Talk:History of philosophy/Archive 1

Untitled

Also see: Talk:History of Western philosophy

So where's the article?

I'd speedy delete this as no content, but it seems a bunch of people have put a lot of work into getting it to its current state of a dinky list and some empty headings. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Do those people plan on putting anything in here, or want help? The concept is okay, but it needs something more than links. WhiteC 09:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There should definitely be some real content here. (Says the man who will never have time to contribute any.) How about a condensed version of the histories of all these different philosophical headings? (Condensed history of western philosophy, etc.) It would also be a good place to compare and contrast the different histories and movements. — Adam Conover † 07:48, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Easter / Western / Abrahamic

I am not sure these are all on the same level, or that Abrahamic traditions (especially Christian) are fully separate from Western philosophy. The Christian philosophers used Greek philosophy to help create what is Western philosophy until the secularization of modernity. No? gren 16:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Content

There already is a separate article on the history of western philosophy. This article claims to be of the history of philosophy in general, yet while it has a detailed (though not detailed enough!) section on western philosophy, eastern philosophy is relegated to a few links. Either a section on eastern philosophy needs to be added or this article should be deleted. We don't need two articles specifically on western philosophical history. The Way 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Lack of More Information

There needs to be more information of the various philosophies of those other religions - seriously, this article needs improvements. Eastern philosophy should be as diverse as Western philosophy. User:Xinyu

Where to begin?

This page, no offense, remains a total mess. I just added John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith to the section on modern philosophy. The fact that these men were left out shows just how much work needs to be done. The section on modern philosophy still needs to be reworded, as it consists of gross over-simplifications. The same is the case with the rest of the article. On top of this, the fact that there is essentially nothing concerning eastern philosophy is inexcusable (though, I must be excused as I don't have the time to update it myself!). Hopefully someone can try to make some changes to make this article worthwhile. --The Way 07:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and someone reading the section on "Contemporary philosophy" might be excused for thinking that analytical philosophy never existed... David ekstrand (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link suggestion

Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner, apologize, self-promotion?):

Philosophy and religion - including history of philosophy: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it history or geography?? Again it is quite misleading, to start history of philosophy with Greeks, and then later add an almost trivial link to so called eastern philosophy. I am ready for a debate to understand what philosophy means and how come the Indian philosophy of Upnishads, Mimansa, Vedanta, Gita etc- the different schools of thoughts, which predate Greek philosphy by more than 500 years and have excellent philosophical debates- are not mentioned in the beginning. You want to talk about history of philosophy and start as if it is geography of philosiophy?? Going from west to east? Right? Let me know how come wikipedia be so scared and prejudiced when writing informational articles. Check your own wiki pages to know when Indian philosophy started.

And add to it the fact that lot of western philosophy is greatly influenced by this indian or hindu philosophy. Those who are student of phislophy know what Schopenhauer, Voltaire have to say about it.

Redirect: (A) History of Western Philosophy

This page is a redirect from History of Western Philosophy; people looking for Bertrand Russell's book A History of Western Philosophy could be confused, but since there's probably multiple books with similar titles and I'm not sure how many people will actually search for that book, I wasn't sure if it's worthwhile putting a hatnote at the top pointing to History of Western Philosophy (Russell). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Philosophy

Am I the only one that finds the abrupt stop odd? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

"A notable phenomenon of the latter half of the century was the rise of popular writers on philosophy, such as Ayn Rand, whose espoused systems proved influential among a general Anglophone readership despite their isolation from academic philosophy."

By "general Anglophone readership" does the author actual intend to mean "middle class people from the USA"? Ayn Rand is not known outside of the United States (and the reason why has very little to do with language!). I am deleting some of the silliness here; feel free to provide some cited information though.

206.116.104.39 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK about Rand, but I think the removal of the snippet about the retro trend of people like Macintyre and Gadamer is a bit out of line. That could be fleshed out by adding people like Leo Strauss and Nussbaum?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A study or the object of study?

The lead in this article seems oddly mismatched with its content. It describes the history of philosophy as an academic discipline. Is that really right? If it is, then what is it the study of? The point is, there's two ways to treat "history": as the study of some historical events (see history), or as the historical events themselves (see history of the world). Given the concerns of most of the editors here and the rest of the article, I think this page should be about the latter. That's more in-line with common usage: if I pick up a book on the history of philosophy, I don't expect it to tell me about what a bunch of historians of philosophy do. I expect it to tell me about the people they study. If I'm right, then the lead section should make it clear that we're discussing the history of philosophy itself, not the discipline involved in studying the history of philosophy.2601:B:C580:2D9:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History too long

Please see Talk:Philosophy#History too long. fgnievinski (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]