763:. Finally, I've made an edit to the Philosophy Category page. Aesthetics was listed under Axiology. However, Aesthetics is not necessarily a value-based discipline. Many questions in Aesthetics are independent of values, such as "is art for expressing feelings, making statements, transforming the status quo, giving pleasure ...or is art for art's sake alone?" , "what is the nature of the relationships between art, artists, and audiences?" and "how do I know whether I'm experiencing art aesthetically?" As a result, I've taken Ethics out of Axiology as well, not only because it looked funny as a subsection by itself, but also because some ethical theories are not necessarily value-based either, notably the
658:
know yet what we have well enough but I think that the sort of encyclopaedia we are compiling could be enormously helpful in this sort of way. It is only as one gains philosophical competency and confidence that it becomes possible to understand which words are exchangeable and which enshrine key concepts for that particular philosopher or group of philosophers. Of course, any word/concept can be necessarily subject to scrutiny as interest and understanding develops and language itself, and logic are called in to question. Where do we go from here? On re-reading the material above, two thoughts strike me.
988:? Maybe merge isn't the right term, but right now the list has many more entries than the category; it seems like they should include the same articles, and that if one adds the {{Category: Philosophy}} tag to the end of an article, one shouldn't have to also manually edit the list page. Also, should all philosophy stubs be listed in the "expand" section of the task box? My guess is that there are too many stubs, and they'd clutter up the box, but if the goal of the project is to make the encyclopedia comprehensive... Let me know if and how these things can be done, and I'll help if I can. --
334:
that you were talking about the extremely basic level of some philosophy books that are coming out, that are trying to appeal to a large audience, but that miserably fail in teaching real philosophy.) But the real question is, would an encyclopedia be understandable to a large audience? Perhaps so, and perhaps things should therefore be 'dumbed' down. Yet, if you do so, you'll lose the richness of the resource for those who have studied philosophy and do understand the writings (degree or not). Hence my both agreeing and disagreeing with you.
890:-- I know that I started the original Heirarchy Draft when I started the project (though I'm pretty sure the original draft was borrowed from another pedia page that I cannot now recall.) It looks like the second draft was started by an anonymous editor, then revised by a few more, so there is no clear way to favor one over the other other than by analyzing their contents. The only way to resolve the dichotomy is to either merge them or start another. Unfortunately, I no longer have the time to do this -- but that's the situation as it stands.
406:, etc. should be accessable to the uninformed. The more detailed pages shouldn't be, but should have links to the above pages. It, of course, ought to be possible for a particularly dedicated individual who starts out with no knowledge to be able to build up enough from wikipedia to understand every article here. As a note to the anon who made the comment, if you find any article that you think should be more accessable please make a note on the discussion page regarding which part you don't understand. --
608:
philosophy, there seems to be a currently prevailing prejudice to the effect that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and is given leather and last, is at once in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy, since he possesses the criterion for doing so in his natural reason - as if he did not likewise possess the measure for a shoe in his own foot.' (
31:
635:
links and reading related stuff, and it would all have to be in
Knowledge articles that don't assume familiarity with something not covered in Knowledge. And perhaps asking questions on talk pages of obscure articles. But realistically, Knowledge is just an encyclopedia--you can't expect to gain all expert-level knowledge from just an encyclopedia, regardless of the topic.
767:, which is based on duty alone. And then I figured, well, I never once heard the word "Axiology" in my introduction to philosophy courses, so I nixed it as being unnecessary, divisive, and confusing. Sorry for this long comment, but since it was an edit to the category page I thought I might have to explain myself. Thanks again and I look forward to our work. --
1263:
I am all in favor of this, though I would put it not as a box but as a plain old message. Just feels more personal that way. But yes, I feel that this is a great idea -- it should be a great way to draw in casual editors who don't often peek "behind the curtain" of
Knowledge. (For example, I bet it's
657:
or whatever but are not trained philosophers, may be given a link to an article on philosophical terminologies or discourse (called 'Philosphical literacy' perhaps) which is not 'dumbing down' but clarifying. It is possible that there is material of this sort already available on
Knowledge - I do not
511:
Surely all the articles have to be dumbed down to a large extent. Not just inorrder to be accessable to philosphical laypeople but also because of the very nature of a wikipedia article i.e. a short introductionary thing, we don't what great big philosopical tracts (do we?). If it were posible to get
333:
I would agree with this to a point. I don't pick up a law book and just hope that I'll be able to understand it with no background in law. Similarly, one should not expect to just pick up any philosophy book and be able to understand it without some background in philosophy. (I was actually hoping
1329:
I'm a user from catalan wikipedia (hi, jmabel!!), I think this project is great: it's well organised, it has a clear list with things to do, it's quite active, it allows to invite people... Congratulations!! You should promote it in other language wikipedias, because there can be users there who can
1219:
It seems okay as a guideline, as long as it isn't a hard and fast rule. Try to avoid weasel terms, but if you can't figure out how to do it, leave them in and let somebody else clean it up. Of course, it would be nice if nobody ever wrote weasel terms, but realistically that isn't going to happen
166:
One thing that isn't clear on the project page is just how one goes about joining a project such as this ... I'm an amateur in philosophy but a pretty good copyeditor -- new to this wiki thing and still learning the standards, but that's a separate question. So do you just dig in and start editing,
634:
I think that if somebody who is totally unfamiliar with, say Kant, wanted to understand his arguments, ideally, he would be able to read the page, and follow links to other pages which should be able to help him understand the unfamiliar bits. Of course, he'd have to spend a lot of time following
607:
Perhaps one sentence is worth quoting here - in the hope that there is a place for it somewhere else? 'In the case of all other sciences, arts, skills and crafts, everyone is convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to
537:
I am new to
Knowledge and trying to find my way around but am concerned that the philosophy section is insufficiently sensitive to issues which are of interest to the population and where, as in any other discipline, philosphers become over-concerned with detail. For example, I have come here from
630:
page. I don't think we have a page on philosophical literacy anywhere--I'm not sure whether it would be helpful or not. It seems to me that philosophical literacy implies good argumentative technique, but more importantly familiarity with philosophical terms and arguments that have already been
523:
It can be quite difficult to summarize something without dumbing it down. But it shouldn't be impossible. I find that it often helps to read several different summaries of a philosopher's thoughts before actually reading the original work. Many philosophers don't write clearly, even though the
322:
I'm curious about this project's view on the "gooeyness" of a large portion of philosophical writing. Picking up a modern philosophy book by someone like
Foucault, Derrida, or Lacan is an exercise in futility for nearly anyone without a degree in Philosophy already, and this problem (though to a
1292:
The title says it all: Are there things that shouldn't be on wikipedia? Should there be any limit to what can go on the site (and I must say, it's been euthanized nicely, but) should there be things we simply will not add? I think you can get where I'm inclining without spoonfeeding it.....yeah,
570:
An aside: I find it odd that people keep classing
Foucault with Derrida and Lacan. Derrida is at times willfully obscure, and Lacan probably never wrote a simple declarative sentence after he hit puberty, but Foucault has never struck me as a particularly difficult writer. Some of his works are
442:
to be rather jargon-y in some places. One of the clearest problems, I think, is constant reference to philosophical authors and assumption that the reader will know what their theories are. That tends to lead to endless chases, clicking through biography links to find one you can understand.
1463:
I for one believe that a criticism section should be included in the
Categorical Imperative section. However, the criticism should all include specific citations from reputable philosophers. Since the Categorical Imperative is more specific than deontology in general, it deserves to include
559:
All this suggests that we are suffering from internecine wars rather than responding to the interest for understanding of those who look to philosophers who need to use all the tools at their disposal, for clarification of real issues. In other words, there is a tension between the
History of
811:. For example, an Ethics or Moral Philosophy subproject is needed. I am proposing the latter as it includes the term Philosophy making it clearer that this subproject will deal with formal moral philosophy rather than popular, general or non-philosophical ethics. Other thoughts? -
787:
to develop
Knowledge content on Philosophy. However, as shown I would argue by several attempts to renew this project, a clear structure of topics within philosophy is required to encourage collaboration within areas of interest and expertise. To this end, the
256:
I think its pretty clear that at most we need two of these three articles. But do folks think we just need one (A priori and a posteriori knowledge) or two (A priori and A posteriori as seperate entries)? Anybody have a reason for one or the other?
1413:. I'm hopeful that our discussion will bring agreement, but in the event that it does not (as I fear it may not), I would also like it if more people would take the time to comment and discuss this article. The general questions up for debate are:
718:
Secondly, perhaps as a way forward we might contact all those who have written in this section and try together to assemble out of what we have already written an article - though I am unclear as yet what the title/topic could be. It is close to
740:
might be a more approprate place for the kind of article you had in mind. Could we expland this philosophy project to writting short guides to philosohy which expland and present in a more guide like style, the philosophy articles we all ready
1024:
I have attempted to adapt an existing category framework to the portal style, in the hope that it might be further used in the
Philosophy category page, as an adjunct to a future Philosophy wikiportal. Improvements are invited.
838:
I just came here to post this very comment. If you would like to start the moral philosophy subproject you are welcome. If not, I will do it: I already am compiling a laundry list of moral philosophy articles that need work.
1211:, for instance, apparently unchallenged. Why should this be so? Why, if the general Wiki community is divided, is there a consensus about avoiding weasels in Philosophy articles? Or is the Philosophy guideline problematic?
1000:
link on those pages. This cannot be done with a Category. If we want to add all those articles to the philosophy category, however, is a different issue. If you want to do so you can, but it seems like a lot of work.
1171:
All changes are reversible, so if you think any of this way off the mark, you are welcome to change it. My aim is simply to make the project more viable by simplifying the processes. Tell me what you think.
594:
Another aside: I find it a bit offensive that clarity is disparaged here as "dumbing down". If a philosopher fails to make themselves understood, it may be an indication that they have failed at their task.
1359:
Hello all - I may well be the only person around wikipedia who fits this description, but I know that there are some philosophers who use/think about game theory. If you are one of those, come on over to
1220:
when anyone can edit articles. Perhaps conscientious weaselers could just put something on the discussion page for the article like "does anyone know who said this?" or "how can I rephrase <quote: -->
1513:
3) whether there are better criticisms that should replace them in either or both articles. (I guess historically Categorical Imp. and Deontological Ethics were regarded as pretty much the same thing.)
1207:
the community is divided roughly evenly between those in favour and those against their use. I'm one of those in favour of the guideline. That guideline seems to be unchallenged here - it underpins
139:
1246:? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Knowledge who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Knowledge articles on philosophical topics.
178:-- is the best advice; feel free to sign yourself up as a project member, and peruse this and other projects, if you want to get a sense for the work that other Wikipedians feel needs doing. --
996:
The list is long mostly due to my work on it. We have to keep it because only lists can be "policed". That is, we can see what changes are made to any article on the list by following the
796:
helpful. Could those with knowledge/ideas about the overall hierarchy please clarify which version first-time readers should be looking at and perhaps remove or archive the other version?
1208:
1308:
Absolutely. This is not a "guide to everything", it's a "guide to everything above a certain threshold of notability." But this seems off topic for this page; you might take it to
231:
Many have toiled on this. I added quite a bit of stuff recently. Would appreciate any additional improvements. Would anyone support this being submitted for consideration as a
1122:
I am undertaking to change the COTW around this time each week. I'll just take the one at the top of the list and bung it in, so to get your fav featured, put it in the list.
755:
First, I'd just like to say hello and thank you to everyone collaborating on WikiProject Philosophy. This is a difficult but worthwhile effort. Second, my focus will be on
323:
much lesser degree) seems to persist here on some philosophy pages. Are you considering trying to clarify philosophy articles to be able to be easily read and understood?
1449:
For these reasons, neutral parties are requested for commenting, and perhaps we could add this article to the discussion section of the "philosophy tasks" template. --
89:
1443:. Ultramarine seems to feel that my removal of the criticism section amounts to censorship, which I admit is suspicious looking, becaue I am an admitted deontologist.
956:
If you are correct, then things need to be changed on that draft. There's no reason why Transcendental Ideas and Epistemology would be subsections of Objectivism. --
113:
81:
76:
64:
59:
645:
We are looking for entry-point articles, which, by developing links, enable those who are interested to progress in understanding. For example, those who click on
310:
entry, which includes a (fairly thorough, IMHO) discussion of Kantian/Cartesian utilisation of the word. I'll do what I can, but it's something to be considered.
759:, so I look forward to hearing from others who'd like to work in this area. Please respond and let me know you're here! If there are enough of us, we could start
1135:
Placed community building as the main goal; those philosophers on the Wiki who do not wish to build community ties presumably will not want to join a project.
142:, but the objections are mostly due with philosophical aspects, things that i, as a geoscientist, hardly understand. Could someone have a look? Thanks,
1330:
collaborate or take articles from english to translate them. Add a message in respective villages pumps ow however they are called in other languages!
583:) strikes me as pretty straightforward writing. Do people think otherwise, or are they just lumping him in as one more late 20th century Frenchie? --
546:
mention of Foucault and Discourses. (Foucault suggests that different disciplines employ their own truth criteria. If you use the search area for
116:
myself. Sorry I haven't been as active moderating this group as I used to be, but real world pressures have, as they often do, taken precedence.
823:
and I think perhaps you should just start the one on ethics. If you build it, they will come. Seriously, you can't "break" Knowledge. You gotta
616:
page or leave it just here? I am still 'new'; I will, in fact, do both...(if I am technically sufficiently competent and can manage it quickly!
1309:
864:
47:
17:
1078:
1147:
908:
887:
824:
612:) I was 'trained' in analytic philosophy; coming across 'continental' philosophy late in life has been a 'revelation! Do I put this on
250:
215:
1346:
1143:
883:
709:
to demonstrate how many simple words/concepts are fundamental for philosophy which is a methodology as much as a discrete discipline.
1361:
1236:
I'd like to set up a template to be used to invite folk who edit well on a philosophy article to joint the project. Something like:
1204:
345:
How about a "layman's introduction" section, and then go on to a section which explains it for those who have studied philosophy?
1243:
820:
800:
780:
760:
306:
page is woefully inadequate in its discussion of the historical evolution and definition of the term, especially compared to the
1293:
that. Is there a limit? There's so much talk on expanding Knowledge...aren't there somethings we should intentionally neglect?
1510:
2) whether they should all be kept together, or split between Categorical Imperative and Deontological Ethics in general, and
1439:
I thought not, since I believe it contains a great deal of original research, and makes an argument rather than maintaining
550:
this becomes apparent. The confusion between American and English spelling is a real source - sourse? - of confusion here.)
1041:
358:
1200:
981:
1500:
I took the bull by the horns and put the old criticisms (which had been deleted from Categorical Imperative) into the
1138:
Removed goal of creating a general map of the philosophical articles. This is now I think a task to be carried out at
512:
points across complexly in a short peice then philosophers won't write such long works (or maby they would any way)--
150:
I put some comments in the discussion section over there, and will add this to the list of short term projects here.
232:
38:
1417:
Should criticism of the Kantian ethical system established on the categorical imperative go in that article or in
354:
1161:
1150:
are viable structures, but I think they still need lots of work before they are used to structure the category.
1518:
1485:
1455:
1342:
1299:
1225:
1106:
1095:
1085:
1064:
1005:
963:
939:
918:
875:
856:
831:
745:
731:
639:
620:
528:
516:
505:
471:
447:
417:
379:
362:
327:
1180:
Banno -- these are fantastic changes. Thanks for putting all this effort in! I'm in favor of all of these.
1410:
1395:
1271:
1221:?" Then, after a while someone who cared enough might remove the weaselism, rephrase it or attribute it.
1187:
897:
764:
603:
The best written argument as to why philosophy is difficult that I have read is in Hegel's Preface to his
123:
1104:
311:
143:
804:
654:
484:
Oh, dear, those are fighting words. To some of us, philosophy does not consist only of truth tables. --
211:
204:
171:
1338:
519:(P.S. I've done a philosphy degree and I can't understand Foucault, Derrida, or Lacan type works :-) )
1501:
1425:
1418:
1334:
1483:
1453:
1139:
1082:
1081:? I think that might be a suitable way to improve some of our more important articles. Thoughts?
1018:
1002:
989:
985:
728:
617:
561:
1377:
742:
513:
403:
1504:
page. Now, I realize they don't quite fit there either. I am hoping this helps us figure out:
1464:
criticisms that are specifically aimed at it on its page. The Way 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
871:. Please join this sub-project to discuss pages on ethics or moral philosophy that need work. --
935:, so I would say it was misnamed. (Earlier on, I had just assumed the 2nd list was current.)
848:
I would support this to what I can. I've nominated to Christian philosophers by the way on the
547:
1268:
1265:
1184:
1181:
894:
891:
350:
183:
175:
120:
117:
1402:
1317:
1053:
1034:
1026:
872:
812:
792:
is useful, but having two versions of it (without an explanation of the purpose of each) is
588:
489:
335:
282:
225:
106:
413:
After all, the discussion page isn't restricted to discussion about article contributions.
1296:
849:
444:
324:
807:
may wish to collaborate. Let's add to the proposed descendents on the project page under
1480:
1450:
1440:
1406:
1101:
868:
840:
435:
174:
are more voluntary affiliations than anything else. "Dig in and start editing" -- and
685:. Philosophers often therefore use neologisims since no words currently exist for the
1373:
957:
912:
682:
646:
613:
596:
407:
293:
258:
236:
1061:
853:
502:
468:
439:
414:
376:
346:
303:
274:
246:
218:
194:
193:
Just noticed the project and will help when I can - I have a degree in the subject
179:
737:
1033:
Nice job! Do you think there should be some padding between each of the boxes?
1515:
1313:
1222:
1164:. Tracking tasks in one place rather than two just seems to be a simpler option.
1049:
1045:
936:
932:
636:
584:
525:
485:
467:
There's your problem right there - steer clear of that continental rubbish. :-)
151:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
459:
Picking up a modern philosophy book by someone like Foucault, Derrida, or Lacan
1278:
1256:
1212:
1173:
1160:
Removed open tasks - this section was unused, and it's role mostly usurped by
1123:
756:
395:
438:
is very well written for a layperson like myself. On the other hand, I foun
1092:
828:
768:
666:
399:
278:
1242:
You've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the
702:
307:
270:
242:
524:
ideas themselves are good philosophy. At least that is my experience.
698:
686:
674:
1475:
Well, that's not really under dispute. The question is what should be
1264:
not unlikely that we'll hook a few associate professors this way... )
803:
is to determine and define key subprojects within Philosophy on which
1091:
I've never tried a COTW before. I think that would be interesting. --
1057:
705:
in thinking and understanding that is made. I have written this with
690:
678:
1199:
This section is intriguing. For a while there has been a debate at
1167:
Re-structured templates section, and added the COTW template links.
626:
Leaving it here & there sounds fine. Perhaps something on the
706:
650:
627:
539:
1252:
This would be placed on the user:talk of potential participants.
670:
1077:
Do you peeps think we have enough support here for philosophy
694:
25:
105:
A refresh is probably needed to rejuvenate this project, eh?
1364:
and join in. Hope to see some folks there! --best, kevin
140:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/1755 Lisbon earthquake
1209:
Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy/Proposal for criticisms
1507:
1) where (if anywhere) these specific criticisms belong
1434:
1112:
693:
that they are struggling to express. As with any other
210:
I wanted to alert this project to the current state of
1142:- an article I've listed for a future collaboration;
112:
Not a bad idea Yorick, though I would have gone with
1255:
Does anyone know of a precedent? Spam? Worth a try?
269:
an ugly title. Could it be deleted and summaries of
1100:
Maybe it should be Collaboration of the Month :) --
1148:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2
888:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2
97:WikiProject Philosophy from Dec 04 through Aug 05
1205:Knowledge talk:Avoid weasel terms#For and Against
571:tough, others are not. For example, the essay on
1144:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft
884:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft
1111:Hm. Given the overwhelming response to my edit
114:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 1
1433:Is the criticism section from the old version
375:Wiki links serve as resources for the layman.
8:
1238:
751:Aesthetics and an edit to the category page
665:First, and most importantly, like poetry (
138:Hello! I'm trying to address comments in
1114:on the task list, perhaps you are right!
701:later generations take for granted the
560:Philosophy and Philosophical Thinking.
1310:Knowledge:Village pump (miscellaneous)
827:. I will also support this project. --
394:I agree. The introductory pages like
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1428:, but Ultramarine seems to think not.
669:makes this point), philosophy in its
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy
7:
542:where, I may be wrong, but there is
214:, since I just nominated it over at
850:Biography Collaboration of the Week
267:A priori and a posteriori knowledge
251:A priori and a posteriori knowledge
216:Knowledge:Collaboration of the week
1040:You might also have a look at the
931:I suspect it refers to Ayn Rand's
277:and direct comparison be added to
24:
799:Perhaps the best way forward for
1401:I'm starting to butt heads with
1244:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
801:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
781:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
29:
1288:How much knowledge is too much?
721:Why is Philosophy so difficult?
673:is a creative enterprise using
631:made by famous philosophers.
434:For a start, I think that the
318:The Philosophically Illiterate
1:
1519:06:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
1486:02:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
1436:worthy of being re-inserted?
1388:05:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
1274:08:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
1259:11:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
1215:11:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
1176:11:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
1126:22:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
819:You're right. I just started
501:Heh, sorry, couldn't resist.
1424:I feel that it should go in
1320:19:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
1281:22:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
1201:Knowledge:Avoid weasel terms
1190:08:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
982:list of philosophical topics
865:WikiProject Moral Philosophy
852:to anyone thats interested.
101:WikiProject Philosophy Renew
1456:22:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
1300:02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
1226:14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
167:or what? --Sturgeonslawyer
1541:
1079:collaborations of the week
1035:Yorick, Jester of Elsinore
976:Topic list/category merge?
900:19:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
591:06:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
410:18:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
261:03:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
221:20:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
107:Yorick, Jester of Elsinore
1479:the criticism section. --
1107:22:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
1096:21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
1086:18:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
1065:10:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
1006:15:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
964:21:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
940:20:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
919:20:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
876:03:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
815:01:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
771:04:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
746:07:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
732:01:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
640:17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
621:07:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
599:16:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
492:18:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
296:20:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
146:19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
126:17:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
1162:the Philosophy Tasks box
1052:to help strengthen your
1037:2005 July 3 12:49 (UTC)
1029:3 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
992:1 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
857:21:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
832:21:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
775:Moral Philosophy project
605:Phenomenology of Spirit.
564:07:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
529:03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
517:11:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
506:19:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
472:18:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
448:22:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
418:01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
380:13:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
363:12:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
328:03:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
314:13:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
285:09:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
197:16:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
186:21:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
154:01:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1362:WikiProject Game theory
1355:Game theory wikiproject
1349:) 15:33, 22 August 2005
1195:Standards and practices
843:7 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
1411:Categorical imperative
1396:Categorical imperative
821:WikiProject Aesthetics
765:categorical imperative
761:WikiProject Aesthetics
581:Les Mots et les Choses
172:Knowledge:WikiProjects
1304:Replies (post here):
655:analytical philosophy
212:History of philosophy
205:History of philosophy
42:of past discussions.
1502:Deontological ethics
1426:Deontological ethics
1419:Deontological ethics
986:Category: Philosophy
909:Objective Philosophy
779:The existence of an
681:to push forward our
162:Joining the project?
1157:to match new goals.
1140:Category:Philosophy
1056:and its associated
1042:Auto-categorization
1019:Category:Philosophy
577:The Order of Things
404:philosophy of mind
1380:
1351:
1337:comment added by
1250:
1249:
1203:, and judging by
1012:Philosophy portal
610:Preface, para 67.
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1532:
1403:User:Ultramarine
1387:
1384:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1350:
1331:
1239:
1155:How you can help
783:is an excellent
233:Featured article
226:Bertrand Russell
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1399:
1385:
1382:
1368:
1365:
1357:
1332:
1327:
1325:congratulations
1290:
1234:
1197:
1132:
1075:
1014:
998:Related Changes
984:be merged with
978:
962:
917:
790:Hierarchy Draft
777:
753:
538:the article on
320:
254:
229:
208:
164:
136:
103:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1538:
1536:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1511:
1508:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1398:
1393:
1391:
1356:
1353:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1289:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1248:
1247:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1158:
1151:
1136:
1131:
1128:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1054:content family
1022:
1021:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
977:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
960:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
924:
923:
922:
921:
915:
902:
901:
882:In regards to
879:
878:
860:
859:
845:
844:
835:
834:
785:starting point
776:
773:
752:
749:
729:Jeffrey Newman
726:
725:
724:
723:
713:
712:
711:
710:
660:
659:
624:
623:
618:Jeffrey Newman
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:Jeffrey Newman
554:
553:
552:
551:
532:
531:
509:
508:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
477:
476:
475:
474:
462:
461:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
436:Existentialism
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
368:
367:
366:
365:
340:
339:
319:
316:
312:216.158.31.195
300:
299:
298:
297:
287:
286:
253:
240:
228:
223:
207:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
188:
187:
163:
160:
158:
156:
155:
135:
132:
130:
128:
127:
102:
99:
93:
92:
87:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1537:
1520:
1517:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1442:
1438:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1379:
1375:
1363:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1324:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1287:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1253:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1194:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1153:Re-organised
1152:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1125:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1058:category tree
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1028:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:
999:
995:
994:
993:
991:
987:
983:
975:
965:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
941:
938:
934:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
920:
914:
910:
906:
905:
904:
903:
899:
896:
892:
889:
885:
881:
880:
877:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:
858:
855:
851:
847:
846:
842:
837:
836:
833:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
795:
791:
786:
782:
774:
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
750:
748:
747:
744:
743:JK the unwise
739:
734:
733:
730:
722:
717:
716:
715:
714:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:understanding
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
661:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
642:
641:
638:
632:
629:
622:
619:
615:
611:
606:
602:
601:
600:
598:
592:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
563:
558:
557:
556:
555:
549:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
527:
522:
521:
520:
518:
515:
514:JK the unwise
507:
504:
500:
499:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
473:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
460:
457:
456:
449:
446:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
419:
416:
412:
411:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
381:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
337:
332:
331:
330:
329:
326:
317:
315:
313:
309:
305:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
260:
252:
248:
244:
241:
239:
238:
234:
227:
224:
222:
220:
217:
213:
206:
203:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
169:
168:
161:
159:
153:
149:
148:
147:
145:
141:
133:
131:
125:
122:
118:
115:
111:
110:
109:
108:
100:
98:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1476:
1448:
1400:
1390:
1358:
1339:62.175.93.57
1328:
1303:
1295:
1291:
1269:Adam Conover
1254:
1251:
1235:
1198:
1185:Adam Conover
1170:
1154:
1121:
1076:
1023:
997:
979:
895:Adam Conover
867:, thanks to
863:We now have
808:
798:
793:
789:
784:
778:
754:
735:
727:
720:
633:
625:
609:
604:
593:
580:
576:
575:that starts
572:
569:
543:
510:
458:
440:Epistemology
321:
304:a posteriori
301:
275:A posteriori
266:
255:
247:A posteriori
230:
209:
165:
157:
137:
129:
121:Adam Conover
104:
96:
70:
43:
37:
1333:—Preceding
1044:methods of
1027:Ancheta Wis
980:Should the
933:objectivism
873:Akiva Quinn
813:Akiva Quinn
805:Wikipedians
573:Las Meninas
338:15 May 2005
336:Jamesrskemp
283:Tim Ivorson
36:This is an
1297:HereToHelp
1232:Invitation
757:Aesthetics
445:WoodenTaco
396:philosophy
325:WoodenTaco
90:Archive 10
1481:causa sui
1451:causa sui
1102:malathion
869:Malathion
841:Malathion
738:Wikibooks
667:Heidegger
548:discource
400:knowledge
292:Done! --
279:Knowledge
144:muriel@pt
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
71:Archive 3
65:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
1374:Kzollman
1347:contribs
1335:unsigned
1083:KSchutte
1003:KSchutte
990:AAMiller
958:goethean
913:goethean
907:What is
809:Metadata
736:Prehaps
703:progress
687:concepts
614:Lucidish
597:Lucidish
408:Kzollman
308:a priori
294:Kzollman
271:A priori
259:Kzollman
243:A priori
1441:WP:NPOV
1409:) over
1130:Changes
1062:Quinobi
854:Falphin
825:be bold
741:have?--
699:science
675:thought
503:Evercat
469:Evercat
415:Adraeus
377:Adraeus
347:Talrias
265:I find
219:Circeus
195:Brookie
180:Rbellin
176:Be bold
39:archive
1516:WhiteC
1314:Jmabel
1277:Done.
1223:WhiteC
1050:Pearle
1046:Beland
937:WhiteC
691:notion
679:reason
637:WhiteC
585:Jmabel
526:WhiteC
486:Jmabel
237:icut4u
152:WhiteC
1312:. --
1279:Banno
1257:Banno
1213:Banno
1174:Banno
1124:Banno
1017:See:
911:? --
707:links
651:Hegel
649:, or
628:Hegel
540:truth
16:<
1407:RFAr
1378:Talk
1343:talk
1318:Talk
1146:and
1093:Slac
1073:COTW
1048:and
886:and
829:Slac
769:Slac
677:and
671:time
647:Kant
589:Talk
490:Talk
302:The
273:and
184:Talk
134:Help
794:not
697:or
695:art
689:or
653:or
1477:in
1421:?
1376:|
1345:•
1316:|
1267:—
1183:—
1060:.
893:—
839:--
587:|
544:no
488:|
402:,
398:,
361:)
357:|
353:|
281:?
257:--
235:?
119:—
86:→
1405:(
1386:·
1383:·
1381:·
1371:·
1369:·
1366:·
1341:(
1272:†
1188:†
961:ॐ
916:ॐ
898:†
579:(
359:c
355:e
351:t
349:(
249:/
245:/
182:|
124:†
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.