useful comments to be found

1914: 703:#9. On the other hand, if it is a human-curated directory and not just a search, then that is acceptable (assuming the content has value, doesn't violate any other restrictions, etc.). See 1346: 2327:

EDIT: Having said that, I better add an illustration. The following SEP article is fascinating, instructive, has extensive bibliography, and is eccentric compared to standard commentary.

2185:

As far as I can tell, all academic topics are moribund on Knowledge. But the reason your edits meet with resistance is that you are constantly trying to promote non-mainstream views.

343:'s Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - 1616: 1596:

I created this category for individuals who are already categorized under "Philosopher" categories but who write for the general public, a wider audience than academia. It's based on

1474: 676:

I'm happy to live with the view of other editors here. It is not normal to use a search of a d web site as an external reference - or at least I have not come across it before. ----

4291:

from the list of philosophers influenced by Badiou (Meillassoux is a former student of Badiou who based his whole theoretical framework on his intent to oppose Badiou); she removed

245: 4931: 4824: 1687: 826:

is needed to accommodate it. In my opinion, category links to PhilPapers immediately produce an editor-maintained and selected list of entries useful to a reader that satisfies

572:

is all about. Your opening comment here is misleading in that it implies the changes were initiated by another editor when in fact you are the one who wants to make them. ----

4640: 2612: 4668:

Dear philopsophers: Here's another old Afc submission. Is this a notable professor, and should the article be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —

3262: 2701:

This is a case where it doesn't really matter which version is used as the title, as long as a redirect exists from the other version. Readers won't give a damn either way.

2462:, although that draft is well-sourced and far more complete than anything attempted so far on this topic. This draft has not been critiqued as to content, nevermind rejected. 2203:

Looie: The argument that my edits are 'promotions of non-mainstream views' is seldom advanced as an objection. With few exceptions my contributions are firmly sourced. The

512:

on its Talk page, but MachineElf refuses to comment. The issues of substance involve the definitions in the introductory section. We need some additional input on this page.

4283:, most of the time challenge is not reasonable. The examples are countless. I will just mention a handful of them. She removed Descartes from Chomsky's influences (ahem... 3795:

Methinks there are some issues here. (although with a few simple tweaks it could be made quite a bit more robust, like assigning a weight to the influences of influences).

3296:). At least twelve articles have been affected so far. The editor has so far refused to explain their editing activity with reference to Knowledge policy. I just reverted 3908:

I know that when I see people adding names, I often don't revert if it's not an article I'm otherwise involved in, but perhaps we all ought to be more willing to do that.

3158:

is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available

335:

Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields.

1759:

Dear philosophers: This old Afc draft is soon to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? Right now the word "Non-place" is a redirect. —

2768:

for today. It's not in a good state, mostly unreferenced. Many of these doodle WP biogs get 2-3 million hits each. Pairs of eyes and extra refs are appreciated. Thanks

2522:

and no attention is paid, who is not listening? Snowded, please ask yourself why it is that you insist on a campaign to emasculate WP and roadblock simple things like

94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3170:

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the

2384:. The result is that by default there is a stalemate concerning these issues between myself and editor Snowded, which has led to an inadequate treatment of both the 789:

I can see the argument that if there is an assigned editor then we have a degree of stability. But regardless of the value of the site it does seem to fall foul of

655:

maintained by Henry Laycock. I entered these links under 'External links' as a service to readers interested in pursuing these topics, and Snowded has removed them

1600:

which includes historians who are not part of the higher education system and the general concept of a public intellectual. So, for example, the category contains

4965: 1918: 3351: 3336: 1222:. No one has interfered with the editing process in this article. As there's been no dispute, removing your {disputed} tag after more than three weeks is hardly 476: 3722:

The 'Influenced' infobox basically serves the purpose of listing a philosopher's positive influence on scholars. This kind of information is most of the time,

4689:

Dear philosophers: This Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? —

1509:

Could someone who has a broad knowledge of the philosophy discipline and history look over these two categories and make sure that the contents are correct?

4458:

is not sufficient to change a long-standing requirement supported by both discussion at the template, and by larger conversations and guidelines wiki-wide.

2858:, R Books Ltd, London, UK, 2013) etc. is not "original research" stop trying to politicize Schopenhauer please". I have not read this book, but I know that 4498:

all local decisions. Someone may see that influence and its source and decide to write something about it, which is less likely to happen if it's deleted.

3240: 4791:

Well, if anyone wants to add transfer some information and sources to another article, this title could always be made into a redirect to that article. —

2671:

half a century ago are still in my home office where I do my Knowledge editing. What do current sources say about whether philosophers prefer to speak of

4892: 3324: 1419:, I think these sections need to be removed/rewritten; they are fairly promotional of these authors' work, book, and institute (Virtues in Action, VIA). 2515:(along with several other sources), who is not listening? And when there is a complete discussion of this topic and a large number of sources presented, 2392:. This dispute between two editors cries out for other participation, and without it, the WP policy of sourcing challenged assertions will be ignored. 568:

So he didn't initiate changes, he reverted yours. You don't like that and prefer your changes. This happens on wikipedia all the time Brews its what

3486:

or the article on Taleb himself. I thought I'd get a second opinion from the relevant wikiproject before officially making this proposal on the page.

2601: 1661: 339:

for instance had no Knowledge article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like

4540: 3814:

If no-one objects I am going to undo Nikkimaria's unilateral mass removals (removals of already sourced and easily verifiable material as I wrote

953:

After reading the remarks here so far, I don't see any reason why the proposed external links should not be allowed. WP:EL (or more specifically

178: 1807: 4923: 4842: 4827:. If there are active members in the philosophy project, they should contribute to this discussion. As it stands, this article will disappear. 3235: 1468: 1286:

Hi, I'd appreciate the opinion of people more knowledgeable about this kind of things on the appropriateness of this category name. See also

47: 17: 4915: 3823:

In practice, this not what we do. A list is a list. A list of notable ideas or a list of influences should be sourced if it is dubious per

3757: 2925: 1431: 1280: 1174: 981: 670: 3650: 3646: 3234:

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to

2831: 2508: 1739: 1479: 1351: 400: 317: 121:# How do we judge content that we cannot see? # If there exists invisible phenomena, then a theistic view of the Universe is permitted 4662: 707:#4. So really it is down to the character of the site. From a quick look, the examples Brews links above seem more like a directory. -- 3605: 3535: 3456:

the general population, but it is also disheartening. It takes the dialectic out of Hegel's work and replaces it with simple lecture.

3320: 1791: 1512: 1753: 1237:

MachineElf, Is your purpose anything other than to conserve the article just as is, even against professionally sourced arguments? ~

1051:

Bob, does that imply you agree the criteria? Brews, if we don't then we get other editors involved and respect their judgement ----

4683: 4521: 3727: 1993:

I'm a bit out of my depth here and would appreciate if some knowledgeable editors here could have a look at this article. Thanks. --

874:

No harm in asking Brews and these are universal standards across the whole of wikipedia. It won't hurt anyone to get it right ----

3162:(editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. 4765: 4721: 2951: 2313: 1885: 1865: 378: 916:. There was quite a bit of discussion surrounding that but I don't remember exactly where; GregBard would probably know more...— 3171: 4927: 3430: 3018:

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. —

1516: 345: 1640:

I am pretty sure this is the type of thing that the "philosophy writers" category is for, which you nominated for deletion.

129:

as pure energy streams of 1's and 0's. Images of Jungian archetypes and alchemy come into the domain of our phenomenology.

4919: 3989: 2741: 2688: 2155: 2058: 1456: 1449: 4103:. This addition to the documentation was neither the result of a prior discussion nor does it reflect common practice. -- 2419: 2411: 2389: 2334: 1783: 396: 4848:

Dear philosophers: Is this old Afc submission about a notable philosopher, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —

3819: 164:

The only possible logically empiric response to your open question is that the answer is unknowable. I.e., agnosticism.

3293: 1612: 1563: 1462: 1439: 211: 1180:

Bob K31416: So go ahead and put them back. Then you can have your very own dysfunctional conversation with Snowded!

4930:

which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to

3992:). The cases where a list can become unwieldy are about a dozen out of the 1,568 articles employing the template. -- 3730:. The existence of the project referred to by Gregbard (a website that extracts metadata from Knowledge pages) is a 1903:

Hi. I'm not a frequent contributor to Knowledge, but I remember a couple years ago I found the Knowledge article on

1340: 912:

Just to clarify, I was referring to similar PhilPapers external links that (used to be?) included on category pages

3502: 3483: 3085:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

3071:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

2737: 2684: 2454:

Pfhorrest departed to attend to real life and never got so far as adding any source to support his introduction to

2354:

I wonder if any of the editors here-assembled are interested at all in joining a discussion of the introduction to

2066: 2042: 2026: 1949: 1690:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 1611:

That was my idea behind it and I had only assigned a few philosophers to the category as I am currently working on

1597: 1264: 1227: 917: 845: 38: 1716: 1590: 4428: 3865:

laboured in the body too. Nikkimaria, if you've been removing these parameters, please stop and revert yourself.

3841:

Yes, it should - a list is not meaningful if you cannot identify why entries are on the list, and standards like

3675: 2605: 2359: 2204: 2164: 2112: 1977: 1795: 1779: 237: 125:

The Internet (intergalactic network) has provided a battleground of ideology, where mental content is represented

2996:

It appears to be the work of a Socrates cultist, who wants to rewrite history and philosophy through Knowledge.

2675:, which I think is the better title for the article from the point of view of other disciplines, or to speak of 4455: 3426: 3140: 1968: 4945: 4904: 4881: 4857: 4836: 4800: 4784: 4770: 4740: 4726: 4698: 4677: 4656: 4626: 4612: 4586: 4559: 4533: 4504: 4488: 4467: 4444: 4378: 4344: 4329: 4251: 4182: 4167: 4127: 4112: 4057: 4001: 3952: 3914: 3876: 3859: 3836: 3804: 3709: 3691: 3666: 3639: 3610: 3574: 3540: 3519: 3507: 3495: 3434: 3400: 3380: 3362: 3274: 3252: 3220: 3197: 3129: 3104: 3053: 3029: 3005: 2987: 2967: 2940: 2919: 2880: 2848: 2820: 2779: 2745: 2710: 2692: 2664: 2629: 2546: 2494: 2478: 2449: 2432: 2401: 2371: 2346: 2318: 2293: 2272: 2254: 2235: 2216: 2194: 2176: 2128: 2100: 2071: 2046: 2030: 2002: 1981: 1953: 1938: 1922: 1893: 1870: 1768: 1747: 1673: 1649: 1634: 1581: 1549: 1533: 1493: 1443: 1381: 1365: 1329: 1299: 1269: 1246: 1232: 1212: 1189: 1140: 1125: 1109: 1076: 1061: 1046: 1032: 1017: 997: 945: 922: 907: 884: 865: 850: 839: 812: 784: 758: 735: 716: 686: 630: 597: 582: 555: 537: 521: 488: 462: 444: 434: 408: 383: 358: 325: 257: 223: 197: 185: 170: 158: 3159: 2111:

the aim of making articles more complete or more up to date is very rare. An example of what can go wrong is

1929:

Knowledge can't force any editor to edit any particular thing. It depends on volunteers -- people like you!

1707: 1697: 4900: 3630:

unwieldy, particularly where someone is significant enough to have influenced much of what came afterwards.

3422: 3418: 3270: 2652: 2534: 2500: 2466: 2455: 2407: 2385: 2381: 2355: 2116: 2085:, as a primary topic article to replace the current disambiguation page. Any help would be welcome. Cheers! 1787: 1743: 617:

As it now stands, this article has important defects, including overly narrow and unsourced definitions and

404: 321: 4410: 4335:

If you'd like to take the time to appropriately source and explain those entries in the article, go ahead.

114:

We do not know why the axiomatic method is here in the first place. (need references, history of axioms...)

4440: 4374: 4325: 4108: 4053: 3997: 3948: 3832: 3662: 3601: 3531: 3376: 3347: 3332: 2983: 2955: 2876: 2844: 2596: 2568: 2082: 1987: 1724: 1435: 1287: 941: 611: 543: 505: 495: 354: 276: 3155: 4853: 4832: 4820: 4796: 4780: 4736: 4694: 4673: 4644: 4622: 4582: 4573: 4566: 4354: 4284: 4099:

should be explained in the main text. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." on

3216: 3125: 2936: 2915: 2733: 2680: 2676: 2640: 2625: 2590: 2564: 2542: 2474: 2428: 2397: 2367: 2250: 2212: 2172: 2124: 2038: 2022: 1945: 1830: 1822: 1803: 1764: 1219: 1185: 1136: 1105: 1072: 1028: 861: 835: 780: 666: 626: 593: 551: 517: 294: 280: 219: 204: 193: 4775:

Yes. really what's meant is "insufficiently documented" or "not widely cited" or something like that. —

2410:

continues to propose a parochial and completely unsourced view of the 'dilemma', and the redirect from

2806:

Knowledge:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

2794:

Knowledge:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

2418:

or its connection to the 'dilemma'. Proposed sources have been suppressed. A proposal to re-institute

4761: 4717: 4652: 4483: 4463: 4340: 4178: 4123: 3855: 3800: 3743:. I have worked on improving most of them (removing deprecated infobox parameters and filling in the 3635: 3478: 3001: 2975: 2963: 2729: 2584: 2560: 2342: 2309: 2289: 2231: 2143: 1998: 1973: 1910: 1889: 1861: 1295: 1242: 1208: 1170: 1042: 977: 652: 640: 374: 3060:

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

1608:

who both wrote/write for a public audience and are already classified as philosophers on Knowledge.

4753:

starts with "Houston's work is not notable" then you're probably reading a very negative review. --

4358: 4288: 3815: 3654: 3309: 2958:

is doing a rewrite of all Plato related pictures, templates, and articles. Comments are requested.

2653:

Talk:Nature and nurture#Requested move -- Change title of article to back to Nature versus nurture?

1817:

I've put together a script on Wikimedia Tool Labs and a new template which helps in linking to the

1566:

over the past week, because I wanted to start organizing a subcategory (according to guidelines of

1317: 457: 429: 4295:

from the list of philosophers influenced by Wittgenstein (Lewy is Wittgenstein's doctoral student

1570:). It doesn't seem like this WikiProject is very active these days so I appreciate your response. 1562:. I understand the distinction but, I agree, the area needs "tightening up". I've been working on 4896: 4877: 4552: 4529: 3705: 3687: 3491: 3266: 3187: 3179: 3049: 2774: 2761: 2706: 2672: 2636: 2268: 2190: 1934: 1645: 1545: 1377: 643:

assigns editors to keep bibliographies for certain subjects it calls 'categories'. An example is

484: 253: 241: 154: 1100:

the nature of these PhilPapers lists as constantly (and authoritatively) changing and updating.

302: 1840: 749:#9. If the tile just says "Foo" (or for authors, "Works by Foo"), then those should be good. -- 4451: 4436: 4370: 4321: 4104: 4049: 3993: 3981: 3944: 3828: 3658: 3596: 3526: 3372: 3343: 3328: 3289: 3285: 3248: 2979: 2872: 2840: 2660: 2151: 1623:

frequent CfD...so please, if you have a moment, make your opinion (pro or con) known. Thanks!

937: 704: 350: 3154:. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The 844:

Weren't such external links being included in the category pages... until somewhat recently?—

508:

has been subjected to a number of inadvisable changes by MachineElf. These changes have been

4849: 4828: 4792: 4776: 4732: 4690: 4669: 4647:

which I'd like to take to GA status at some point. Feedback and help would be appreciated. —

4618: 4578: 4414: 4296: 4032: 3212: 3121: 2932: 2911: 2621: 2538: 2470: 2424: 2393: 2363: 2246: 2208: 2168: 2120: 2095: 1799: 1760: 1669: 1196: 1181: 1132: 1101: 1068: 1024: 993: 857: 831: 776: 754: 712: 662: 622: 589: 547: 513: 441: 285: 266: 215: 189: 168: 3394: 2519: 2459: 2415: 903: 731: 4755: 4711: 4648: 4499: 4477: 4459: 4432: 4336: 4246: 4174: 4162: 4119: 4044: 4040: 3909: 3871: 3851: 3796: 3631: 3313: 3305: 2997: 2959: 2868: 2864: 2338: 2303: 2285: 2227: 1994: 1855: 1818: 1683: 1605: 1416: 1291: 1238: 1204: 1166: 1038: 973: 972:

It then lists 19 places to avoid. None of those 19 cases applies to the proposed links. --

827: 819: 368: 3765:. But I do intend to provide citations for every single entry and am still working on it. 1400:, but I thought I'd post it here too as the article has a WikiProject Philosophy banner. 4932:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers

4036: 3985: 3723: 3151: 3100: 3025: 2859: 2816: 1884:

that overlaps your wikiproject. You may want to voice your opinion at the proposal. --

1567: 1325: 1312:

currently is an unsourced philosophy stub, but I propose turning it into a redirect to

1309: 954: 746: 700: 509: 450: 422: 3371:

I completed the removal. His work was so rife with POV that it was not salvageable. --

3280:

Promotion of Leonard F. Wheat's non-mainstream views in several Hegel-related articles

2335:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23258-plato-s-forms-in-transition-a-reading-of-the-parmenides/

2328: 768: 648: 366:

I'll write Samantha Brennan and Rachel Barney. Give me at least a few days though. --

4873: 4525: 4188: 3842: 3735:

influences of a thinker are not via physical contact. As I wrote on the talk page of

3701: 3700:

Given that those entries are shown collapsed, they seem more or less harmless to me.

3683: 3680: 3569: 3547: 3514: 3487: 3474: 3397: 3359: 3301: 3227: 3184: 3175: 3045: 2907: 2903: 2803:, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at 2770: 2765: 2702: 2264: 2186: 1930: 1641: 1559: 1541: 1427: 1373: 1260: 929: 764: 644: 569: 480: 336: 249: 150: 1617:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 27#Category:Public philosophers

799: 4872:). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at 4603: 4362: 4292: 3846: 3244: 3117: 3044:). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at 2656: 2485: 2440: 2147: 2017: 1397: 1313: 1116: 1083: 1052: 1008: 875: 823: 803: 790: 696: 677: 573: 528: 418:

A dispute has arisen on the Ayn Rand article talk page. Please come help out here:

340: 4411:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Anthony_Ashley-Cooper,_3rd_Earl_of_Shaftesbury#cite_note-8

210:

Please see the summary of the present lamentable state of affairs on this subject

4617:

Readers can help with this article, and your 'version' of events is irrelevant.

4320:

should be reliably sourced if they are challenged or likely to be challenged". --

3482:

Taleb's work. I'm thinking that it should be merged into another article, either

2377: 184:

An RfC regarding a figure involving ontology and ontological commitment is found

4365:

for explantions. Sources can be found there. In the meanwhile could you explain

4280: 3866: 3824: 3477:

and I found the article very wanting. I'm not seeing any thing that establishes

2854:

The anon. editor restored their changes with the edit summary: "Peter B. Lewis,

2086: 1665: 989: 750: 708: 165: 46:

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

3546:

analogous to reality in a critical dimension, in which case it's the same as a

3417:

I'd like to request that project members review Atticusattor's latest edits at

3208: 899: 795: 727: 4869: 4476:

I think Nikkimaria has a point but I am not sure how to go about doing this --

4305: 4196: 4192: 4084: 3163: 3041: 2516: 1904: 1203:

allowed to develop material without an unnecessarily negative environment. ~

1615:. But within a few hours, the category was already nominated for deletion at 4598: 4593: 3095: 3020: 2811: 2423:(if indeed there are any active members) remain unconcerned and uninvolved. 1321: 763:

I'd assume that if a topic has an assigned editor, that is indication also.

3943:

reasonable in at least half of the recently edited articles I looked at. --

4389:

In some cases you deleted already verified information; examples include:

4031:

is how Marx was dealt with; Nikkimaria removed the previous list and left

2511:

on this subject of all time, William James, is held to be off topic, and

4935: 2888: 1847: 1624: 1601: 1571: 1523: 1483: 1355: 636:

Placement of links to Philosophical Papers in 'External links' subsection

4518:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Benacerraf's identification problem

3147: 695:

Using search results as external links is explicitly discouraged in the

3139:

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to

3078:

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

3066:

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

2801:

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

2787:

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

2484:

your work attention in consequence no matter how well intentioned. ----

1408: 1404: 1389: 1263:

and you haven't even so much as made an attempt to edit the article...

143:

0, but not equal to 0 (ie. such a demon can never be in the empty set).

3279: 3241:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead

399:

is up for deletion, it seems to be used on a lot of philo articles --

2013: 1037:

Seems like it's time to add the two external links to the article. --

4893:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Field Environmental Philosophy

2871:

would be sufficient as a justification for reverting them again. --

2507:, but you pay no attention, who exactly is not listening? When the 1290:

on th talk page of the editor who created this category. Thanks! --

4749: 4402: 3501:

It's sourced better than most fallacy articles, a bit too long...

2465:

What is perfectly clear is that sourcing and content issues with

4731:

Thanks for taking time to check this out. I will let it go. —

4707: 4200: 1882:

Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals/modern Japanese thinkers

932:

is a reasonable place to seek help with these kinds of links in

4643:

for the article on Australian metaphysician and epistemologist

2839:

of their edits; attention is needed for the pages they edit. --

419: 3679:

proposal to do it. The rule is be bold, revert, then discuss.

3321:

Talk:Thesis, antithesis, synthesis#Vandalism plus Incompetence

103:

On the history of computation and pre-Socratic Mystery Schools

25: 4279:

usage note, and despite the fact that she makes an appeal to

3288:

has been aggressively promoting the non-mainstream views of

2537:

require attention from those involved in Project Philosophy.

2469:

require attention from those involved in Project Philosophy.

1836:

So for example, writing {{citeplato|Republic|400c}} produces

1226:. Once again, please focus on content, not the contributors.— 4413:) to name a few. Please do not camouflage this as a trivial 4394: 3325:

Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit/Archive 1#Spirit Identified

2908:

Talk:Voltaire#Evolving_Views_that_go_from_bigotry_to_bigotry

4706:

Doesn't look notable to me. Seems to be largely limited to

1660:

Members of this project may be interested in discussion at

4863:

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

4823:

is under discussion for deletion. The discussion is found

968:, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" 4870:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator

4843:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Richard William Paul

3595:

I quite agree. (Sorry, I've been away from Knowledge.) -

3042:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator

2063:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Quantum mind–body problem

1220:

Talk:Platonic realism#This article is factually incorrect

772: 111:

There can be no computation without the axiomatic method.

2904:

Talk:Voltaire#On_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard

2333:

And here's a review of the book from which it is drawn.

1774:

Changing redirect of 'standard argument' to its own page

1403:

For a classical topic like courage, I think sections 5 (

771:

both have editors and both show up if the search box at

4406: 4398: 4390: 4366: 4302: 4299: 4276: 4100: 4028: 3939: 3317: 3297: 2836: 2648: 2582:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

2530: 2523: 2512: 2504: 1851: 1732: 1728: 1720: 1712: 1423: 775:

is used using the 'category finder' mode of operation.

658: 656: 618: 527:

Hang on Brews, he reverted your changes didn't he? ----

501: 310: 306: 298: 290: 3110:

Learned minds and extra eyes requested at Brian Leiter

3818:). I also propose we change the documentation of the 3726:

and citations already exist for most claims that are

2926:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Anarcho-Nihilism

2600:

are suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

4403:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Antonio_Gramsci#cite_note-34

2613:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions

2012:

Some changes of direction are being proposed at the

3316:. Details can be found on Atticusattor's talk page 3263:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Marie-Jo THIEL

3150:, will become available over the next few weeks at 2863:far from the mainstream. I think that an appeal to 2329:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides/

965:

a link to an official page of the article's subject

4450:constitute a citation; material must be supported 1115:contended anyway in the context of any page. ---- 4663:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Grim 3300:of their edits which was in blatant violation of 1522:correct anything that is miscategorized. Thanks! 1096:arguments, as you have already demonstrated here. 4395:http://en.wikipedia.org/Max_Stirner#cite_note-25 4161:unpacking and might be of interest to a reader. 3755:parameters). My main source has always been the 2380:, nor to the problem of unsourced assertions in 1850:to show how it can work with current practices: 1773: 449:Feel free to check out the question in dispute. 3739:there are currently 1,568 articles that employ 1786:a stand-alone article instead of a redirect to 1754:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Non-places 4684:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/New Deism 4187:In philosophy, not really. If we're told that 4035:in 'Influenced'. This is a terrible solution. 2376:There has been no response from those here to 1846:Here's a diff of me converting a few cites on 1007:already adequate further reading material ---- 2978:. I am going to open an SPI against them. --- 1962:An Article I think Probably Should be Deleted 8: 4369:edit? Your actions are against consensus. -- 3076:I've started a Featured List nomination for 2499:Snowded: When I point out that the Intro to 2414:to 'dilemma' leads to no discussion of this 2207:is certainly not of this kind; it's crazy. 3203:Request for comment on moral responsibility 1679:GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article 2728:, which may have some relationship to the 2061:article is up for deletion under the name 647:maintained by Nurbay Irmak and another is 177:RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article 1662:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Delectare 146:Open question: is the demon actually God? 914:(as opposed to individual article pages) 635: 4964:was invoked but never defined (see the 4950: 4541:Winkler County nurse whistleblower case 4520:- I have asked WikiProject Mathematics 3083:Participation would be appreciated, at 1880:FYI, there's a proposed wikiproject at 4924:Category:African-American philosophers 4454:. As for the "consensus" you suggest, 3207:You may be interested to comment upon 1469:Category:American philosophy academics 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4709:which looks like self-publication. -- 4635:Peer review for David Malet Armstrong 4087:inserted the annotation: "Entries in 3319:and on the following two talk-pages: 2358:to correct some limitations noted in 118:# Is an axiom merely mental content? 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 7: 4920:Category:Asian American philosophers 4916:Category:American women philosophers 4513:Is this draft about a notable topic? 3758:Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2799:I've started a list peer review for 2115:over adding a source to one line in 1915:2620:101:F000:701:15B:B7B0:9C1F:F8CE 1876:WikiProject modern Japanese thinkers 1281:Category:Journals about philosophers 397:image:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png 4956: 4910:"Merging" (aka Deleting) categories 4452:in each article in which it appears 2647:Comments are needed on this matter 2602:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 2420:Standard argument against free will 2412:Standard argument against free will 2390:standard argument against free will 1784:Standard argument against free will 1738:has been nominated for deletion -- 964: 236:: Another editor has proposed that 3146:Web tools, to replace the ones at 1813:New Plato Perseus Project template 1513:Category:Philosophers by tradition 1422:Also to be noted is the fact that 24: 4914:There is a discussion on merging 3724:factually accurate and verifiable 2611:The article will be discussed at 2205:silly example cited at the outset 2952:Talk:Analogy of the Divided Line 2575: 2529:What is perfectly clear is that 1656:Articles for deletion: Delectare 29: 3236:WP:Manual of Style/Lead section 3174:or contact me on my talk page. 1413:Character Strengths and Virtues 477:Missing topics about Philosophy 4928:Category:American philosophers 4815:Deletion of philosophy article 3653:; see also my recent comments 1967:across the following article: 1790:. The proposed new article is 1517:Category:Philosophers by field 1382:19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 1366:16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 1341:Category:Core issues in ethics 1335:Category:Core issues in ethics 1330:22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC) 392:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png 107:31 JULY 2013 SARTAJ HUNDAL 1: 4431:and would be in violation of 4245:centrally don't really work. 3990:Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg 3676:There is at least one project 3575:17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 3541:17:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 3520:05:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 3508:04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 3496:00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 3253:17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 3221:22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 3198:04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 3130:21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 2630:09:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 2547:17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2495:10:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2479:02:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2450:23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2433:16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2106:Is philosophy moribund on WP? 2101:16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2072:07:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2059:Consciousness causes collapse 2053:Consciousness causes collapse 2047:15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2031:09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2003:19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 1982:14:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 1954:09:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1939:00:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1923:00:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1808:20:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 1782:is posted to consider making 1748:05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 1457:Category:Philosophy academics 1450:Category:Philosophy academics 1300:11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC) 1270:00:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 1247:22:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC) 1233:00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC) 1213:23:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC) 1190:13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC) 1175:13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 1141:12:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 1126:11:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 1110:11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 1077:05:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 1062:05:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 946:21:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC) 726:untrained eye. Kind regards, 631:13:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC) 4505:18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 4489:18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 4468:16:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 4445:12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 4379:11:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 4345:15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 4330:08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 3820:Template:Infobox philosopher 3381:09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 3211:about moral responsibility. 3156:tool to view historical data 3054:18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 3030:10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 3006:13:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 2988:09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 2968:03:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 2941:04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 2920:11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 2881:09:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 2849:06:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC) 2402:17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 2372:18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 2360:this thread on its Talk page 2347:02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 2319:23:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2294:20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2273:19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2255:17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2236:17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2217:17:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2195:16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2177:17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 2129:15:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 1894:11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1871:22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 1769:06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 1674:01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 1650:20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 1635:20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 1591:Category:Public philosophers 1582:20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 1550:22:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 1534:17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 1503:Hi, WikiProject Philosophy, 1494:15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 1444:11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC) 244:. Your participation in the 4252:02:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 4183:01:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 4168:01:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 4128:00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 4113:13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 4058:11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 4002:21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3953:21:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3915:20:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3877:18:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3860:15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3837:11:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3710:17:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 3692:16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 3667:12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 3640:20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 3363:01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 3352:21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 3337:14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 2780:00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 2746:00:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 2711:17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 2693:00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 2665:19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 2531:sourcing and content issues 1613:Category:Women philosophers 1564:Category:Women philosophers 1463:Category:Philosophy writers 1424:these parts have been added 1405:As a strength in psychology 1047:23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 1033:23:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 1018:19:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 998:21:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 982:21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 923:19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 908:18:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 885:15:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 866:15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 851:14:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 840:14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 813:06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 785:22:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 759:21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 736:20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 717:19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 687:18:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 671:17:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 598:23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 583:21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 556:21:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 538:19:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 522:19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC) 489:11:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 463:20:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 445:19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 442:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 435:19:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 409:09:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 384:06:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 359:05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 326:06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 258:00:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 248:would be greatly welcomed. 238:Category:Moral philosophers 229:Category:Moral philosophers 224:17:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) 4987: 4946:21:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 4905:15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 4882:01:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 4858:01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 4837:16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 4819:The newly written article 4801:15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 4785:21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 4678:21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 4657:05:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 4560:20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 4534:13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC) 3805:16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 3611:22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 3226:Four-paragraph leads -- a 3105:15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 1598:Category:Public historians 1411:), based on the 2004 book 1396:I have posted this on the 198:16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 171:17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 159:03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 4771:23:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 4741:18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 4727:06:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 4699:05:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 4627:22:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 4613:21:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 4587:16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 3986:list of doctoral students 3435:21:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 3401:17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 3275:15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3135:Popular pages tool update 3090:Thank you for your time, 2906:, other discussion -: --> 2821:11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2726:Google Books Ngram Viewer 2113:this nonsensical exchange 2008:Reason article discussion 1796:comments are invited here 1480:Categories for discussion 1352:Categories for discussion 1320:if there are objections. 1224:throwing my weight around 4539:Peer review request for 3745:place of birth and death 3284:For the past few months 3035:Invitation to User Study 2604:or whether it should be 2503:is without sources, and 2081:I have begun a draft at 1969:Object-oriented ontology 1092:06:05, 1 September 2013 3728:likely to be challenged 3423:Phenomenology of Spirit 3419:Dialectical materialism 2950:Attention is needed at 1708:Template:Anthropic Bias 928:community as a whole. 619:misstatement of subject 275:FYI, there's a note at 4888:AfC submission - 19/04 4639:I've just submitted a 3258:AfC submission - 03/03 2956:User:Mercer.philosophy 2826:Controversial IP edits 2597:Definitions of fascism 2569:Definitions of fascism 2513:removed from the Intro 2501:Dilemma of determinism 2456:Dilemma of determinism 2408:Dilemma of determinism 2386:dilemma of determinism 2382:dilemma of determinism 2356:Dilemma of determinism 2137:Physician heal thyself 2117:Dilemma of determinism 1788:Dilemma of determinism 1428:single-purpose account 769:Ontological commitment 649:Ontological commitment 612:Pluralism (philosophy) 544:Pluralism (philosophy) 506:Pluralism (philosophy) 496:Pluralism (philosophy) 279:about a discussion at 4821:Enaction (philosophy) 4645:David Malet Armstrong 4574:Enaction (philosophy) 4567:Enaction (philosophy) 4355:Cartesian linguistics 4285:Cartesian linguistics 3753:influences/influenced 3152:toollabs:popularpages 3014:Archived some threads 2954:. It looks as though 2785:List peer review for 2677:nature versus nurture 2641:Nature versus nurture 2591:Definitions of pogrom 2565:Definitions of pogrom 765:Ontological Pluralism 645:Ontological Pluralism 281:template talk:Science 205:Ontological pluralism 203:Proposed revision of 42:of past discussions. 4960:The named reference 3887:start listing names. 3469:Ludic fallacy - AfD? 3427:FreeKnowledgeCreator 2976:User:Nathan.besteman 2585:Genocide definitions 2561:Genocide definitions 2165:nonsensical exchange 2083:Draft:End of history 1988:Evaluative diversity 1475:the category's entry 1347:the category's entry 1316:. Please discuss at 653:Philosophical Papers 641:Philosophical Papers 4641:peer review request 4548:peer review request 4359:Quentin Meillassoux 3741:Infobox philosopher 3525:is a non sequitur. 3473:I was just over at 3141:Wikimedia Tool Labs 3114:Hello WikiProject! 2946:Major Plato rewrite 2856:Arthur Schopenhauer 2505:provide two sources 2416:'standard argument' 2167:speaks for itself. 1780:request for comment 1398:article's talk page 1318:Talk:Abstractionism 471:Missing topics page 4199:was influenced by 4191:was influenced by 4118:current practice? 2762:Simone de Beauvoir 2760:Help is needed at 2756:Simone de Beauvoir 2673:nature and nurture 2637:Nature and nurture 2509:most famous source 2460:authored by myself 2077:The End of History 1899:Denotation Article 1831:Template:citeplato 1823:Template:citeplato 1558:That makes sense, 610:Present status of 510:carefully examined 331:Women philosophers 242:Category:Ethicists 188:. Please comment. 179:Conceptualization 4611: 4522:the same question 4503: 4250: 4166: 3982:Andrey Kolmogorov 3913: 3875: 3609: 3539: 3393:He's still at it. 2764:. It is the UK's 2493: 2448: 2160: 2146:comment added by 1913:comment added by 1688:reassessment page 1482:page. Thank you. 1436:FireflySixtySeven 1354:page. Thank you. 1124: 1091: 1060: 1016: 883: 811: 685: 581: 536: 214:Comments needed. 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4978: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4963: 4955: 4943: 4769: 4758: 4725: 4714: 4610: 4608: 4557: 4526:Roger (Dodger67) 4502: 4486: 4480: 4249: 4165: 4033:List of Marxists 3912: 3874: 3749:school/tradition 3599: 3572: 3529: 3517: 3505: 3195: 3148:tools:~alexz/pop 2832:anonymous editor 2778: 2734:WeijiBaikeBianji 2732:policy here. -- 2724:in English, per 2681:WeijiBaikeBianji 2579: 2578: 2492: 2490: 2447: 2445: 2317: 2306: 2159: 2140: 2093: 2069: 2057:Please note the 2039:Andrew Lancaster 2023:Andrew Lancaster 1946:Andrew Lancaster 1925: 1869: 1858: 1821:texts of Plato: 1737: 1736: 1702: 1696: 1632: 1579: 1531: 1491: 1363: 1267: 1230: 1197:Platonic Realism 1123: 1121: 1090: 1088: 1059: 1057: 1015: 1013: 920: 882: 880: 848: 810: 808: 699:guidelines. See 684: 682: 651:, a category in 580: 578: 535: 533: 455: 427: 382: 371: 315: 314: 286:Template:Science 271: 265: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4986: 4985: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4961: 4959: 4957: 4952: 4936: 4912: 4890: 4865: 4846: 4817: 4759: 4754: 4715: 4710: 4687: 4666: 4637: 4604: 4602:articles. ---- 4570: 4553: 4544: 4515: 4484: 4478: 4429:content forking 4287:); she removed 3627: 3570: 3515: 3503: 3471: 3282: 3260: 3232: 3205: 3183: 3137: 3112: 3062: 3037: 3016: 2948: 2929: 2902:Have a look at 2892: 2828: 2790: 2769: 2758: 2645: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2524:adding a source 2486: 2441: 2307: 2302: 2141: 2108: 2087: 2079: 2067: 2055: 2010: 1991: 1974:MadScientistX11 1964: 1908: 1901: 1878: 1859: 1854: 1819:Perseus Project 1815: 1776: 1757: 1710: 1706: 1704: 1700: 1694: 1684:Murray Rothbard 1681: 1658: 1625: 1606:Martha Nussbaum 1594: 1572: 1524: 1501: 1484: 1453: 1394: 1356: 1337: 1307: 1288:this discussion 1284: 1265: 1228: 1200: 1117: 1084: 1053: 1009: 918: 876: 846: 804: 678: 638: 615: 574: 529: 499: 475:I have updated 473: 451: 423: 416: 394: 372: 367: 333: 288: 284: 273: 269: 263: 240:be merged into 231: 208: 182: 119: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4984: 4982: 4973: 4972: 4949: 4911: 4908: 4889: 4886: 4864: 4861: 4845: 4840: 4816: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4686: 4681: 4665: 4660: 4636: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4569: 4563: 4546:I've put in a 4543: 4537: 4514: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4492: 4491: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4348: 4347: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3879: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3737:Giordano Bruno 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3695: 3694: 3670: 3669: 3626: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3484:The Black Swan 3470: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3366: 3365: 3281: 3278: 3259: 3256: 3231: 3224: 3204: 3201: 3136: 3133: 3111: 3108: 3074: 3073: 3068: 3061: 3058: 3036: 3033: 3015: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2991: 2990: 2947: 2944: 2928: 2923: 2891: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2860:Reaktion Books 2827: 2824: 2797: 2796: 2789: 2783: 2757: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2696: 2695: 2644: 2639:title back to 2633: 2574: 2572: 2559:Nomination of 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2527: 2463: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2331: 2325: 2297: 2296: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2239: 2238: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2198: 2197: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2107: 2104: 2078: 2075: 2054: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2009: 2006: 1990: 1985: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1900: 1897: 1877: 1874: 1814: 1811: 1775: 1772: 1756: 1751: 1703: 1698:Anthropic Bias 1692: 1680: 1677: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1553: 1552: 1515: 1504: 1500: 1499:Categorization 1497: 1452: 1447: 1432:I love courage 1393: 1388:Concern about 1386: 1385: 1384: 1336: 1333: 1310:Abstractionism 1306: 1305:Abstractionism 1303: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1097: 1001: 1000: 970: 969: 951: 950: 949: 948: 910: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 739: 738: 722: 721: 720: 719: 697:external links 690: 689: 637: 634: 614: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 561: 560: 559: 558: 498: 492: 472: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 440:Inconceivable! 415: 412: 393: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 332: 329: 272: 261: 246:CFD discussion 230: 227: 207: 201: 181: 175: 174: 173: 148: 147: 144: 139: 135: 127: 126: 117: 116: 115: 112: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4983: 4967: 4954: 4951: 4948: 4947: 4944: 4941: 4940: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4909: 4907: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4897:FoCuSandLeArN 4894: 4887: 4885: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4862: 4860: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4844: 4841: 4839: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4814: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4767: 4766:Contributions 4763: 4757: 4751: 4746: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4723: 4722:Contributions 4719: 4713: 4708: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4685: 4682: 4680: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4664: 4661: 4659: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4634: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4609: 4607: 4600: 4595: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4575: 4572:The topic of 4568: 4564: 4562: 4561: 4558: 4556: 4555:EricEnfermero 4549: 4542: 4538: 4536: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4512: 4506: 4501: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4490: 4487: 4481: 4475: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4391:Emma Goldmann 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4318:notable ideas 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4253: 4248: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4189:Robert Garner 4186: 4185: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4164: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3916: 3911: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3885: 3880: 3878: 3873: 3868: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3682: 3677: 3672: 3671: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3624: 3612: 3607: 3603: 3598: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3576: 3573: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3549: 3548:false analogy 3544: 3543: 3542: 3537: 3533: 3528: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3506: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3476: 3475:Ludic fallacy 3468: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3402: 3399: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3364: 3361: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3339: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3277: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3267:FoCuSandLeArN 3264: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3230:on the matter 3229: 3225: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3202: 3200: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3191: 3186: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3168: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3142: 3134: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3109: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3091: 3088: 3086: 3081: 3079: 3072: 3069: 3067: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3057: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3034: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3013: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2945: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2927: 2924: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2900: 2896: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2833: 2825: 2823: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2808: 2807: 2802: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2788: 2784: 2782: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2766:Google Doodle 2763: 2755: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2730:WP:COMMONNAME 2727: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2632: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2617: 2614: 2609: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2491: 2489: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2446: 2444: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2315: 2314:Contributions 2311: 2305: 2299: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2224: 2223: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2105: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2092: 2091: 2084: 2076: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2064: 2060: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2019: 2015: 2007: 2005: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1970: 1961: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1906: 1898: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1875: 1873: 1872: 1867: 1866:Contributions 1863: 1857: 1852: 1849: 1844: 1842: 1839: 1834: 1832: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1812: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740:76.65.128.112 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1709: 1699: 1693: 1691: 1689: 1685: 1678: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1620: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1592: 1589: 1583: 1580: 1577: 1576: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1519: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1498: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1471: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1459: 1458: 1451: 1448: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1399: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1334: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1304: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1282: 1279: 1271: 1268: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1122: 1120: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1087: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1058: 1056: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1014: 1012: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 967: 966: 960: 959: 958: 956: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 926: 925: 924: 921: 915: 911: 909: 905: 901: 896: 886: 881: 879: 873: 867: 863: 859: 854: 853: 852: 849: 843: 842: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 816: 815: 814: 809: 807: 801: 797: 792: 788: 787: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 756: 752: 748: 743: 742: 741: 740: 737: 733: 729: 724: 723: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 693: 692: 691: 688: 683: 681: 675: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 659: 657: 654: 650: 646: 642: 633: 632: 628: 624: 620: 613: 609: 599: 595: 591: 586: 585: 584: 579: 577: 571: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 557: 553: 549: 545: 542:This article 541: 540: 539: 534: 532: 526: 525: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 497: 493: 491: 490: 486: 482: 478: 470: 464: 461: 460: 456: 454: 448: 447: 446: 443: 439: 438: 437: 436: 433: 432: 428: 426: 420: 413: 411: 410: 406: 402: 401:76.65.128.222 398: 391: 385: 380: 379:Contributions 376: 370: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 348: 347: 342: 338: 337:Alison Jaggar 330: 328: 327: 323: 319: 318:76.65.128.222 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 287: 282: 278: 268: 262: 260: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 228: 226: 225: 221: 217: 213: 206: 202: 200: 199: 195: 191: 187: 180: 176: 172: 169: 167: 163: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 145: 140: 136: 132: 131: 130: 124: 123: 122: 113: 110: 109: 108: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4958:Cite error: 4953: 4938: 4937: 4913: 4891: 4866: 4847: 4818: 4688: 4667: 4638: 4605: 4571: 4565:New article 4554: 4545: 4516: 4437:Omnipaedista 4371:Omnipaedista 4363:Casimir Lewy 4322:Omnipaedista 4317: 4313: 4309: 4298:); see also 4293:Casimir Lewy 4274: 4105:Omnipaedista 4101:16 July 2006 4097:notable idea 4096: 4092: 4088: 4050:Omnipaedista 3994:Omnipaedista 3945:Omnipaedista 3883: 3829:Omnipaedista 3794: 3763:Encyclopedia 3762: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3731: 3659:Omnipaedista 3628: 3597:CRGreathouse 3527:CRGreathouse 3504:Machine Elf 3472: 3373:Omnipaedista 3344:Omnipaedista 3340: 3329:Omnipaedista 3310:WP:INTEGRITY 3286:Atticusattor 3283: 3261: 3233: 3206: 3189: 3188: 3169: 3145: 3138: 3118:Brian Leiter 3116: 3113: 3094: 3092: 3089: 3082: 3075: 3038: 3019: 3017: 2980:Omnipaedista 2949: 2930: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2873:Omnipaedista 2855: 2841:Omnipaedista 2829: 2810: 2804: 2798: 2759: 2646: 2618: 2610: 2595: 2589: 2583: 2581: 2571:for deletion 2487: 2442: 2406:The article 2405: 2375: 2353: 2280: 2261: 2142:— Preceding 2136: 2109: 2096: 2089: 2088: 2080: 2068:Machine Elf 2056: 2021:community.-- 2018:User:Lonjers 2011: 1992: 1965: 1909:— Preceding 1902: 1879: 1845: 1837: 1835: 1827: 1816: 1777: 1758: 1705: 1682: 1659: 1627: 1626: 1621: 1610: 1595: 1574: 1573: 1526: 1525: 1520: 1511: 1508: 1502: 1486: 1485: 1473: 1467: 1461: 1455: 1454: 1421: 1412: 1402: 1395: 1358: 1357: 1345: 1339: 1338: 1314:abstract art 1308: 1285: 1266:Machine Elf 1229:Machine Elf 1223: 1201: 1163: 1118: 1085: 1054: 1010: 971: 962: 952: 938:WhatamIdoing 933: 919:Machine Elf 913: 877: 847:Machine Elf 805: 679: 639: 616: 575: 530: 502:This version 500: 474: 458: 452: 430: 424: 417: 395: 351:Kevin Gorman 344: 334: 274: 233: 232: 209: 183: 149: 138:constraints. 128: 120: 106: 75: 43: 37: 4850:Anne Delong 4829:Brews ohare 4793:Anne Delong 4777:Anne Delong 4733:Anne Delong 4691:Anne Delong 4670:Anne Delong 4619:Brews ohare 4579:Brews ohare 4399:Edward Said 4289:Meillassoux 4195:, and that 3513:rewritten. 3213:Brews ohare 3172:updated FAQ 3122:Cyphoidbomb 2933:Anne Delong 2912:Bladesmulti 2649:this matter 2622:Oncenawhile 2539:Brews ohare 2471:Brews ohare 2425:Brews ohare 2394:Brews ohare 2364:Brews ohare 2281:Brews ohare 2247:Brews ohare 2209:Brews ohare 2169:Brews ohare 2121:Brews ohare 1800:Brews ohare 1761:Anne Delong 1182:Brews ohare 1133:Brews ohare 1102:Brews ohare 1069:Brews ohare 1025:Brews ohare 963:Except for 957:) states, 936:articles. 858:Brews ohare 832:Brews ohare 798:. I asked 777:Brews ohare 663:Brews ohare 623:Brews ohare 590:Brews ohare 548:Brews ohare 514:Brews ohare 494:Changes in 283:concerning 234:Please Note 216:Brews ohare 190:Brews ohare 36:This is an 4762:Discussion 4756:Atethnekos 4718:Discussion 4712:Atethnekos 4649:Tom Morris 4500:SlimVirgin 4479:Guerillero 4460:Nikkimaria 4456:1-2 people 4407:David Hume 4337:Nikkimaria 4314:influenced 4310:influences 4247:SlimVirgin 4197:John Rawls 4193:John Rawls 4175:Nikkimaria 4163:SlimVirgin 4120:Nikkimaria 4093:Influenced 4089:Influences 3910:SlimVirgin 3872:SlimVirgin 3852:Nikkimaria 3797:Jaydubya93 3632:Nikkimaria 3625:Influences 3479:notability 2742:how I edit 2689:how I edit 2310:Discussion 2304:Atethnekos 2228:Tom Morris 1995:Randykitty 1905:Denotation 1886:65.94.78.9 1862:Discussion 1856:Atethnekos 1792:found here 1372:chime in. 1292:Randykitty 1167:Bob K31416 1039:Bob K31416 974:Bob K31416 934:individual 773:PhilPapers 705:WP:ELMAYBE 375:Discussion 369:Atethnekos 277:WT:PHYSICS 95:Archive 24 87:Archive 20 82:Archive 19 76:Archive 18 70:Archive 17 65:Archive 16 60:Archive 15 4966:help page 4599:Free Will 4594:Free Will 4415:WP:BURDEN 4045:Kropotkin 3732:very good 3684:Greg Bard 2535:'dilemma' 2467:'dilemma' 2265:Greg Bard 2016:article. 1944:future.-- 1642:Greg Bard 1560:Greg Bard 1542:Greg Bard 1407:) and 6 ( 1374:Greg Bard 453:SPECIFICO 425:SPECIFICO 134:Kauffman. 4874:Wkmaster 4433:WP:UNDUE 4277:obsolete 4041:Bourdieu 3884:en masse 3702:Looie496 3571:0x0077BE 3516:0x0077BE 3488:0x0077BE 3398:goethean 3360:goethean 3314:WP:RS/AC 3306:WP:UNDUE 3209:this RfC 3176:Mr.Z-bot 3046:Wkmaster 2998:BlueMist 2960:BlueMist 2889:Voltaire 2869:WP:RS/AC 2865:WP:UNDUE 2703:Looie496 2388:and the 2378:this RfC 2339:BlueMist 2286:BlueMist 2187:Looie496 2156:contribs 2144:unsigned 1931:Looie496 1911:unsigned 1848:Atlantis 1838:Republic 1602:Ayn Rand 1417:WP:UNDUE 1239:BlueMist 1205:BlueMist 828:WP:ELYES 820:WP:ELYES 481:Skysmith 414:Ayn Rand 250:Cgingold 151:Vektor-k 4606:Snowded 4551:offer. 4485:My Talk 4037:Deleuze 3245:Flyer22 3182:) (for 2657:Flyer22 2635:Change 2606:deleted 2488:Snowded 2443:Snowded 2148:Snowded 1721:history 1568:WP:EGRS 1478:on the 1409:Bravery 1392:article 1390:Courage 1350:on the 1119:Snowded 1086:Snowded 1055:Snowded 1011:Snowded 955:WP:ELNO 878:Snowded 806:Snowded 747:WP:ELNO 701:WP:ELNO 680:Snowded 576:Snowded 531:Snowded 341:Keilana 299:history 267:Science 39:archive 4962:NotRef 4417:issue. 4405:) and 4361:, and 4316:, and 4043:, and 3984:; cf. 3940:Here's 3843:WP:DUE 3751:, and 3681:WP:BRD 3312:, and 3302:WP:NOR 3228:WP:RfC 2324:piece. 2139:..... 2090:bd2412 2014:Reason 1666:Cnilep 1261:WP:AGF 990:RL0919 930:WP:ELN 767:& 751:RL0919 709:RL0919 570:WP:BRD 166:warshy 4926:into 4750:Deism 4306:Banno 4085:Banno 3847:WP:RS 3290:Wheat 3164:OAuth 2679:? -- 2533:with 1729:watch 1725:links 1426:by a 824:WP:EL 791:WP:EL 307:watch 303:links 16:< 4922:and 4901:talk 4878:talk 4854:talk 4833:talk 4825:here 4797:talk 4781:talk 4737:talk 4695:talk 4674:talk 4653:talk 4623:talk 4583:talk 4530:talk 4464:talk 4441:talk 4435:. -- 4375:talk 4367:this 4353:See 4341:talk 4326:talk 4301:and 4281:WP:V 4201:Kant 4179:talk 4124:talk 4109:talk 4095:and 4054:talk 4029:This 3998:talk 3949:talk 3867:WP:V 3856:talk 3845:and 3833:talk 3825:WP:V 3816:here 3801:talk 3706:talk 3688:talk 3663:talk 3657:. -- 3655:here 3651:here 3649:and 3647:here 3636:talk 3492:talk 3431:talk 3421:and 3377:talk 3348:talk 3333:talk 3327:. -- 3323:and 3294:2012 3271:talk 3249:talk 3217:talk 3180:talk 3126:talk 3101:talk 3096:Cirt 3050:talk 3026:talk 3021:Cirt 3002:talk 2984:talk 2964:talk 2937:talk 2916:talk 2877:talk 2845:talk 2817:talk 2812:Cirt 2809:. — 2775:talk 2771:Span 2738:talk 2707:talk 2685:talk 2661:talk 2626:talk 2594:and 2567:and 2543:talk 2475:talk 2429:talk 2398:talk 2368:talk 2343:talk 2290:talk 2269:talk 2251:talk 2232:talk 2213:talk 2191:talk 2173:talk 2163:The 2152:talk 2125:talk 2043:talk 2027:talk 1999:talk 1978:talk 1950:talk 1935:talk 1919:talk 1890:talk 1853:. -- 1841:400c 1833:. 1804:talk 1794:and 1765:talk 1744:talk 1733:logs 1717:talk 1713:edit 1670:talk 1646:talk 1604:and 1546:talk 1466:and 1440:talk 1378:talk 1326:talk 1322:Huon 1296:talk 1259:No, 1243:talk 1218:See 1209:talk 1186:talk 1171:talk 1137:talk 1106:talk 1082:---- 1073:talk 1043:talk 1029:talk 994:talk 978:talk 942:talk 904:talk 862:talk 836:talk 802:---- 800:here 781:talk 755:talk 732:talk 713:talk 667:talk 627:talk 594:talk 552:talk 518:talk 485:talk 459:talk 431:talk 405:talk 355:talk 346:here 322:talk 311:logs 295:talk 291:edit 254:talk 220:talk 212:here 194:talk 186:here 155:talk 4397:), 3298:one 3192:man 3185:Mr. 3160:now 2887:On 2867:to 2837:one 2830:An 2362:?? 1460:, 504:of 316:-- 142:--> 4968:). 4942:iz 4934:. 4918:, 4903:) 4895:. 4884:. 4880:) 4856:) 4835:) 4799:) 4783:) 4764:, 4739:) 4720:, 4697:) 4676:) 4655:) 4625:) 4585:) 4532:) 4524:. 4482:| 4466:) 4443:) 4377:) 4357:, 4343:) 4328:) 4312:, 4181:) 4126:) 4111:) 4091:, 4056:) 4048:-- 4039:, 4000:) 3951:) 3858:) 3835:) 3803:) 3747:, 3708:) 3690:) 3665:) 3638:) 3604:| 3534:| 3494:) 3433:) 3425:. 3396:— 3379:) 3350:) 3335:) 3308:, 3304:, 3273:) 3265:. 3251:) 3243:. 3219:) 3196:) 3190:Z- 3128:) 3103:) 3093:— 3087:. 3080:. 3056:. 3052:) 3028:) 3004:) 2986:) 2966:) 2939:) 2918:) 2910:. 2879:) 2847:) 2819:) 2744:) 2740:, 2709:) 2691:) 2687:, 2663:) 2655:. 2651:: 2628:) 2608:. 2588:, 2563:, 2545:) 2477:) 2431:) 2400:) 2370:) 2345:) 2337:~ 2312:, 2292:) 2271:) 2253:) 2234:) 2215:) 2193:) 2175:) 2158:) 2154:• 2127:) 2119:. 2065:.— 2045:) 2029:) 2001:) 1980:) 1952:) 1937:) 1921:) 1892:) 1864:, 1825:. 1806:) 1798:. 1778:A 1767:) 1746:) 1731:| 1727:| 1723:| 1719:| 1715:| 1701:}} 1695:{{ 1672:) 1664:. 1648:) 1631:iz 1619:. 1578:iz 1548:) 1530:iz 1490:iz 1442:) 1434:. 1430:, 1380:) 1362:iz 1328:) 1298:) 1245:) 1211:) 1188:) 1173:) 1165:-- 1139:) 1108:) 1075:) 1045:) 1031:) 996:) 988:-- 980:) 944:) 906:) 864:) 838:) 830:. 783:) 757:) 734:) 715:) 669:) 629:) 596:) 554:) 520:) 487:) 479:- 421:. 407:) 377:, 357:) 324:) 309:| 305:| 301:| 297:| 293:| 270:}} 264:{{ 256:) 222:) 196:) 157:) 91:→ 4939:L 4899:( 4876:( 4852:( 4831:( 4795:( 4779:( 4768:) 4760:( 4735:( 4724:) 4716:( 4693:( 4672:( 4651:( 4621:( 4581:( 4528:( 4462:( 4439:( 4409:( 4401:( 4393:( 4373:( 4339:( 4324:( 4177:( 4122:( 4107:( 4052:( 3996:( 3947:( 3854:( 3831:( 3799:( 3704:( 3686:( 3661:( 3634:( 3608:) 3606:c 3602:t 3600:( 3550:. 3538:) 3536:c 3532:t 3530:( 3490:( 3429:( 3375:( 3346:( 3331:( 3292:( 3269:( 3247:( 3215:( 3178:( 3124:( 3099:( 3048:( 3024:( 3000:( 2982:( 2962:( 2935:( 2914:( 2875:( 2843:( 2815:( 2777:) 2773:( 2736:( 2705:( 2683:( 2659:( 2643:? 2624:( 2541:( 2526:. 2520:2 2517:1 2473:( 2427:( 2396:( 2366:( 2341:( 2316:) 2308:( 2288:( 2267:( 2249:( 2230:( 2211:( 2189:( 2171:( 2150:( 2123:( 2097:T 2041:( 2025:( 1997:( 1976:( 1948:( 1933:( 1917:( 1888:( 1868:) 1860:( 1802:( 1763:( 1742:( 1735:) 1711:( 1668:( 1644:( 1628:L 1575:L 1544:( 1527:L 1487:L 1438:( 1376:( 1359:L 1324:( 1294:( 1241:( 1207:( 1184:( 1169:( 1135:( 1104:( 1071:( 1041:( 1027:( 992:( 976:( 961:" 940:( 902:( 900:㓟 860:( 834:( 796:㓟 779:( 753:( 730:( 728:㓟 711:( 665:( 625:( 592:( 550:( 516:( 483:( 403:( 381:) 373:( 353:( 320:( 313:) 289:( 252:( 218:( 192:( 153:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 18 - Knowledge

Index