Jump to content

Talk:Anglo-American philosophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Rubbish"

[edit]

--Ludvikus 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, this is rubbish. Banno 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say this is "rubbish", can you explain what Continental philosophy excludes?
Or is Continental philosophy also "Rubbish", in your opinion? --Ludvikus 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish in the article:

1. The first sentence is just wrong, and for two reasons. "Anglo-American" always means both British and American (as in U.S.) philosophy, and never just the philosophy of North and Central America. Furthermore, the latter region is not English speaking. In this phrase, "Anglo-" does not mean anglophone. It shares the same prefix as anglophone, "anglo-" which means English (or more loosely British).

2. The second paragraph is therefore muddled, because Anglo-American philosophy simply includes all philosophy done in England - it doesn't just have things "in common" with it. If it means that Anglo-American philosophy has things in common with, say, anglophone Australian or New Zealand philosophy, then that's true - but it might as well say so.

3. The third paragraph relies on the false and inexplicable assumptions that continental philosophy is generally Marxist, that it was not studied in the United States for that reason, and furthermore that Marxism was not studied in the United States. None of this is true.

Since every part of the stub is wrong, and the subject matter it purports to treat can readily be covered by articles on British and American philosophy, I think this article is a candidate for deletion.KD Tries AgainKD

Spectacular dissection. Dead on. Rosenkreuz 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you do that (Delete) why don't you guys just clean things up. You know, User:KD Tries Again, that I'm busy elsewhere (Philosophy), where you too are involved in an Editor's War. Can you truly be impartial? You know this Stub was edited by others. I did not put Central America in there. Also, elsewhere I did not find Anglophone an appropriate usage, at least in the United States. That issue you should take up with Editor User:Lucaas. Also, I understand Wikipedia encourages boldness. So why don't you just conform your editing to the D. W. Hamlyn (Pelican History of Western Philosophy) Authority which I have pasted here. Do you understand?
We do not need, necessarily, a content article, just an accounting of the Usage as it existes.
Take this example: Jewish Bolshevism. It exists. It is Antisemitic. I would like to see it disappear from the face of the Earth. Nevertheless, it exists, just like the Bristol Stool Chart. Why don't you delete the Bristol Stool Chart? Are you not familiar with the image]]. To you get my drift? Try again? -- Ludvikus 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters is that my observations are accurate; they are not directed at any one specific editor. As for usage, and Google hits, you are correct in supposing that this stub, even if improved, could be no more than a dictionary definition, with links to substantive articles on British and American philosophy. KD Tries Again 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
As for you, Rosenkreuz, I hope you do not take offense, but we have many Generals, but not enough Soldiers. Look here [[1]] - its Google, and it shows 55,200 hits for Anglo-American philosophy. Why don't you read through some of these, and report back to us - or take appropriate action after you have formed an informed opinion on the matter. Do you understand me? --Ludvikus 18:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you, Ludvikus, presume to write an encyclopaedia article before you have assimilated the content of the literature to a sufficient extent that the quality of what you write meets minimum scholarly standards? I do not need to be patronised by you or your ilk (do you understand me?) and I would thank you to cease such behaviour forthwith. Frankly, while there does exist a distinction between analytic and continental philosophy, and there may even be a few (relatively unimportant) geographic 'trends', I find the almost fetishistic obsession, among certain of Wikipedia's philosophy editors, about 'genres' of philosophy to be decidedly weird, given that the conceptual depth of the majority of the articles is of a level not unlike a first year student's assignments. Professional philosophers, and indeed the content of philosophy in general, are concerned far more with concepts, arguments and ideas than with trends, styles or geographic areas. And I would like to suggest that the editorial activities around here would be best off trying to stick to the actual object of philosophy, and not Dadaist attempts to sketch the milieu in which it exists. Rosenkreuz 08:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if Administrator User:Mel Etitis were to step up to the plate and defend the distinction, because his position in 2005 clearly indicates that he had made it in African philosophy as follows:
  "As regards modern philosophy, I'm OK on the Anglo-American-influenced side,
  but I'm completely incomprehending when it comes to the Francophone stuff.
  I'll get going on the Classical philosophers though.
  Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)"

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Administrator User:Banno. I appreciate very much your removal of the templates which contest the validity of this Stub. I appreciate your acknowledgment. Know the work really has to begin. But it should not be hard.
  • May position is that the distinction exists, and so Wikipedia should describe it. We do not, and perhaps should not make a whole article. I would recommend that we simply search the literature and use that to make the distinction. At the same time, Administrator User:Banno, I do have to eat sometime- even if I do not sleep. So can you offer some of your valuable assistance to end the Editor War at Philosophy? That way we can conserve our finite resources and put them through more productive and joyful endevours. Will you assume Good Will and help end this wasteful, and in some ways (though not all ways), useless war? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism & Hasty Claims of "Rubbish"

[edit]

In the context of a possible Editors War, and Conflict of Interest, extra care should be taken in ones editing of another's work. --Ludvikus 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central America

[edit]

I do not know if Central America is included. For obvious reasons, Spanish-language texts may be relevant there. I'm thinking of Unamuno and Ortega y Gasset, for example. But I, personally, am otherwise ignorant of its practice there, as I'm a "Gringo." --Ludvikus 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

The article is unverified, and will remain so because it is a POV of the author. Ludvicus, removing a banner is a breach of etiquette. Banno 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Banno, as you are aware, there is an editors war on the Philosophy page, in which you took administrive action. Whatever that's about remains to be resolved there, or elsewhere. Here we have a related issue - namely, is there a term usage such as "Anglo-American philosopy." I say there is - it is at least a geographical distinction - Great Britain and the United States. In my opinion, it describes a place where Analytic philosophy had dominated - in the college curricula. Are you questioning that? I do not understand what you are objecting to? Could you please explain? I've read your stuff - and I belive you are very familiar with Analytic philosophy, beginning, as it does, essentially with Moore and Russell. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?

[edit]

Do we really, really need an article on this? We have articles on analytic and continental philosophy already, and classifying philosophy by its geographical (or racial) point of origin is at best irrelevant and at worst dubious. Rosenkreuz 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Geographical distinction exists. I, personally, do not have the time at the moment, to develop it here. It is not a distinction that is being Invented - it is one which is to be Developed by appropriate references.
Note that the main author of this article recently had an article covering some of the same material deleted - for good reason.[[2]] This is one of the author's attempts to fit the material in somewhere else on Wiki. KD Tries Again 16:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]
Thank you for your observation. Haven't had a chance to read your reference/link. However, you fail to comprehend the significance of several points.
  • 1) This is a Stub, not an Article - You know the difference of course.
  • 2) The Author of this Stub is not User:Lucaas, but User:Ludvikus.
  • 3) At the same time, it has the tracks and markings of Editor User:Lucaas.
  • 4) Why don't you simply make the necessary corrections - consevative, of course - you are very familiar with the editorial views of User:Ludvikus - so you will take care to not overextend yourself, I trust, right? You've been a participent at Philosophy where the Editor's War has not yet collected dust, right?
  • 5) Are you capable of being fair, and impartial, on the issue? Yes? Or No?
  • 6) You realize, of course, that there is a quote here which clearly shows that Administrator User:Mel Etitis clearly supports the distinction herein? Are you prepared to oppose the position of Administrator User:Mel Etitis.
  • 7) Lastly, how does your stand at Philosophy affect your stand here?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Britain and America v. continental Europe

[edit]

The distinction exist: 

         [18] Phenomenology and Allied Movements
    The philosophical movement which, in continental Europe, has been parallel to
    the analytic tradition in Britain and America goes back to Franz Brentano (1838-1917).
    D. W. Hamlyn, The Pelican History of Western Philosophy, 1987, p. 319
    • The man did not say that no such distinction exists. Where did he say that? Think about what he actually said, and try to reply to what he said, and not something else. Dbuckner 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a clue, think what he might have said about the distinction (which really exists, and which could no doubt be documented) between philosophers with brown eyes, and those with blue eyes. Or between tall philosophers, and those who are not tall. Or between those called 'John', and those who are not. All these are real distinctions. But the man did not say that the geographical distinction does not exist. Try and read carefully what he said, and try to think about that. You are indeed an extremely intelligent person, as you frequently suggest. Then think carefully. Dbuckner 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue, Db, is Deletion. The Response is It Exists.
      • Do I need to be more Verbose with you? Then Mel will accuse me of being logorrheic, no?
      • Accordingly, may I ask you, to what extent are you impartial? --Ludvikus 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note, Gentlemen, that I have just entered the Title of Chapter 18 of said book. What the above shows is that on the continent (Europe), there was Phenomenology, and Allied movements. The subtext of this narratology is in the other place the situation was different. My omittion is due to my having to go to eat, whereas Mel is always claiming, or alleging that he has to run to teach his class. For me, Mel's conduct (a word User:Lucaas despises) reminds of one several of Plato's Dialogues in which the disputent also has some need to leave. But as for me, notice how I keep coming back - stubborn persistence, right, Db, one of the 2 virtues you most admire in a man, the other being a convincing argument, right? So, Db, am I beginning to convince you of something in the Cyberspace of Wikipedia? Could you tell us what your Rational thoughts are? Also, are you having some Irrational thoughts to? Isn't this what the Editors War is all about? And how does the Bristol Stool Chart fit in? How would Wittgenstein explain it - in a non mediocre way? Will you kindly speak your mind? Ludvikus 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said that 2 qualities I admire most are persistence in adversity and the ability to argue a point well. I then went on to say that, sadly, these 2 abilities are rarely combined! Best Dbuckner 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has that someone improved in your esteme, or estimation? How does he rate now - still between a 6 or 7 on that Scale? Or has he shifted to the left or right? It's OK - you do not have to commit yourself as to the direction? Just tell me if there was a change. There are only two (2) possibilities:
  • 1 Change
  • 2 No change
  • It's your move!

How to write an article by committee

[edit]

A Camel is Horse designed by a Committee,

  • I call for assistance as to Form, not Content, at a minimum.
  • I have never written an article by a committe.
  • I ask for expert Wikipedia assistance - How is it to be done.
  • I call on User:Mel Etitis to write the First Draft.
  • Mel Etitis, are you there? Would you please help us out?
  • You used the term in 2005. As I said several time, I appreciate your writing abilities. Would you kindly step forward and write a draft regarding what the distinction is?
  • I do think you are the best person to do it.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's War at Philosophy

[edit]
  • Can we not repeat ourselves?
  • Lucas, can you please slow down?
  • I've made an offer to Mel Etitis - let's see what he has to say.
  • Why bring the War here?
  • Let try a different approach.
  • How about you, Banno? Can you offer something constructive?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If your going to write something, Lucas, write something neutral.
    • I've already established that Mel Etitis acknowledges the distinction. Let's see what he says. --Ludvikus 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lucas, get rid of "Central America". Get get rid of that "always." Clean it up, and give Mel Etitis a Tabula Rasa. Let Mel write what it is - and let's see if we can live with it, ok? --Ludvikus 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on putting three comments here with three signatures each at a different indentation level, it looks messy. Also what is with all the stars(*) at the beginning of each line.

As to saving this article I think you are going to lose regardless of what someone else might say, there is about 7:2 against keeping it, and do not expect them to go with anything other than the majority vote, check the admins pages they just use a calculator! Its pretty sloppy but thats how it is done, it's called pop philosophy (now there's a new article for you to get started on cos its not pseudo its just popular). --Lucas Talk 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be all that as it may be, User:Lucaas, there's "no point in beating a dead horse." Whatever you may say, it appears that it is you, not me, who is Don Quixote. You live in this World, not Hegel's world. And this world the reality is that the Wikipedia Foundation, and Jimbo, do not want Editor's Wars. And with that I agree 100%. So you, Lucas, have to re-examine your Dialectics. You should think about one thing, and one thing only, how you can help End this Editor's War. Because if we learn anything Dialectical from Hegel and Marx, it is this: Reality is not in our Cartesian Mind (note the Singular), but in the Individuals Collectively (note the self-contradictory plurality? (Hegel), and in the Class or Classes (Marx). So, Lucas, you must listen to the Majority. Coninuing this War does no one any good. --Ludvikus 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That must be about the most pretentious stream of drivel I have yet seen on this encyclopaedia. Rosenkreuz 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenkreuz, even though your parents in naming you obviously had sense of humour, you seem to lack one entirely.
As to Ludikrus, the associative play of meaning across your sentences reminds me of someone quite young, and for that, I forgive you. As to the war, you suggest it must end, and that we must concede to mob opinion, never! How to help end it, that is another thing I do not think there is really a war, there is just an established group on here who are quite loosely connected, you give them the opportunity to reaffirm their alligences to one another, even if they do not believe in all the details of each other's positions. Just look how scrambled they are on this simple matter of Anglo-American Philosophy, one would have thought such a thing as crystal clear, but how could it be if you have to analyze everything down to the last syllable or letter and refrain from bringing it together; their meaning falls apart and becomes the same meaning a natural-language machine might try giving it.--Lucas Talk 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosicrucian User:Rosenkreuz, I see that you've joined the cabal of User:Banno and User:Dbuckner, [3]. And that it is your desire to inflame the Editor's War, right? Let me put it to you this way, so that even a mediocrity like yourself could understand: The Wikipedia Foundation, and Jimbo, have an interest in ending this Editor's War, not igniting it. Are you capable of understanding that? I think not. Therefore, I ask you, how do you rate yourself on User:Mel Etitis's Bristol Stool Chart? A two? A three? You claim to be a Mathematician. That shouldn't be too difficult for you to compute, right?
Did you not understand that that was my attempt to communicate with the second so-called "disrupter"? Are you really that stupid, that you did not see that? Or are you realy secretly just Christian of the Rose Cross, with Banno and Dbuckner as your underlings? Let me put it to you again - so that even a mathematician of your caliber could understand: what can you offer to end this Editors War? Only gasoline? Have I stooped down to your level of the mediocre? — by the way, that's one of my several hundred contributions. I, myself, am rating you on that scale. But, unfortunately, I have not yet assigned numbers to that chart. But my plan it to have a one-one correspondence with the Bristol Stool Scale. That way my mapping will show that you rate between a 6 and 7. Do you understand this computation? Or is too deep for you? --Ludvikus 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucaas: you say I lack a sense of humour. Perhaps it is because, like Ambrose Bierce, I prefer dry wines to sweet, sense to sentiment, wit to humour and clean English to slang. I don't find pompous verbosity to be at all funny. And I do not see what is clever about making references to Hegel and Marx in the fashion in which Ludvikus chooses to. Sophistry is not intelligent, it is annoying. Something, perhaps, the postmodernists have yet to learn.
Ludvikus, I do not care to speculate as to what your obsession with the 'Bristol Stool Scale' may be about, but just about every comment you make contains a reference to it. That all I have to say to you at this point in time. Oh — there is one thing. Sometimes, we construct ghostly conspiracies in our heads, when there are no corresponding referents in reality. And sometimes, these conspiracies result in our own demise. One can read too much into things. Rosenkreuz 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are an ill-humored man of wit then, what a conflicted nature you must have! If you cant laugh at pomposity I'd say you're a sorry sight in any case, since no one but yourself said that it "was clever to make references to Hegel and Marx". Whether you be witty, humourous, or high-handedly pompous, will be for others to decide.
As to this business of someone's obsession with a certain chart, I agree with you: Ludivkus I know you are just putting their own childishness in their face, but drop referring to that darned chart, I think they got the message! --Lucas Talk 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed, Lucas, that you do not see the dialetic that's going on. But, on the other, it's not your fault, I think you just are to civil to drop to the bottom of the barrel. Look, very carefully, at who that the participants really are. There only, still, less than a handful, no more. And what the real object of discourse is. You think, Don Quixote that you are, is that it is philosophy. But it's not. It's gutter discourse. I'm from New York, I understand that language. Who is the most eloquent voice, besides yourself, of course? It's Mel Etitis, no? And where does he speak? In the background. Isn't it peculiar, Don Lucaas, say Sancho Panza? Remember, who are the Philosophical authorities here? Is it Thale? Think back? Or do your research. Is it Descartes? Is it Peter J. King? Who. It's you, Lucaas, who doesn't get. At Wikipedia, at Philosophy, the concepts that move in the subtext, here, now, are the following: shit, dick, and fuck. I would like to raise the standards of discourse. But notice how the just run away. But, Lucas, you do not see the power play. You certainly know how to survive. And we are in a space of Hobbes's War of all against all. So I wish Noam Chomsky would come along and put his input. But instead we have these mysterious two philosophy professors at Oxford, who Dbuckner believes in so strongly - and I might add, so does User:Banno. So it's clear that they too are Don Quixote types in this.
But let's move to reality. FT2 now has come into our Dialogue. And he's brought things to a head. The central concept now is this Wiki War. And if you, Lucaas, cooperate, perhaps the low-life discourse will end, and we will get back into philosophy. And I do not want to waste my time with gutter talk. But that's the only language that they understand. Think of it as American Football (its more vivid than European and internation socker). Ask yourself? Whose got the ball(s)? It was Banno, right? But now its FT2. So if we cooperate with FT2, we'll get the ball. Unfortunately, though, Dbuckner is not yeat Major League material. But he's shown some signs, some hope. Whatever you may think of him, he's got the passion for philosophy, and has been around for years. And Wikipedia needs that, to protect the integrity of an article once it's reached a certain level of informativeness. I know all that because of my vast experience in the community around the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it is much, much, easier to handle crackpots, than it is to handle mediocrity. So don't be stubborn, Lucaas, now let us help FT2 who wants to end the editors war - and that's what it's about. Do you comprehend, Daddy Lucaas that it's about Power, and Madness, just as world class Philosopher Michel Foucault tells us? --Ludvikus 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I compliment you on your editing, it has come on alot, I only noticed three typos above. It is good to see you getting your act together, now don't be stubborn, you know that the martyr always wins in the end, just after he gets his act together. So keep the ball rolling, it is not with FT2, though he can take it if he feels like it, nor is it with Banno, who is a little frazzled at the moment (you should really stop hastling him), just keep dribbling (as they say in soccer). But it is not just Mel Etitis nor Banno who are the main guys here you must also remember the double named, Lucidish and the trying, "KD Tries again", they also pull alot of the actual stunts, they're the line backers on many of the pages and don't underestimate them, don't forget either the guy with the funny name, well a number really, 2981etc. he has them all in his back pocket and can get them vote whichever way he wants. They just wait for the other to make a move then throw him the ball. --Lucas Talk 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas! Remember Wikipedia policy: Assume good faith.
  • It was all quiet, and you had to open your big mouth.
  • How do you expect to make Peace? There was all this wonderful silence - that's why I had no spelling mistakes. You think that I am a child, right? Well, at this point, you should let me play Socrates to you.
  • Haven't you learned from Jesus, anything? Is he not significant to Philosophy?
  • It is time YOU started listening to your Heart, and not just you Head.
  • They all consider you Number Two, and me number One on their hit list. And by opening your mouth in this extremely ungenerous way to your enemies, you have probably provoked them. Haven you heard of self-fulfilling prophescies? I would now not be surprise if they were to gang up on you.
  • I guess you've never indulged in fisticups, right? And boxing is not your thing, right? You think that I'm playing the Martyr bit, right? But what is your game?
  • I certainly cannot say that you are the most sensitive fello. It seems you will never give the other fello a chance. Can you not see their side of things?
  • I've been saying all along that it's not just about Reason - its also about Power!
  • And by opening your mouth in such a provocative manner - you expect us to get to philosophy?
  • I want Peace - so that I will not make those spelling and typographical errors - as I am probably going to do now - because this time you have disappoint me, in your lack of that philosophical word - Understanding of your fello Man/Brother.
  • Socrates Asked, What is Justice, but Jesus Showed us what Love is - that half-word of Philosophy.
  • Can you not find it in your heart of hearts to love, here, in Cyberspace, your philosophical enemies?
  • I thought you and I were allies in bringing in that Irrational stuff that Dbuckner & Co., so desperately wish(es) to keep out door.
  • You need to take that philosophical stuff that's in your head, and have it flow into your heart.
  • How can one expect men to love one another in real life, if one is so pessimistic in cyberspace?
  • Give all men and women a second chance to make a move, and hope for good will!
  • I ask the Wikipedia Community, in your behalf, that they not respond vindictively to you.
  • It is hoped that they are not as unforgivingly stubborn as you appear now.
Assuming good faith, User:Ludvikus
PS: Please all - forgive my spelling/stylistic errors, if any.
Oh, and a joke (see Freud on Jokes), and I know this may not go over well with Mel, who dispises arrogance (that's only reserved for him), but he's still in the balcony, never really in the field anymore: what about that Hemlock? --Ludvikus 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you disappoint me too, all those lines with stars (*) at the beginning I thought you had given up making this kind of strange edit in talk pages. And that is why I made the last comment. Again now you are signing twice and putting some lines at various levels of indent even though no one else has put a comment in between (when editing there is a "show preview" button). As to me opening a mouth, well it is only you now that can speak, I suppose, it is coming to the end, is it? Only the martyr can speak when it comes close to the end, or at least, only he is listened to and waited on. There is no danger of me having trouble due to what I said last since it is just the state of things, both of us know that. But I do like your question about cyberspace, you think it is not real? You think when I go into the shop in "real life" they are greeting me with love and it is not that they just want the money in my pocket! "Real life", and you should know about it living in New York city, and coming from a communist state and now staying in one of the most agressive capitalist one's, maybe you were too small to notice the change but I'm sure you are not greeted with love on the subway nor in the recruitment office nor by your landlord nor in the shop.--Lucas Talk 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lucaas. You misunderstand me. You focus on the relative triviality of my punctuation. Don't you understand the meaning of an Editor's War? And do you know what a Community Ban is? Do you have any understand of what Db and Banno are doing right? Please tell us all what this is? Do you realize that your're not helful here? Talk to us about the topic on the agenda: the Editors' War and the proposed Community Ban - is it against you? Or is it against me? Now you remind me of Nelson - but he's on the side with the march larger army. By the way, I would like to hear from you, Nelson.
But also, why don't you, Lucas, just correct my obvious typographical errors that do seem to bother you so? --Ludvikus 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucaas v. Socrates & Ending Edit War

[edit]

Heading only--Ludvikus 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Lucas. Focus here on the issue at hand. What can you do to end the Philosophy Editors' War? -- Ludvikus 15:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What war? We are probably the only two reading these remarks. By war do you mean the attempted ban? But perhaps the reason you feature in that discussion of a ban is becuase you think the form of your edits is "trivial". You must remember that others have to read what you write and typos, long disjointed diatribes, etc,. seem to annoy certain people, this is what they have against you, they can point to lots of edits you do that do not conform to the usual way of talk, ie, multiple signatures (as above, one at 15:06 another at 15:16, you did not have to sign twice, you could have just put one signature and added in the extra comment above it. Also you put one comment at four levels of indent and the next at one, and added a superfluous line between them, no need for all that, it distracts and annoys people. Other than your edits of talk being too long and mutlitple etc, they have little to hold against you since insults etc. have been on both sides. Any lack of quality in your edits of article pages cannot be used to ban you since you are learning to use references and, besides, others can correct any mistakes.--Lucas Talk 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Got you. I Understand your position.
And now that there is quiet, and Civility (a quality I definitely appreciate in you), may I ask you for a small favor?
I want to show everyone that two men, you and I, are capable of engaging in a Dialogue, or a Dialectic, and at the same time, remain Civil. I also want to demonstrate to User:Dbuckner, who has just now gone on vacation, whether or not such disputations are Rational, or Reasonable.
And in light of the recent Editors' War, the issue I will present I think you will find quite appropriate. I think the recent Editors' War is related to Ethics.
So, Lucas, may I ask you what is the subject of Ethics?
Also, would you be kind enough to let me play the role of Socrates? --Ludvikus 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well now that you are almost editing properly I can respond. Of course you can play the role of Socrates, but that does not help on here since his way of doing philosophy is completely at odds with what happens on wiki. He always pleaded ignorance and said he knew more than others because, unlike them, he knew that he knew nothing. Now just try and say this to some of the people here when all they want is references and then they try to give other references to refute you. They read references as gospel, and try yo leave thinking out of it. Ethics is something that pervades philosophy, that is unless you make it a completely separate subject, cut-off from the other areas, then it dies or becomes just moralising. The Analytic attitude suffers from this, it divides everything into isolated abstractions, so I warn you it is quite an amoral way of philosophy, but is easy to slip into when you must always watch out for the Ps and Qs and the technicalities of forms of analytic arguments of persuasion, you find that in some it can lose any grip they have on reality and they get lost in clouds of abstractions. --Lucas Talk 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. And I see you are versed in Socrates. So, playing the role of Socrates, as you have allowed me, I want to know, not what you mean my it, Ethics, but what they mean by it. I mean, the other, rather than you, or I. And I wish to put aside the defects in this view, for the moment. Can you, and I, do that together, now, here? SocratesLudvikus 19:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you have been reborn as Socrates, will you change it to Jesus when the argument moves on? I'm not sure if you know what I mean even if you say so. You want to know what "they" mean by it, if you let me know who "they" are maybe I can answer. The great enemy of Socrates was the Sophist. Socrates did philsophy out of love, but the Sophist did it for money, he was a paid professor of "philosophy" or of how to "win arguments and influence people". The sophist just taught how to argue (how to make it rational, etc.), ethics was a separate subject, they would teach even dangerous people how to argue and win in an argument, so long as they paid their fee to the sophist. So do you know any sophists? Do the universities teach evil minions as much as they do good ones, so long as they pay their fees? Your question then: what the Sophist meant by ethics was that it was not a matter of living in a certain way like Socrates, but was a separate subject to be studied, you could study the ethos of the people and tailor your argument so as they would agree with your proposal. --Lucas Talk 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no! You completely misunderstood my question. My question is far more modest than that. I just wanted to know what Wikipedia philosophers mean by it. But since they have all mysteriously disappeared, and we now only have our Olympian gods looking down at us, let's consider Lord Anthony Quinton's number one student here, in Cyberspace. I just mean User:Dbuckner. Do you not know that he has just gone on holiday, on vacation? Or are you unaware of that, Lucas? Socrates
Vacation? He has left wikipedia for a while? Or is he working and is taking some time off? Anyhow, it is just very quite here now because they were all told to stay quiet. So if you prefer this dialogue to continue you can send an e mail instead because this website is a bit desertified at the moment.---- Lucas (Talk) 22:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this Posting at User:Dbruckner's:

Quinton's definition of Philosophy

[edit]

A more detailed, but still uncontroversially comprehensive, definition is that philosophy is rationally critical thinking, of a more or less systematic kind about the general nature of the world (metaphysics or theory of existence), the justification of belief (epistemology or theory of knowledge), and the *conduct* of life (ethics or theory of value). Each of the three elements in this list has a non-philosophical counterpart, from which it is distinguished by its explicitly rational and critical way of proceeding and by its systematic nature. Everyone has some general conception of the nature of the world in which they live and of their place in it. Metaphysics replaces the unargued assumptions embodied in such a conception with a rational and organized body of beliefs about the world as a whole. Everyone has occasion to doubt and question beliefs, their own or those of others, with more or less success and without any theory of what they are doing. Epistemology seeks by argument to make explicit the rules of correct belief formation. Everyone governs their conduct by directing it to desired or valued ends. Ethics, or moral philosophy, in its most inclusive sense, seeks to articulate, in rationally systematic form, the rules or principles involved. (Anthony Quinton).

Take careful note of the Word conduct above. You said only your mother used that, and that your ancestors had spoken English for generations, remember? Socrates/Ludvikus 00:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, but you sometimes get carried away with specific words like conduct and schism. All I suggested was that ethics and morality were far more likely to appear in discussion of these matters. Behaviour and conduct have a more specific meaning and are more alighned perhaps with Dbuckner's kind of philosophy. He repeats himself doesn't he, a little too earnest to proclaim himself rational, is he making a feeble effort to be proud of the fact that certain emotions are missing from the world? His philosophy claims to be systematic and "rationally critical thinking". But some philosophers are systematisers others are not. Some focus on the rational, others prefer to talk about the incommensurate, the irrational. Where is the system in the philosophy of Taoism? where is the rationality in it? Why does he not just say great thinking or wonderful thinking, fantastic thinking? since he comes nowhere near telling us what rational is and it is then possible that he is just using sophist power to hope the word will sound good. Was Hamlet rational? what about Othello? Macbeth? Machiavelli? Do you think Socrates had a system and set of beliefs etc. like Dbuckner says he must have to be counted as a philosopher? But was he not the first real philosopher and had no system? -- Lucas (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. But what is our job at Wikipedia, as you see it? Socrates 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Version

[edit]

Gentlemen, I've restored the Stub to the Clean version (I call it "Minimum"). I ask you, Lucaas, not to alter it until Mel has had a chance to make his input known. As everyone knows, I have cited Mel's use of the Expression in 2005. I hope we all listen carefully to his input. I urge everyone to read the exact quote that has been made available for your easy reference. Now Banno, I stongly object to the language which is customary at Wikipedia, but this is current coinage: "Don't be dicks". Let's end the Editor Philosophy Wars. And I hope everyone cooperates. I am certainly capable and willing to do so. And all that goes for you too, Lucaas.

Assuming Good Faith, --Ludvikus 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

[edit]

Ludvikus, there are protocols for the removal of each template. Please observe them. You removed them on this edit[4]. Your allegation, here, that it was I who removed them is, shall we say, perverse. Removing the templates again will result in a block. Banno 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you mean? I'm not accusing you of anything here. I cleaned all of Lucaas's stuff up. It turned into a clean stubb, as I had originally written it. I therefore assumed I was observing proper Wiki protocols. Do you understand? What do you say I'm accusing you of, which you say is perverse? --Ludvikus 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand English? You 'thanked' Banno for having removed the templates, which implies that it was he who did it, not so? Moreover, the AfD template clearly states 'this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed'. Rosenkreuz 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Reverted to the earliest version. It is my clean Stub now, as I had originally created it. I Reverted - it was not, Banno who Reverted. As I reverted, I assumed it was proper protocol to remove the Templates. Reading over the notes of the Talk page, and the fact that Mel use the title Anglo-American philosophy, I assumed that there was a consesus to do so. If there was a mistake, then Banno has corrected that. I had no idea that Banno objects to the very existence of the distinction. My comment on the page was merely - oh, I think I recollect now - at that time someone else removed the Templates. Oh, I see now. The Templates were removed by Lucaas then. Yes, I understand now. I believe it was Lucaas who removed the Templates, anf if so it was improper of him to do so. However, the removal of the Templates Now was by me, not Banno, and I take full responsibility for that. I think you all should take up that earlier Template Removal with Lucaas.
However, I now find it perverse that Banno should Blame me, for conduct which is clearly that of Lucaas, not mine. Banno has many years experience - I find it quite perculiar that he cannot distinguish between what I have done, and what Lucaas has done. How could an administrator of such vast experience confuse Lucaas's conduct with mine. Do you understand my English, Rosenkreuz? --Ludvikus 10:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification, now that I think of it some more, perhaps I assumed, mistakenly, that Banno had removed the Template, when it was Lucaas. And so, I innocently thanked Banno for what Lucaas had done. At that time, I produced Mel's usage, and so I was so happy that Banno acknowledged. So now I'm disappointed that it was Lucas, and not Banno who removed the Template. So the issue now seems to me is that it is Banno who questions Mel's usage of Anglo-American philosophy. And so I find Banno's position to be perverse. Banno, what do you make of the fact that Mel used the expression? Whas he using a Neologism? Is the heading above a Neologism on Mel's part? Your position in that regard seems perverse to me. Here I think Mel is right,and you are wrong. --Ludvikus 10:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here again is the dif at which you deleted the templates[[5]] Banno 10:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Banno, I'm not going to start learning what diff's are, analyzing dates, etc. I'm just going to tell you the policy I follow. When Templates are put on, there are all kinds of rules, and I rarely remove them. As I told you I Reverted to a clean version recently. And I cannot see me making a mistake of removing a Template inconsistent with the wishes of the Community. That policy I understand, and I abide by. Templates are removed when changes conform to the wishes of the community and Wiki policy. Such Rukes I would not violate. Furthermore, to do so deliberately, in the midst of an Editor's War where you, Banno, are out to get me, would be a stupid thing to do - and I would hope by now that you realize that I'm not stupid. Doing it by mistake? I do not see that. So I ask you, do you really think I would be so stupid as to deliberate and improperly remove a Template in the middle of an Editor's War? Ludvikus 11:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it again. Didn't you read what I said above? I admit having Reverted. It seems you do not follow my explanation. And it says Reverted to Clean version, or something like that. What's your problem, Banno, are you being Vindictive, a Dick, or just plain Stupid? -- Ludvikus 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you are accusing me of here. Banno 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sneak. Anyway, you, and you alone, have the power to end this Editors War. You are an Administrator. Why don't we just end this Editor's War right now! Do your job. Now tell me, what are your terms? I'm fully aware that you're just compiling evidence to get me out. You know what I mean, that Community Ban stuff that your working on behind my back? Don't you understand? I don't give a shit. Furthermore, User:FT2 explained to me what it's all about. Neither the Windows Foudation, nor Jimbo, want Editor's Wars. Can't you get this through you're head? It's your move, not mine. I have to shout this out for you? I won't, sincere Wiki disapproves of shouting.
How do we end this Editors' War? It's up to you, not up to me. I'm able and willing to end it. What shall we do? Give me your recommendations. You are the Adminstrator in charge. What do you propose? Is that clear enough for you? --Ludvikus 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Lucas on Analytic Philosophy???

[edit]

Could you, User:Lucaas explain what you mean by this Quote of you given below?:

Improvements to "Relation to continental philosophy"

[edit]

"I note the improvements made in this section recently but still it gives the impression that Analytic offers no critique of Hegel. It is given simply as some kind of instinctual "backlash against British Idealism". Now the move of Moore and Russell was also against pragmatism, and was not just a fresh start from nothing but also a return to Leibniz, mathematics, and rationalism. ---- Lucas (Talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of explanation do you want? -- Lucas (Talk) 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why is this discussion here, instead of on that talk page? Banno 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because, Banno, this is the talk page that the majority Community wished deleted. Whereas the other page has been around for a long time. So if there was going to be polution, as Mel uses the term, I thought it would be best to keep it here, where it would disappear after you had deleted it. Also, I am concerned that Mel is disingenuous since cleary he has used the expression Anglo-American philosophy. Yet he has not expressed himself on what his wish is with regard to this page. Does he wish to delete it? Yes? Or no? Also, as you well know, we have our so-called No two man disruptor - so pegged by the majority, namely Lucas. I think, Banno, it's really up to you to bring peace, as it has been from the very beginning. Because you have the Power. It is you who determines who gets banned - or may I say Bannoed, for 48 hours, or subjected to a Community ban - or shall I say a Community Bannoed? Do you appreaciate what I'm saying to you? Or do you have to go to Administrator/Philosopher Mel to find out what to do? --Ludvikus 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus you are getting caught up in politics, try and keep your eye on the ball, we are talking philosophy here. Banno made quiet an innocent point and didn't deserve such a skreed. You can add your comments to the page that discusses the ban. What is the No two man disruptor? I think he or should I say FT2 has brought peace, the only outstanding matter is the ban on you, but I don't think you will help that procedure unless you make a plea on that ban page; you should refute Dbuckner there who claims you are "wrecking havoc" which is deliberate exaggeration as is evidenced by the discussion for and against the deletion of this article page. The real wreckers here are those editors who having nothing to contribute and spend most of their energy complaining and deleting genuine stuff. However, I would be disappointed if the community ban took place since most of the editors who want one are not competent on this matter as they were involved in an edit war at the time, some were even fanning the flames, there is little sense in basing a ban on such biased crowd. ---- Lucas (Talk) 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not listen very well. It is you who they consider to be the Second Disruptor. And you appear blind to the fact that it is I who is now trying to Make Peace - because that is the Number One priority at Wikipedia. And you are not helpful at all in this. At this point, the only disruptor left is you, Lucas. And I'm trying to get you now to play ball by Wikipedia rules. You disappoint me once again by trivializing Politics this time (which is the exercise of Power). All this is Politics, and FT2 is watching everyone. And you are merely inflaming the situation now with these expressions of Your Political Opinions. It is time for you to find a way to make Peace with your Intellectual Enemies. And here, it is you now who, as Mel loves to say, is Spitting in Everyone's Soup. Why don't you ask Mel what that means.
Mel, I know you are listening - can you explain to Lucas your latest metaphor?
Or you, Banno, would you do it? I've not been able to memorize that acronymous Wiki link for it. Will one of you two Wiki Administrators come forth please at helping me explain to Lucas your Soup Metaphor? Ludvikus 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, spitting in everyone's soup, sounds fairly self-explanatory, do you think I need to understand it in some other way? I spat in no soup, the soup spitters are those out there who will spoil another's soup just 'cos they didn't buy the ingredients from them. As it is on your Anglo-Analytic page, it is being spat upon and alot has been expended in trying to delete a reasonably named article when only a small effort of generosity could fix it up very quickly. They get entrenched very quickly, have a tendency to mob and enjoy nothing more than setting-up and "voting" in kangeroo courts, which is some indication of what kind of interactions have been going on here on wiki philosophy over the past few years. ---- Lucas (Talk) 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ludvikus here: Are you, Lucaas, totally incapable of saying something nice about me at that "Kangeroo court"? *You do not care for me? Yes or no?
  • You do not think they can get that so-called "Community ban on me?" Yes or no"?
  • You want to be alone here, and you find me in the way? Yes or no"?
  • Do you think that I'm disruptive to the Community, whatever that means? "Yes or no?
  • Do you believe there is an Editor's War? Yes or no?
  • Do you want Peace? Yes or No?
  • Do you want to help FT2? Yes or no?
  • I'm still assuming Good Faith.
    • Now here's some PHILOSOPHY (it seems there's no alternative User:Quiddity but to shout it:
  "The history of philosophy is punctuated
  by revolts against the practices of previous
  philosophers and by attempts to transform 
  philosophy into a science—a discipline in 
  which universally recognized decision-
  procedures are available for testing phil-
  osophical theses.  In Descartes, in Kant, in
  Hegel, in Husserl, in Wittgenstein’s Trac-
  tatus, and again in Wittgenstein’s Phil-
  osophical Investigations, one finds the same
  disgust at the spectacle of philosophers 
  quarreling endlessly over the same issues.  
  The proposed remedy for this situation 
  typically consists in adopting a new 
  method: for example, the method of  “clear
  and distinct ideas” outlined in Descartes’
  Regulae, Kant’s “transcendental method,”
  Husserl’s “bracketing,” the early Wittgen-
  stein’s attempt to exhibit the meaningless-
  ness of traditional philosophical theses by 
  due attention to logical form, and the later
  Wittgenstein’s attempt to exhibit the point-
  lessness of these theses by diagnosing the 
  causes of their having being propounded.  
  In all of these revolts, the aim of the revo-
  lutionary is to replace opinion with knowl-
  edge, and to propose as the proper mean-
  ing of “philosophy” the accomplishment 
  of some finite task by applying a certain set
  of mythological directions.
  --Linguistic Turn, Recent Essays in Philosophical Method
  ed. & intro. by Richard Rorty

Yours truly --Ludvikus 22:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He writes nicely, no? You think he suggests philosophy has lost its way? Maybe it tries to hard to exploit the world through knowledge. At least this time you are pasting something a philosopher said and not another section from a dictionary or wikipedia. Though I recommended you not to paste lots of stuff. Anyhow, I answer to all your questions above, just look at what I said in the discussion of your ban, I was virtually the only one there suggesting that you not be banned and now you question me! Of course you are a valuable addition to discussions here and often give novel insights. -- Lucas (Talk) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected definition

[edit]

In case the decision is to use this page as a re-direct rather than delete, I have corrected the definition of the term. I honestly didn't understand the previous geographical statement (Europe without America, or something) and there's no such place as "Anglo-America". I cross my fingers and hope Lucas likes the contrast between analytic and continental which I inserted.KD Tries Again 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Well yes it is better, but the first sentence:

Anglo-American philosophy is a term designating philosophy by geographical location - as it is practiced and taught in Great Britain and the United States

Is not the whole truth, the term is also associated with cultural and lingual matters and may include parts of America other than the U.S. of A. Nor is "Great Britain" a good was of covering Anglo (see above). Most Canadians do speak English after all. Otherwise we would have to rename it "Anglo-U.S. philosophy" -- Lucas (Talk)

I disagree. As I said elsewhere, I think, Anglo-American simply designates England and America, and America in this context means the United States. The term makes no reference at all to language spoken or culture. Canadians and Australians and Jamaicans are not Anglo-American. Arguably, someone of American birth doing philosophy in Spanish in the United States is. KD Tries Again 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglo-American_philosophy&oldid=1259874022"