DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Philosophy

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Featured articlePhilosophy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 1, 2024.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 23, 2023Good article nomineeListed
November 2, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
November 30, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 7, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
Current status: Featured article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

References

  1. ^ Tuomela 1985, p. 1.
  2. ^ Shivendra 2006, pp. 15–16.
  3. ^ Joll, lead section, §2c. Ordinary Language Philosophy and the Later Wittgenstein.
  4. ^ Biletzki & Matar 2021.
  5. ^ Cotterell 2017, p. 458.
  6. ^ Maddy 2022, p. 24.
  7. ^ Russell 1912, p. 91.
  8. ^ Pojman & Vaughn 2009, p. 2.

Sources

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk). Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk) at 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Why is there no mention that the word comes from Sophia, the Greek goddess of wisdom

[edit]

There is mention that it does come from the word Sophia, but not specifically the mythology aspect of it. The word was intended with the mythologic definition in mind at the time, and literally meant the "Love of Sophia (wisdom)", the "Love of wisdom".

Here is the wiki pages for Sophia - Sophia (wisdom), Sophia (Gnosticism) Luka Maglc (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not meaningfully the case. Sophia is the name of a figure in Greek culture merely because it became the Greek word for 'wisdom' (informed itself over time as the notional object of a philosopher's love), though still exactly how we might personify wisdom and merely label that personification "Wisdom" in English. You're imposing a terribly anachronistic conception of the two lenses as meaningfully distinct for the purposes of this article. Remsense ‥ 论 05:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im not talking about modern English language customs, I'm talking about the ancient Greek language where this word and concept originated. In the time of ancient Greek people didn't see the name really as the word for wisdom they saw it as a connection between gods and words, they did not use modern English customs and didn't even have the perception for this modern language style at all. These people believed in these gods and the connections they had to the words, and this is why philosophy originated the way it did. This is part of the history of how this concept originated at least in the western world.
Another example of this is how panic comes from the Greek god Pan which was a god known for scaring people. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is an anachronism on your part, imposing your particular ontological conceptions of deity distinct from semantics onto that of the Greeks. Anthropomorphizations were just that: representations of concepts. Remsense ‥ 论 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This quote "The word "panic" derives from antiquity and is a tribute to the ancient god Pan. One of the many gods in the mythology of ancient Greece, Pan was the god of shepherds and of woods and pastures. The Greeks believed that he often wandered peacefully through the woods, playing a pipe, but when accidentally awakened from his noontime nap he could give a great shout that would cause flocks to stampede." come straight from the "Panic' Wikipedia page so this isn't a unique concept to explain where these words came from and the mythology tied to it. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're also conflating the belief system of anonymous authors of mythology (e.g. in the works of Homer) with the later conceptions of Plato and Aristotle, which were explicit in rejecting many of these conceptions found in the former. It makes no sense to ignore what Plato actually thought about the ontology of concepts and deity here, and impose what we think we understand about our favorite fairytales on him instead. Remsense ‥ 论 05:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its also "Etymology" not anachronism Luka Maglc (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it clearly doesn't matter enough to be mentioned in this article. Here, it amounts to mere trivia given the actual scope of the article. Remsense ‥ 论 05:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It matters enough to put it in other articles similar to philosophy. This is also a well documented fact that it comes from this Greek goddess rather if the religion is real or not, it still came from the Greek concept of that God which these Greeks believed in and where it originated from. It's a conflict of interest to exclude something just because you don't believe in it these people did. It's a well documented and if I establish credible sources to back that up, it is not illegitimate to put on the Wikipedia page. This is similar information, other Wikipedia pages have. This is not a big deal and one of the reasons I came to the talk page is that just putting it in there anyways Luka Maglc (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. It does not matter if other articles say one thing or another (cf. WP:OTHERCONTENT), what matters if whether the one we are actually discussing is giving due weight to aspects as represented in the entire body of reliable sources on the subject. It matters enough that philosophy means 'love of wisdom' for this to be mentioned in this article, one with an extremely broad scope, as this is a commonly referenced fact. What you are suggesting doesn't even come close, I'm afraid. I personally deeply value etymology and historical linguistics, but can admit that much of the time it is an egregiously overrepresented aspect in articles, almost as easily sourced filler that does a disservice to the reader in taking up space at the top of articles way out of proportion with its due weight for the subject at hand. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 论 05:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use ChatGPT to generate replies to other editors' arguments, it's incredibly rude. Pragmatically, it does nothing for your case and makes me far less inclined to engage with you as someone who's actually interested in reaching a well reasoned consensus, now that I've been shown a clear counterexample. Remsense ‥ 论 06:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use ChatGPT or any other AI generation to reply to you. Despite that point, the point remains that this is a well-sourced and well-documented facet of philosophy’s etymology, along with all other arguments made above. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly did. I recommend not blatantly lying about it in the future, and generally treating other editors' time and effort with considerably more respect going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 06:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations are not enough to discredit a well documented aspect of philosophy, rather what you think and what you wanna believe is not in the best interest if Wikipedia and is a conflict of interest. Again this is a well-sourced and well-documented facet of philosophy’s etymology. Sources are above. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wasting my time. Remsense ‥ 论 06:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be pleased in doing so, thank you. Luka Maglc (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i put this in gptzero, it says 100% human W!K!M3D!A (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is gptzero high? He probably put it through a humaniser or something, it's obviously made via llm Fireflame888888 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was very impressed by this research until the next post suggested it was chatGPT and I looked at the time stamps and saw it took 31 minutes to put it all together, which seems unlikely...
Like any technology, AI has its uses, but at its root it is little more then cut and paste (with some parameters that contain the search for content to cut). It is not a substitute for critical thought. ProofCreature (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I study philosophy and religion, which is one of the reasons I asked this question in the first place. I’ve had many of these sources ready to add to the etymology section when I was prepared to do so. Luka Maglc (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is real research I apologize for the mischaracterization (good luck proving it one way or the other. Only you are going to know...my previous comment still applies). Whether it is honest research or AI it was probably too much information at once. Either way one must apply critical thought to determine how the information might benefit the article. To dismiss content because it is AI is as foolish as dismissing content solely on legalistic policy reasons without giving the content some conscious thought. Bureaucracy can be as dehumanizing as technology. ProofCreature (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is valid content. I was about to recommend that someone edit the wikictionary to reflect it, but the philosophy page has an entire etymology section and it could use significant work. It seems to hardly recognize the word's origin in greek culture. It could be good to update it to include the ideas noted in this talk page, so long as there is agreement. The argument about whether gods represented concepts (and objects) or concepts (and objects) are divine manifestations will cause some trouble.
...
I get that etymology is difficult for people, not something often recognized, more foot note then anything. Yet it is significant if one cares to comprehend an idea's conception (<--there is an ugly redundant sentence). It is the roots that water the tree.
...
I recommend etymonline.com for research. ProofCreature (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about philosophy. It's not about sophia, personified or just as an ideal. Divagations about the goddess Sophia are WP:COATRACK. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy is about Sophia, and Sophia is part of the origin, history, and etymology of this word.
Omitting its personification neglects a documented historical aspect of Philosophy. Luka Maglc (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you are recommending is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH from a self-published source. The OED has already been consulted. Please see also WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION, both of which would be violated by the expansions proposed in this thread. Patrick (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are self published sources or original research.
1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Plato’s Dialogues
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
3. JSTOR – Philo of Alexandria
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1450880?searchText=Philo+of+Alexandria&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPhilo%2Bof%2BAlexandria%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A5090f4b3c3a8f9e1bd76a36bbc86d528
4. JSTOR and Book– Gnostic Texts (Pistis Sophia and Nag Hammadi codices)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23950129
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=olc5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT4&dq=Pistis+Sophia&ots=ie6AUklC1F&sig=PLIwVGjt_9N_2If2YHrHizTo95Y#v=onepage&q=Pistis%20Sophia&f=false
5. Book – Sergei Bulgakov, Sophia: The Wisdom of God
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9EyqSuB2HG4C&oi=fnd&pg=IA1&dq=Sergei+Bulgakov,+Sophia:+The+Wisdom+of+God&ots=SWqrE0HqzC&sig=WLokf1a-R-4v4W8fOneyTqLRQ7k#v=onepage&q=Sergei%20Bulgakov%2C%20Sophia%3A%20The%20Wisdom%20of%20God&f=false
6. Oxford Classical Dictionary – Entry on Sophia and Philosophy
7. JSTOR - Sophia and Philosophia -
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/91901689/viewcontent-libre.pdf?1664785845=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DNietzsche_and_Heraclitus_Notes_on_Stars.pdf&Expires=1739638186&Signature=amoHCMDn7IGYOg7ddi6ZKY2DMv5RSv-jyYl2rLPedo0k-xBi-EZ46KpdsgZ4ulsxCbjVJh7WCg1cHaegprPOZxpdThUaFKbcZojgtOINr~CtYAM9dagWZPTvihaL41QFIsT6ClAGpiyKKuIruCPxGZGUNJQztc3GdrnUSfOsS~nKn5PagDtUpFgqzEqEskTyr9bXfdTj4V6JREkOx4giInRMoFb~EkPJGCbFave2dSaV2z5bxKTM7XiY5dGTO~gixWp~~pwJNgIddorUTQG~jXOSXDNKjuqfn~snk22LUo7zFG6GcZgkh-uPRMe8qXhC5SnLPWHByeMJLUvRmRBSdA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
8. JSTOR Book Part 1: Chapter 2- Aesopic Conversations: Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue, and the Invention of Greek Prose - https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7t7zw?turn_away=true
9. A general search on Plato's Stanford Encyclopedia can find more results -
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=sophia
Let me know if you need anything else! Luka Maglc (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear about who I was addressing. What is self-published is etymonline.com. The problem with your suggestion in general is that it violates WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION.
There are many useful resources at the WP:TEAHOUSE that can help you become better acquainted with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Patrick (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more clear, my inclusion of the concept of Sophia in the "etymology section" of the philosophy article is fully justified based on reliable academic sources and Wikipedia’s “due weight” policy. The term philosophy comes from the Greek philosophia literally “love of wisdom” where Sophia as a greek goddess is a foundational concept attested by sources from Stanford, Oxford, and peer-reviewed JSTOR materials. The argument that the personification of Sophia does not deserve proportional coverage overlooks the extensive historical and cultural importance that documents her significance in Greek Philosophy, early Christian theology, and more. This approach adheres strictly to Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and proportional representation. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what matters here is what the authors of high-quality reliable overview sources on philosophy in general determine matters.
Perhaps consider improving articles more narrowly focused on Sophia? Patrick (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I prefer less narrow. The good thing about wikipedia is that I don't lesson to personal opinions and people having conflict of interests. This is within the best interest of Wikipedia. This improves the article with a well documented fact about the word, and I do not have to listen to the interest of one users opinion. There are plenty of reliable high-quality sources to pick from within this subject. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the rationale behind the policies I've cited: if editors of highly general articles could all just add a few sentences or a paragraph about the part that most interested them, the article would gradually become unbalanced and difficult to read. That is the reason for the push back here, and, if you look through the talk history, you will see that this is not first time this discussion has taken place.
That's probably going to be it from me. Patrick (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of that is against the Wikipedia rules. And this should've been in the article from the beginning, no matter the size. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the smallest imprint that you can do on this page is just create a wikilink to Sophia, the goddess, and that creates no new sentences or paragraph and still documents the fact on the page. Even though that's not the best option if you're worried about the size that is a option. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go see, Wikipedia:Ownership of content Luka Maglc (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For including minor details in general overview articles, see WP:PROPORTION. For using ChatGPT to write talk page comments, see WP:LLMTALK. This is especially the case for hallucinated sources, such as the links to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophia/ and https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pp4k5 you provided. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links work better in one do the other comments above, and maybe the comment removed as chatGPT? It might have been poorly typed or copied or something? ProofCreature (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wikitext added by Luka Maglc says: '''Example''': The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and ''Oxford Classical Dictionary'' both address Sophia’s role in Greek thought, validating her inclusion. See SEP entry on Sophia: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophia/]. There is no Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article called "Sophia" and the link provided does not work. There are various other cases like this in the comment above. These observations make a strong case for an AI-hallucination per WP:DUCK. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own it either. We write articles based on what policy says, not our individualized interests and fixations. Remsense ‥ 论 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me this has to do with your interest and not well documented facts. Stop projecting. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a nigh infinite number of well documented facts that are not due for inclusion in this article, one with one of the broadest scopes on the entire encyclopedia, and therefore with one of the highest barriers for inclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 18:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a link to Sophia seems fair.
For one who likes philosophy in an empirical context it is difficult to admit that philosophy has such otherworldly derivation, but if that is where real honest study leads, then it should be noted. It's not like it would be out of step with metaphysical content. Also, just referencing a deity doesn't solve the chicken or the egg problem there. ProofCreature (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article is accurately weighted the way it is. This is undue trivia, and continuing push to include it without actually engaging with the relevant site policy is unacceptable. Remsense ‥ 论 18:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, your not a admin. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call me sir. If you actually cared about site policy rather than gesturing at it haphazardly trying to find a cheat code that gets your way, you'd know how silly that sounds, because you know what administrators are and aren't. Remsense ‥ 论 18:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
your not a admin, is that better. Luka Maglc (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. You're still really embarrassing yourself. Remsense ‥ 论 18:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with wikilinking the existing mention. Sophia (wisdom) is an appropriate target. I will do so if no one objects. Patrick (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an undue easter egg, given it is not clear to the reader what the target article would be about. Remsense ‥ 论 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps target it more narrowly to the first section, which is about the word in a Greek philosophical context? Patrick (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work, actually. Good eye. Remsense ‥ 论 18:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Patrick (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to do this if you actually engage with the explanation given rather than trying to get your way skirting around it. The point is this does not matter and should not take up any conceptual space for the reader. Moreover, it's a pretty egregious WP:EASTEREGG. Remsense ‥ 论 18:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not comprehend the problem with etymonline.com. I do not publish it. I read it, though, and it seems like fair research to me. I would be glad to know about any bias you might have encountered. ProofCreature (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no familiarity with the site. My objection was based upon this[14], which suggests its content is someone's personal project. I also found a discussion here, where you can find a more considered discussion. Patrick (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love of Wisdom in Ancient Greek

[edit]

@Remsense O.K., I guess we are going to talk. My problem with leading with this right off the bat is that it is misleading and possibly undue weight on the etymological origins of the term. It has a long history, but also a proper context in a modern English encyclopaedia. It is unnecessary and is not done at similar articles with Greek roots, like Psychology or Epistemology. It is a bit poetic and historical, and I know the article has been featured, but it really seems like clutter to the first paragraph, and hinders a reader's understanding of what the word currently means in the context of its scope at e.g. universities. Not only that, but it is also slightly inaccurate (or at least by omission of detail) because it suggests that "Philosophy" IS an Ancient Greek word, and not "φιλοσοφία", or that it was borrowed or coined directly into English from Ancient Greek. PuppyMonkey (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(There've actually been related discussions in the archives which you might want to skim.) Other tertiary or introductory sources pretty frequently include a brief mention of the etymology of philosophy, actually, which I feel demonstrates there's not a risk that a mention in the lead (which on Wikipedia typically implies a parenthetical in the lead sentence per the MOS) would be undue or disproportionate to our sources. Remsense 🌈 论 18:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PuppyMonkey I just explained above my position why the longstanding prose is preferable to each of the other possible tries. Please self-revert the changes that were already being disputed here even more explicitly than they were before. Again, this V1 article went through FAC in the last couple years—that doesn't mean everything, but doesn't it make you think twice about the forwardness in your insistence on issues like these? I am already perfectly aware you think your changes are improvements, that's why you made them. But they are being disputed, and the issues have been discussed before to produce the current version, so I don't know why you feel entitled to unilaterally impose them on the article regardless. Remsense 🌈 论 18:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense You don't seem to want to recognize that I was trying to reach a compromise after bringing up some points, and not trying to significantly alter the "longstanding prose" in a meaningful way, but rather to help the reader understand that the etymological definition should be understood thru the lens of a long history. You appear to be very reluctant to look for any potential improvement if an article is a "V1 article [that] went through FAC in the last couple years". I have self-reverted to the stable version. PuppyMonkey (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For most topics, the etymology of the term should not be discussed in the lead. I think philosophy is different since the etymology is often mentioned to explain or define philosophy, so having a brief remark should be fine. It seems to me that the current formulation does not necessarily imply that the English word "philosophy" is Ancient Greek, similar to how it does not imply that the expression "love of wisdom" is Ancient Greek. The details are discussed in the section "Etymology" and it's probably better to leave them there. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right to me FWIW. What's more philosophy is arguably a field that is somewhat difficult to define in the 21st century. Knowing where it comes from is part of how any student learns why this field exists, and what people have been trying to achieve. The etymology is of course only part of that but I think that keeping a quick mention is acceptable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Philosophy (Wikipedia article)

[edit]

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All pages lead to philosophy

[edit]