User talk:Lucaas/archive

H. Terminology

Hey Lucaas, Thanks for the editing to clearing, it looks better. I still think that the Concern/Ereignis section is poorly written and doesnt address the topic to the standard that they other sections do their own. I've been quite busy for the last two weeks, and have only been able to spend a few minutes on wikipedia a day, hopefully this weekend I can sit down and do some real editing. Do you want to collaborate on the Heideggerian terminology page, maybe re-work the new sections, plus the two I mentioned on the talk page? Plus, I want to do something with the references... peace, - Sam 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Its all good. Worldhood and Care were the two other sections I was thinking of; after I removed them I posted on the talkpage about it. I think that Ereignis and Clearing would benefit most from editing and added content, but Worldhood is pretty well-explained. The only other term that I can think of off the top of my head would be ek-stasis or rather, ecstasy. There is already an article for it here. I'm going to try and do some quick stuff with it now, but we'll see how much I get done. - Sam 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rafeel_schoool_of_athens2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rafeel_schoool_of_athens2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosopher quotes

I thought the idea of quotations was good, and thanks for supplying them, but are they all literally correct? For example, I recognise the spirit of the Hume quote, but he did not actually use the word "bunk". The Marx I recognise (it is on his monument in Highgate cemetery). But it reads something like, philosophers have had views about the world, but the point is to change it. (Possibly not, I'm going on memory here). It would be useful to add these quotes to a page somewhere, if they are accurate. Dbuckner 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Signature

Can you please end your comment with your DATED signature?

You do that by mouse-clicking on the four (4) horizontal wavy lines/squiggles below where it say as follows: "Sign your name:~~~~" (or just type this symbol, "~", four times in immediate succession).

Thank you, Ludvikus 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

philosophy

While I don't mind you moving my comment, it think you should have asked first. Rick Norwood 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Descartes

In what sense is the hypothesis of an evil demon an irrational idea? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, you seem tobe using "irrational" in rather a non-standard way. But, secondly, the hypothesis of the demon is perfectly rational, performing as it does a rational rôle in Descartes' rational project of enquiry (it's used to prevent him from slipping back into beliefs to which he's not yet entitled). Descartes is at no point in an irrational state (he rejects the argument from madness precisely because it would leave him in such a state). The demon doesn't destroy reason, only certainty. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I teach the Meditations regularly, and am pretty familiar with it. The demon destroys nothing; it's a useful philosophical tool designed to stop Descartes from believing what he hasn't yet rescued from the hyperbolic doubt. Mathematics isn't affected, only his mathematical beliefs. At no point does Descartes say that he's in an irrational state, nor does anything he say imply or even support that view.

"Rationality" doesn't mean "belief" or "knowledge" as you seem to think ("the, imperfect rationality, that he exists").

(Oh, by the way, discussions over two pages is the most usual form at Wikipedia, unless it's at article Talk pages.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've misunderstood Descartes. First, the demon doesn't exist for him at all; it's a deliberate hypothesis raised for the reasons I've give. This isn't even interpretation: he says it quite plainly and openly (AT VII22–23). Secondly, his three sceptical arguments – from illusion, from dreaming, adn from god – are designed simply to show that his beliefs are dubitable. Again, this is stated absolutely plainly (AT VII 18). At no point does Descartes claim that anything is falsified.

With regard to rationality, you're still using the term in a very peculiar way; it isn't belief of any kind. rationality is the process by which Descartes tries to regain knowledge after hyperbolic doubt has left him doubting almost all that he had believed. His enquiry is a rational enquiry. After the cogito, which is a direct intuition, everything is arrived at through reason: his knowledge of himself as a res cogitans, the existence of a non-deceiving god, the account of the possibility of error, the Real Distinction between mind and body, etc. It doesn't matter that some of those don't work — they're quite clearly rational. Irrationality is sterile, impotent, pointless; from irrationality comes nothing. As Descartes says when rejecting the argument from madness: "But such people are insane, and I would be thought equally mad if I took anything from them as a model for myself". (AT VII 19) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm writing from outside the meditation, as you are you — but your assumptionthat I don't know how to approach it properly is baseless. Also, the long quotation you give serves to back up my points, which is odd. Did you intend that? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ir/rational

Exactly on target. So we agree on the issue. Therefore, I would expect you to be among the first (is that possible?) to acknowledge the role of 'politics' in philosophical discourse.

Accordingly, your enemy/adversery here (Wiki) is not me, but User:Dbuckner & Co.

You have 2 "professors" telling you you are wrong! Is there a Cabal among them?

I don't doubt User:Dbuckner's naive sincerity - is it not said that Hell is paved with the souls of those with good intensions? Notice also how he attempts to marginalize your position. All this is evidence of the - shall I say - irrationality of philosophical discourse?

Our Philosopher King misses this point completely.

Can you ask this other alleged pseudonymous philosopy professor to give us an exact page citation in his published body of work regarding his views on his profound discovery that "Irrationality is sterile, impotent, pointless; from irrationality comes nothing."???

Best regards: --Ludvikus 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree, Lucaas, that talk of "enemies" is inappropriate in the circumstances? Banno 09:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the Talk Page

You substantially changed what was there - which is the same as reverting! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Conduct

It's action subject to moral or ethical rules.

• It's precisely what your mother tried to instill in you. --Ludvikus 13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Peace

I do not wish to alienate you. But you gave me no choice in the need to revert.

Now think about it - isn't making substantial changes effectively the same as reverting?

I worked hard on the article, looking for citations.

You just rely on your knowledge of naitive English regarding "conduct."

You are welcome to make any changes you wish, but the should cite exact authorities.

Also, words like "important," "nice," "general," are stylistically horrible in the context you gave.

Please do not take this just personally, but see if what I say is true.

Best regards, --Ludvikus 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Are you English? American?

I only began it at 10. I admire Joseph Conrad because, like me, his prior tongue was Polish.

I sincerely hope you are not ofended, but you are simply mistaken about conduct - it is an often used techical term in philosophy. It would be very helpful if you were to concede the point, and without taking any offense.

My sincere best wishes, --Ludvikus 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rafael schoool of athensX.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rafael schoool of athensX.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mike Rosoft 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I have nominated the article Schism between Analytic and Continental philosophy for speedy deletion, because it is a re-creation of Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. I recommend starting a new article about the difference between these schools of philosophy from the scratch, and by a user who wasn't involved with the previous one. - Mike Rosoft 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The contents of the re-created article were pretty much the same as the previously deleted article. If you disagree with the deletion, please don't re-create it yourself, especially not under hopelessly partisan titles. Either go to deletion review, or leave it on an editor who wasn't involved with the previous article. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

philosophers gang up

You have claimed on various pages that philosophers ganged up on your Anglophone/Analytic vs Continental page, resulting in its deletion. I argued, of course, for its deletion, because the removal of inaccurate sections would have left an unimprovable stub. But as I hinted in the talk page, I am not an analytic philosopher. My specialisms are Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze. I did teach analytic philosophy in the past, however. I just like philosophy articles to be accurate and balanced, especially when they have so many internet visitors looking for good information. All the best. KD Jan 17 07

I have not claimed this, what I claimed was that during the deletion process a certain person posted to many peoples talk pages to vote to delete it. I've not been through this process before but mob-rule seems to be wiki-policy. --Lucas 13:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Analytic/Continental deletion

I'm sorry that the content was deleted in its entirety. That was never my intent in voting. As you know, my objection was to the title, not the content. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Schism of 20th Century Philosophy

Archived page image is School of athens with an X through it:

These are the two main kinds of philosophy currently taught in academic philosophy today.

Analytic, or Anglophone, philosophy, is practised mainly in British, Australian and U.S. universities but also, to some extent, in Scandinavia.

Continental philosophy is practised in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Canada and to some extent Ireland.

This schism that has occurred within Western philosophy is not, however, completely geographic. Many Anglophone philosophers have come from the continent of Europe and either emigrated or were taken up only by Analytic philosophers. And most British and U.S. institutions also cover a certain amount of Continental philosophy. In addition, some German and French universities have philosophers working in the anglophone tradition.

Notably, the very names "Continental" and "Analytic" or "Anglophone" are not agreed upon by many philosophers who may not see themselves as belonging to a certain grouping, yet most do agree there exists this division and that it became so in the twentieth century. To quote a leading philosopher, C.G.Prado:

The differences marked by the label "analytic" and "Continental" philosophy for the most part are real enough. Though the labels tend to conjure up simplistic stereotypes, as well as obscure important similarities among philosophers, they undeniably do mark significant differences"

Most Analytic philosophy is currently done in the English language, hence its other designator, Anglophone Philosophy.  Continental philosophy, on the other hand, cannot be localised to any one language.  However, the term Anglophone need not apply only to Analytic philosophy, since historically it has involved many other forms of philosophy.  Note also that use of the term Anglophone is disputed by some since they consider it not include those Analytic philosophers who use another language in addition to English.

The most notable fact is that there are two divergent kinds of philosophy at all, especially when one considers that, in the Western tradition, philosophy was the very theme that attempted to have no "locality" and to be the most general kind of discussion that was held between all nations.

The division of philosophy into two camps is not so much because of some fundamental disagreement, but from self-isolation on both sides: most philosophers of both kinds do not read one another, and only discuss issues relevant to their own kind of philosophy.

Respectively, each kind of philosophy does philosophy in such a different way and concerning different matters that communication between the two is problematic. The history of this division is not easy to ascertain but it is thought to have occurred in the 1920s. Others maintain it goes back to Immanuel Kant, the last "great" philosopher that both sides read.

There are political elements too to thise schism, note the politics of the 20th century with Communism, Capitalism and Nationalism vying for control. U.S. philosopher, Babette Babich brings to attention the current political dimensino to the schism :

there is a difference between analytic and continental approaches to philosophy not only because it is obvious and not only because as a professor of philosophy I live on the terms of a profession dominated by this noisome distinction but because the claim that there is no such distinctive divide is politically manipulative.

Below we try to contrast the two philosophies under various headings, give a general indication of what both have in common, and finally to detail some of the history of this schism.

For a list of Anglophone Philosophers, see category:Analytic philosophers

For a list of Continental Philosophers, see category: Continental philosophers

Holism vs functionalism

Anglophone philosophy centers on certain universal problems and divides philosophy into different, almost incommunicable, areas such as, the Philosophy of Science, the Philosophy of Mind, the Philosophy of Language, the Philosophy of Mathematics, etc..

Continental philosophy tends to deal with these issues holistically and focuses instead upon key thinkers and their themes, such as questions of life, death, anthropology and the Other, sexuality, politics, the body, history and the value of universality.

The text vs the issue

The most simple way of putting the difference may be this: most continental philosophers care first and foremost about traditional and current philosophic texts, the interpretations of them, and the progress or regress, seen through them, of thought in general.

On the other hand, most in the Analytic tradition care first and foremost about theses and the reasons for and against accepting them as being true. The thesis is viewed as amenable to being either true, false, meaningless or subjectively true and usually entails an implicit rejection of those theses that are considered to be false, meaningless or merely subjective.

Continental philosophy is interested not so much in whether a certain definable thesis is true or false, but more, in what had been achieved by the great philosophers in history and of today, their truths but also their half-truths, and how to interpret and use these to "go beyond" or deconstruct them.

Differences in use of examples

In continental philosophy it is more common to reference a writer's literature, novels and poetry, or real-life examples from cafes, work, etc..

In Anglophone philosophy it is more common to use imaginative leaps and "science fiction" thought experiments to discuss the possibility of an issue.

Formal logic vs logic as logos

Analytic philosophy generally uses formal logic and formal logical argumentation in explaining questions.  This includes such things as the law of excluded middle, the law of contradiction and argument style, for example eschewing an  argument that is ad hominem, or an argument from authority, etc. There is also a newer term for argumentation that Analytic philosophy considers faulty, and they are given as the "fallacy of ...", which offer a handy way of using a previously "proven" point again in another argument on another matter.  Examples of such "fallacies" are: the naturalistic fallacy, and the genetic fallacy, though all fallacies may not be fully accepted, they are at least well known, and can be given as standard criticism of a theory to which a response might be already prepared.

Continental philosophy on the other hand tends to use the term Logic more loosely, or in the sense of the Greek word Logos, meaning discourse, or to make manifest what one is 'talking about'. It often considers logic and many philosophic concepts in general, as not having a neutral meaning. Each concept having a history of which today's concepts of logic, law, contradiction, are merely an instant of and are not necessarily those of tomorrow, each has its own history and hermeneutic problematics.

Descriptive vs critical

Anglophone philosophy often attempts to describe how things are in the world, how they must work or what might offer the most intuitive or "the best" description that can withstand fierce argumentative attacks. Because of this descriptive project, it often models itself on the empirical sciences or mathematics. Like the sciences, analytic philosophy generally avoids explicit political controversy, except in the specific branches of political philosophy or ethics.

Continental philosophy, on the other hand, operates in a critical mode, and assumes that the state of the world is not something that is to be merely described but is also changed by our understanding of it. It therefore tends to see politics as being important in all philosophy. While in the 19th century, proto-continental philosophers such as Hegel and Marx described their form of criticism as "science," continental philosophy, in general, tends to adopt a critical view of Enlightenment science. However, some recent philosophers, in particular Deleuze, Badiou and Lyotard, have a positive attitude to science and mathematics

Historical vs escaping tradition

The Nineteenth century is the key moment for looking at how Analytic philosophy emerged as a new way of thinking. For Anglophone philosophy the massive influence of Hegel on Universities in Europe and in Britain and the U.S. was too long and too claustrophobic. With Frege they saw a means of breaking also from an emerging psychologism and make a new start with a Philosophy of Language with a strong belief in formal logic and a science and mathematics that was logically groundable.

Thus Analytic Philosophy rejected Hegel and his ideas of sublation and speculative/concrete thought and attempted a return to the "firmer" ground of formal logic. Along with Hegel other figures from that century remain uninteresting for most of the Analytic tradition.

Continental philosophy, in contrast, always took up to some extent the challenge of previous philosophers as something to be given consideration, even if that was mostly in a critical manner. So for Continental philosophers, Hegel's ideas about history altering what is considered as "true", Marx's ideas that philosophy's goal is not the "interpretation" of the world, but the changing of the world, Nietzsche's ideas upon truth as interpretation and as the result of forces and will, and Heidegger's criticism of the Philosophy of Presence, are often addressed or form a background for discussion.

At the same time, in certain non-traditional areas of Anglophone philsophy, certain Hegelian ideas on history, though not under that name, have permeated through, eg, Kuhn, Quine.

As one can see, the question of history in philosophy and the history of philosophy are handled differently by both sides, each accused of being either, too historical or completely ahistorical.

Too historical or ahistorical

Continental philosophy, for some, may be seen as giving too much respect to previous philosophers in allowing them to set the terms of reference for modern discussions; thus it risks becoming a mere history of interpretations of the history of philosophy.

On the other hand, it has been suggested that Analytic philosophy approaches history, if at all, in a disingenuous way. It can be argued that Analytic philosophers are bound to keep repeating the same old answers given in the history of philosophy because they remain unconscious of how the same questions have been answered, rightly or wrongly, in the past.

While Anglophone philosophy has an Enlightenment attitude towards the past that tends to be mirrored by science and industry, Continental philosophy’s attitude towards its past tends to be mirrored by history and literature. However, both groups tend to read considerably more about their history than scientists might of their own.

Pejorative labellings

Though the differences between these two forms of Western Philosophy are marked mostly by both sides ignoring one another, at times they are rather pejoratively labeled.

Sometimes Analytic philosophy is described as boring, dry, un-engaged (politically) and concerned only with the veritas aeternitas. At times parsimoniously reifying concepts that are, in fact, more complexly related. Anglophone philosophy is ahistorical and wheels away at a sisyphusian task, forever condemned to a, as Hegel termed it, philosophia perennis.

Continental Philosophy has been described as willfully contradictory, obfuscated, overly rhetorical, and at times a sloppy conflater of unrelated issues. In its rejection of formal logic and formal argument, it has no grounds for agreement, and reads more like literature, or journalistic opinion, than rigorous argument.

However, it can be seen from the above sections describing their differences that such labeling is merely the extreme end of their usual activity. For example, Continental philosophy's holistic attempt to include all philosophy and the history of philosophy is bound to make reading it a difficult task and a risk of conflating ideas. On the other hand, Analytic philosophy's breaking up of philosophy into various branches, e.g., the History of Ideas, the Philosophy of Mind, Political Philosophy, simplifies each area but also can lead to exclusions and risk a lack of synergy.

Commonality between Anglophone and Continental

Continental and Analytic philosophers tend to ignore one another.

Major founders of both traditions were trained not in philosophy but in mathematics (Russell, Frege, Husserl).

Both philosophies would count almost all major philosophers up to and including Kant, from pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, the Medievals, to Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, as being the fundamental thinkers and theme-setters for philosophy.

Hence the deepest historic link between the two schools is that both see some value of Kant's Philosophy but differ widely on Hegel. However, members of both schools contest the Kantian notion of the thing in itself. This separates Analytic and Continental thought both from pre-Kantian metaphysicians such as Leibniz, and also from such modern detractors of Kantian philosophy such as Alfred North Whitehead.

The issue of postmodern philosophy, and the issue of language which is associated with postmodernism, arose on both sides from Wittgenstein's ideas on Language-games, and Lyotard's use of this idea in defining the very term Postmodernism.

Both philosophies are academically centred, in that it is from the academy, the university, that they both gain respectability and publishing rights, notoriety etc. There are however exceptions who were published independently and did most of their work well away from the university. These include Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, who are most read in the Continental tradition, and John Stuart Mill, who is mostly read in the analytic tradition.

Certain ideas have been given open coverage by both sides: Speech act theory, language-games, the idea of historical paradigms and the phenomenology of intentionality. There has also been some suggestion that by outright rejection or neglect of one another's position, they can "cherry pick" ideas from the other tradition and repackage them, without having to credit the originators of the ideas.

Historical moments of the schism

1929

Gilbert Ryle's dismissive review in the journal Mind, of Heidegger's magnus opus Being and Time.

1929

Confrontation of Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer at Davos, Switzerland. A debate that showed how deep the Kantian crisis of the 1920s had become. The status of objectivity and inter-subjective or universal knowledge was at issue.

Heidegger wished to interpret Kant as an attempt at ontology, Cassirer, on the other hand, attempted to see Kant as providing no more work for philosophy other than that of filling out of a scientific and mathematical details and as a critique of aparatus of objectivity. Cassirer accused Heidegger of denying the possibility of non-subjective universal scientific knowledge.

The debate was also attended by Levinas and Carnap. Levinas, who viewed Heidegger as having won out, later remarked that this confrontation showed the "end of a certain humanism." Carnap, on the other hand, sided with Cassirer. This is how Heidegger wrapped up the discussion:

What matters to me is that you, Prof. Cassirer, take with you from this debate this one thing, namely, that you may have felt somehow (and quite aside from the diversity of positions of differently philosophizing men) that once again we are on our way to take seriously the fundamental questions of metaphysics. What you have seen here, writ small, namely, the differences between philosophers within the one-ness of a problem, suggests, however modestly, what is so essential and writ large in the controversies in the history of philosophy: the realization that the discerning of its different standpoints goes to the very root of all philosophical work.

1930

Carnap, accuses Heidegger of a "violation of logical syntax". Heidegger's language is based on a Greek rather than a mathematical understanding of logic.

1940s 1950s

"The schism dates back to the 1940s and 1950s, when analytic philosophy took over at American universities, Rorty said. Before then, anglophone philosophy departments -- those in the United States, Britain and Scandinavia -- and non-anglophone schools -- in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and other European countries -- both focused on the study of philosophy from a historical perspective."[1]

1971

Debate between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky on Dutch Television.

1974

Searle responds to a review of one of Derrida's books with accusations of obfuscation. Derrida replies with accusations of mis-reading.

1992

The University of Cambridge awards an honorary doctorate to Derrida, A number of Analytic Philosophers, including W. V. Quine, sign a letter to try prevent the award being made.

References

/*Category:Philosophical schools and traditions Category:Continental philosophy Category:Schisms

fi:Analyyttinen ja mannermainen filosofia*/

The inaccuracy of the material on which you draw was addressed in the Talk Page of the deleted article (which I guess itself is now deleted) and in the page discussing and confirming deletion. I made the corrections at the deleted articles page, but you reverted to the inaccurate version. I will give you the corrections again if necessary, but given the history of this material, I really think it should be reviewed on the Talk Page first rather than just re-published. There must be a strong presumption at least that it's not up to scratch. I don't know if Wikipedia has a policy about Users simply republishing material which has been deleted by consensus, but I wouldn't be surprised. KD Tries Again 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Being constructive

I am happy to be constructive, but please meet me halfway. The accuracy of this material was questioned, with citations, at the deleted page. Given that the Wikipedia consensus was to delete that page, not only because of the misleading title, but because of blatant errors, constructive means at least giving editors a chance to discuss it before it is re-published. I know you changed Anglophone to English-speaking, but given that the terms are exact synonyms, it doesn't patch up the problem which led Wikipedia to reject the material a few days ago. KD Tries Again 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)KD

you just have an irrational urge to not contribute to this section

My experience is that my rewrites and corrections are for the most part removed by you, without prior discussion. It is rational not to waste my time. I will contribute on some of the authors I named who work both sides of the split, but (1) not if you are just going to remove the material and (2) not until I have some idea whether the section is going to survive review by other editors. Conservation of energy. KD Tries Again 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

To contribute you must add or edit something

No, that's not the rule. It is not incumbent on editors to add to or edit material which should not be there in the first place. I could improve the Chomsky/Foucault debate or add other debates of the same kind - for example, Popper v Adorno on sociology or - as I said before - Popper v Wittgenstein on problems. But none of it is relevant or needed.

I'm saying you're right, they are wrong

But I don't like the word "schism" - it seems ahistorical. --Ludvikus 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I think there is Vandalism now - what appears like my writing - is not mine.

I think VoluntarySlave may have sloppily or drastically altered things.

But maybe Dbuckner has a hand in it.

Also - for some strange reason - writing goes to some other than intended page. --Ludvikus 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the reversion against you

OK Lucas. Let's see if we can work together.

Can you find any exact reference for the word "schism"?

It seems to me that you and I know the reality of the split, but we find better word than that.

I have never heard that word used in the context you are giving. And its too strong. Diverge seems more neutral, but it also does not correspond to any authority. Can you come up with anthing else?

Maybe, this: "It is customary to distinguish between Continental and Anglo-American philosophy".

Then we wouldn't need a word. --Ludvikus 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes

I believe he's leaving me message(s), and pretending that it's you!--Ludvikus 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Lucas. I'll support you,because what you say is true.

But I do not think it is worth it. Don't let him provoke you. It will take your energy into the wrong place. That willmake him win.

I think he is passionate about what he does, but naive.I think he's really the victim of his two Philosopher Kings. I think they are using him.

The best revenge is to win over the issues of philosophy - and not to stoop to his level. Let him try character assassination, etc. But if we say to the issues, there's a chance he will learn that we are not his enemies.

You seem to be quite independent. He is not - he forms allegences - you know who they are. And it is these who are more at fault than he is.I really think he is naive, but passionate, and cannot distinguish beteen difference of opinion and his adversaries.

Best regards, --Ludvikus 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see this page

Talk:Philosophy/Workshop. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

Copied to: Richiar, Ludvikus, Banno, DBuckner, Lucaas, Quiddity

Hiya,

This is a short summary, and request for help on the Workshop. Talk:Philosophy/Workshop

I'm now starting to check my understanding of philosophy, and seeking the input of other editors. This has several important benefits:

1. Current discussion has gone round in circles a bit. But if it is broken down point by point for consideration, then (although a bit slower) we actually do make progress, by seeing what we agree on, and what we disagree on.

    

2. If those who understand philosophy can clarify to me what it should cover, and correct my misunderstandings, then they will 'de facto' have worked out how to clarify it to others, including readers of the article.

    

3. Specific statements are much easier to resolve disputes on, and to see where people agree and differ.

    

4. The editors can very rapidly narrow down where a layperson (ie, me) is visibly mistaken, and whether they agree or disagree on what I do need to know and what's useful to know. So it's efficient.

    

5. Although slower than individual editors saying "that's what I think the article should look like", this approach has a tremendous advantage in that it tends to bring consensus very rapidly with nobody feeling their voice was ignored or overridden in the discussion. You tend to end up with many bullet points, of which the majority are all agreed or refined, and a minority lack agreement and can be investigated. (ArbCom uses a similar approach in its discussion pages for what it's worth.) This helps a lot in disputes.

I have put a list of 14 impressions on the workshop page, as well as some questions in previous sections. I'm looking for a wide range of thoughtful views on them.

Bear in mind the purpose is not to say "this is my thoughts on the article".

It's to say "this is where I'm starting from, and if you all explain to me where you think I'm right and wrong, then we'll actually have quite a productive debate that can be translated to the article as a whole very easily".

It's also to say for each point, "On this single specific question, what range of views do we have amongst editors of the article?"

When we ultimately cannot agree on a point, or there is a minority dissenting view on a specific question, then that tells us we need to look at sources to clarify our communal thinking. Where we do in the end all agree on a point, we know that is a place we need to find a citation to support the point we all broadly agree on. Thus we use cites intelligently, rather than as "weapons" in an edit war.

I hope that this is agreeable. Please do take an active part and give what answers you feel (bullet/short!!) on each point raised. It's an efficient technique to get problem articles like this on the way to recovery.

All the best,

FT2