Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

FAC of Ethics

The article Ethics is currently a candidate for featured article status. I was hoping to get some more feedback from reviewers. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ethics/archive1. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see here. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Happiness, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move at Talk:Calls for the destruction of Israel#Requested move 31 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Calls for the destruction of Israel#Requested move 31 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Independent review of the discussion in Existential Risk Studies

Hello,

I would like to invite the participants of this project to review the current discussion around existential risk studies. The article was created by me, and since its publication in the mainspace it has been subject to the criticism of some editors. I am having a difficult time engaging with this discussion, as I have exhausted my energy to explain and quote sources while the contesting side hasnt provide a single source contradicting the current presentation or even indicated a single sentence that deserves reformulation, still, the NPOV mark has been added and have been feeling less and less capable to reach any consensus with the current quorum of the debate. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for opinions regarding Dasein article

The dispute resolution process suggests that I post here to request opinions on a current dispute at Talk:Dasein#Removal of wording about earlier usage. The question is whether or not the Dasein article (which is listed as "high-importance" in this Project) should include a brief mention that the term "Dasein" had been used in philosophical contexts prior to Heidegger. -- HLachman (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm posting here again to renew my request for additional opinions, as we seem to be at an impasse. The discussion has become quite lengthy, however, a key sticking point can be identified by looking for the sentence in red ("it is prohibited to..."). If interested, please take a look and let us know your opinion, thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Contemplating GAR for Pandeism

Anything to do last-minute first? Hyperbolick (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Batman: Anarky

Batman: Anarky has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion for The Void (philosophy)

An editor has requested that The Void (philosophy) be moved to The Void, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Skyerise (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Scope of the articles Value theory and Axiology

I was thinking about overhauling the articles Value theory and Axiology. Before I get started, I wanted to hear what others think about the scope of these articles. Most sources seem to agree that "value theory" and "axiology" are synonyms for the same project: the study of values. For example:

• Oxford Handbook on Value theory, p. 1: Value theory, or axiology, concerns which things are good or bad, how good or bad they are, and, most fundamentally, what it is for a thing to be good or bad.
• Problems in Value Theory, p. 17: Axiology (or Value Theory) is the branch of philosophy that studies value.
• Value Theory: A Research into Subjectivity, pp.1, 3: the theory of value, or Axiology, ... the formation of axiology, or value theory...

If we follow this idea, there should be only one article, not two. Some sources distinguish different senses and say that the two terms are synonyms in one sense but not in another, for example:

• Value Theory, p. 6: In this sense, often synonymous with axiology (from the Greek ‘axía’, ‘value’), value theory is usually contrasted with at least two different kinds of inquiries.
• Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry "Value Theory" (lead section): In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”.

If one tried to dig into these sources, it might be possible to justify two separate articles by focusing Value theory on the broad sense and Axiology on the narrow sense (limited to "classifying what things are good, and how good they are"). However, there would still be significant overlap and it wouldn't be clear what to do with the sources that simply treat the two terms as synonyms. An additional difficulty is that some sources reverse these characterizations and see axiology as the wider term ([1]). It would probably be better to have only one article and explain these difficulties in one paragraph in a definition section. For a short discussion on this some years ago without consensus, see Talk:Value_theory#Axiology and Talk:Axiology#Merge_Axiology_and_"value_theory"_entries.

If we decide to have only one article, the next question would be whether the title should be "Value theory" or "Axiology". I would slightly favor "Value theory" but both terms are common. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I support a merge into one article. Although I believe "value theory" is the more common term today, "axiology" might be the more common search term—just because it's harder to guess its meaning. As long as there's a redirect, however, and the lead directly mentions the equivalence, I would be entirely fine with either one. Patrick (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sentimentality

Hello philosophy wikiproject, just popping by because as a user came past this article and you're one of the two wikiprojects listed for it (alongside psychology) but appear the more correct forum. This article, which has been labelled for OR for about six years just read to me as wrong. Like factually wrong. It does have sources and references but even its opening paragraph statement feels like an OR statement and not reflective of the social understanding and usage of being sentimental. If anything it reads extremely callously and narrowly. I cannot check most of the sourcing due to being books but from the talk page, where posts are several years old, some have stated the references are taken out of context to benefit the articles perception and comments dating back 15 years that the whole thing seems to be a solo perspective diatribe. Could someone give this a gander and see if the whole thing needs an overhaul? Looking at its history this direction of the article dates back all the way to its creation and just no ones cared enough to go in depth on either the changing perception of the phrase and term, or that the article was written more as a thesis rather than a neutral philosophical document. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sentimentalism (philosophy) is well-defined thing, as is the sentimental novel (it's not clear to me whether sentimentalism (literature) is an encyclopedic topic beyond what's covered there). The article also mentions a sentimental tradition in sociology, but that is not something I know about.

This article, however, does not appear to have a unified topic. My inclination would be to merge its contents out into those more focused articles as appropriate and turn Sentimentality into a redirect or disambiguation page. As an ordinary word, it's unlikely to meet notability criteria.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of my point, it's all over the place but far and away its mostly "sentimentality is dumb and stupid" from different perspectives without really covering well as you said the ordinary word definition. Its contents neither match the philosophical argument, the novel, or the literature. I wouldn't even know where to merge the content into because the content seems more a think piece rant if anything. This may be an issue with the difference in written discourse between sentimental and sentimentality which despite both words in the dictionary linking to each other one is treated positive and the other is treated negative. Ah language. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The article appears to have been largely abandoned for several years, although it might still have active watchers. You should post to its talk page outlining your proposed overhaul. Feel free to copy your exchange here with me to that venue, which is where more detailed discussion should take place.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)