Talk:Definition of philosophy

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Footnotes for the obvious

From the article:

Philosophy is difficult to define. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy ([1]) says that most interesting definitions of philosophy are controversial. Philosophy: The Basics ([2]) says it is "notoriously difficult". Mastering Philosophy [3] says there is "no straightforward definition".

I would like to point out how the above illustrates something that a compendium committed to amateurism--Wikipedia--would do, but which no self-respecting actual encyclopedia would ever do. It cites as sources a number of other perfectly introductory works, as if to prove a point.

If we have experts on board--meaning real philosophers, who are familiar with the history of attempts to define 'philosophy'--then we can in perfectly good conscience simply declare, "It is notoriously difficult to define the notion of philosophy, and there is no agreed-upon definition." Why should we try to offer support of such a (to philosophers) obvious claim? And who would we cite? Philosophers like ourselves, only writing elsewhere?

Why shouldn't Wikipedia be able to cite the expert-approved Citizendium article? I ask you.  :-)

--Larry Sanger 19:23, 30 October 2006 (CST)