Talk:Definition of philosophy: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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. | 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." | 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? | ||
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19: | Why shouldn't Wikipedia be able to cite the expert-approved ''Citizendium'' article? I ask you. :-) | ||
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:23, 30 October 2006 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:23, 30 October 2006
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)