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

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]

Metaphilosophy as a Meta- or Sub- discipline

@PatrickJWelsh:, the fragment "are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy" seems contradictory or inconsistent to me because the prefix "meta" is used to denote a thing is beyond, above, or at a higher level while the prefix "sub" is used to denote a thing is under, below, or at a lower level. This seems to be a conflict that can be easily resolved by removing that fragment from the sentence "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy." It makes things simpler and more clear. Correct or wrong it's unnecessary information. ProofCreature (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ProofCreature,
Thanks for bringing this to the talk page!
Metaphilosophy is meta in that it positions itself "above" philosophy by taking philosophy itself as its topic.
It is, however, also a subdiscipline in that it is itself only one small part of philosophy. Possibly "subfield" would be a better term here, but I do not see any actual inconsistency in the current language.
To explicitly spell out x in this respect to y, and also y in this respect to x would, in my judgment, be unnecessarily tedious. I don't particularly think the general article on philosophy should get into metaphilosophy, but this particular sentence does not strike me as an issue.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You don't see the inconsistency in the language? You explained it in your comment; that it is above philosophy and a part of philosophy.
I get that I am focused on semantics, here, but the conflict implies a problem with Metaphilosophy in general.
To otherwise resolve a conflict without semantics, to have a thing be both below and above in relation to another thing, one would require a Holy Spirit like entity. Spirits seem to be antithetical to Philosophy's reliance on logic.
ProofCreature (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reflexivity is a basic feature of consciousness. This may indeed be remarkable, but it is no demerit to any school or branch of philosophy to express and reflect upon as much. If anything, the contrary.
"Below" and "above" are entirely metaphorical, and so different parts of philosophy can be both in different respects without contradiction.
Philosophy highlights self-inquiry more than any other generally recognized discipline, but it is hardly alone in reflecting upon its own methods and operations. Any contradiction at work is dialectical and most likely does not warrant more detailed discussion in the general article on philosophy.
In any case, nothing magical is in any way required or implied. Philosophy does not need a Holy Ghost anymore than you do when, for instance, you think about the kind of person that you want to be—which is something that all of us do with respect to ourselves!
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that etymologically, the sentence could sound contradictory if one tried to make sense of the term "metaphilosophy" based on the roots of its parts. However, not everything that might sound contradictory is contradictory. If the sources say that the claim is true (which they do) then this trumps the etymological impression. Patrick's explanation of the reflexive nature of philosophy could also be used to expel the etymological impression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proof I am right about Philosophiing (like radii)(;)(Philosophying?))), Philosophiers Really Love the Way They Talk About Would They Talk About It, and Women as well, Proverbs 1:20; Love is Wisdom is Sex, Have A Blessed Day, let’s see if we can get a Philosophier page soon. Mintosoares (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh:, @Phlsph7:, I disagree with you both. My argument is entirely semantics. I disagree that a word with a prefix denoting a superiority like "meta-" should be given a secondary connotation found in the word "subdisipline".

It's easy enough to remove the conflict by removing half the sentence or even just the word "subdiscipline". Additional content in the article is not required. In this situation the correction is removal, not embelishment. The following seem correct to me: 

"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial."  

"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy."

I have no disagreement with reflexivity, but if that's "metaphilosophy" I think the article (and, if used that way, the entire academic field) is using the wrong word for it.


Tangenially:

I disagree that most words are metaphorical. Prefixes like "meta-" or "sub-" or words like "above" and "below " symbolize a real, known, idea as do most other words (There are exceptions for words that symbolize fictions like dragons or ghosts). buthat'sjustme, I suppose. It is very apparent to me that for many people they're just words, no one means anything by them; they are immaterial.

ProofCreature (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I acknowledge your reasoning and your position, the article should reflect what the reliable sources say. Here are some examples:
  • From [1]: This book is an introduction to metaphilosophy - the branch of philosophy that....
  • From [2]: ... this area ...has ... been acknowledged as a distinctive branch of philosophy ... entitled metaphilosophy
  • From [3]: Metaphilosophy is a field or branch of philosophy...
If we have to change it then your second suggestions ("Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy.") would be better but my impression is that we can keep it as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

Merge this page along with Outline of philosophy 2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to propose scientificalness, scientificness, scienceness, conscienceness, with some other verbs that are surrounding this study of mine called philosophias, math and con/:scienceness, thanks! Mintosoares (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
scientificness as well Mintosoares (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Con/:scienceness as a merge with conscience meaning with science (knowing) -ness (to be) and a close of the relationship between “conscience(ness)” and consciousness! Mintosoares (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore the question remains, is consciousness an exquisite form that can be described through science when realizing “-scious, science” are of the same word , have a great sense for this question Mintosoares (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'd make some sense. If nothing else there should be a prominent link in Philosophy to Outline of Philosophy. Though maybe that's accomplished by the Part of a series on Philosophy template.
ProofCreature (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are already several links from Philosophy to Outline of philosophy. Philosophy is a regular article while Outline of philosophy is an outline, i.e. a collection of links. I don't see how merging makes sense since a long list of links does not belong into a regular article. See also WP:MERGEREASON. We could turn Outline of philosophy into a redirect to Philosophy but no reason has been mentioned why we shouldn't have an outline of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
linked in see also Cal3000000 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an Image to the "Indian Philosophy" and "Other traditions" subsections.

I was going through the page and released the Philosophy#Western, Philosophy#Arabic–Persian, and Philosophy#Chinese subsections under the Philosophy#History section have images of a philosopher from their respective traditions, but the Philosophy#Indian and the Philosophy#Other traditions subsections do not have one.

This is a request to add an images of a philosopher from the respective traditions and to decide which philosopher or image should be added.

For the Philosophy#Indian, I believe Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara, or Swami Vivekananda would be the best as they were very influential and well known.

In Philosophy#Other traditions Japanese philosophy, African philosophy, and Indigenous American philosophy are discussed. I believe it would be the most appropriate to add a philosopher from either African philosophy or Indigenous American philosophy as the previous two traditions are not well known and Japanese philosophy is heavily influenced by both Chinese and Indian philosophy. GayaniGojo (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out this oversight, I added an image of Adi Shankara. I don't think that we need an image for the section "Other traditions" but if there are concrete suggestions of well-known representative figures, we could consider them. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sentence amendment: Other traditions

The section on African philosophy seems to be short, underdeveloped and lacking contextual depth in comparison to other areas i.e. Indian, Chinese and Latin American philosophy.

I propose adding two sentence additions which may be rewritten (depending on the view of other users) but the content below derive from reliable sources.

"The philosophical tradition in Africa derived from both ancient Egypt and scholarly texts in medieval Africa.[1] Among the most notable examples from this tradition emerge from the work of the 17th-century philosopher Zera Yacob, and that of his disciple Walda Heywat.[2] Yacob in his writings discusses religion, morality, and existence."[3]

Sources

Samuel Imbo - An Introduction to African Philosophy

Kwasi Wiredu - A Companion to African phillosophy

Dag Herbjørnsrud - "Beyond decolonizing: global intellectual history and reconstruction of a comparative method" WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent addition, it's worth noting verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the quality of prose also particularly matters for additions to a featured article like this one. It's more than just a copyediting issue, as one would need to start over with the sources in order to come up with a worthwhile tertiary analysis imo, as what was added is comparatively undigested and unmotivated in the article's greater context. Like I said, I think an addition to this effect is worthwhile, but as written it presently says very little and is a net negative, hence the reversion. Remsense ‥ 诉 04:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense, Can you expand on what specifically needs to be expanded to constitute a positive addition and a "teritrary analysis" for the wider article ? This seems to be a case of restructuring the content for a more digestible format. WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense Alternatively, how about a condensed version of the sentence which adds further clairty to the prose ?
"The philosophical tradition in Africa derived from both ancient Egypt and scholarly texts in medieval African kingdoms such as Mali, Ghana and Songhai which had an established tradition of Islamic, intellectual scholarship.[4] A philosophical literature also developed in Ethiopia during the seventeeth century in relation to theodicy, principle of ethics and psychology under the 17th-century philosopher Zera Yacob, and that of his disciple Walda Heywat."[5] WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues that jumped out at me was the assertion of the, seemingly singular, philosophical tradition in Africa. This is clearly patterning the language used in the source, but importantly the source specifically says It is therefore in the written text that we must look for African philosophy. If we define philosophy as critical, written thought, the philosophical tradition in Africa extends as far back as the ancient Egyptians and the scholarly works in medieval Africa. It's much more clear here that we're just talking about chronology and not chains of direct influence, even though it's still presented as a whole.
What's more, the passage above is given in the source as part of the particular approach of Lansana Keita, but it's given unattributed in wikivoice. It also feels WP:CLOP-adjacent. I tried rewriting the passage, but I do not feel comfortable doing so, since the presentation in this source is so broad, and I am not adequately familiar with other sources. This is part of the difficulty of writing at such a zoomed-out level, especially in areas that have historically been underrepresented in RS, I think. It may be that there is little in this section not because there aren't secondary sources to cite, but because views in them are so diverse for one reason or another, if that makes sense. Remsense ‥ 诉 05:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense - How about I drop the first sentence at this stage and only include the second sentence related to the philosophical tradition in Ethiopia ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think an addition specifically concerning East Africa (as well as one about the Bantu tradition, moreover) is likely very much worthwhile, but I'm not sure I would make it specifically about Zara Yaqob. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense, yes but other sections make specific reference to individual philosophers. Also, Yakob is often cited as the most notable figure from Ethiopia at that specific time. The chapter also discusses his protege in similar detail. It is only a single sentence. WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WikiUser4020 and thanks for your suggestion. The passage on African philosophy is shorter than some passages on other traditions because it gets significantly less attention in the academic discourse, see WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. We only have a few paragraphs to give a very condensed summary of the history of the wide field of philosophy so we have to be very picky about what to include. As far as I'm aware, detailed overview sources on the history of philosophy in general do not mention Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat. It's probably better for Wikipedia to cover these details in articles on more narrow topics, like African philosophy.
I agree that the first sentence of your suggestion could violate WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7, Although, yes I do share concerns about the under representation of these traditions in academic discourses which impacts their coverage on Wikipedia. However, the section on this particular area could still have 1 or 2 sentences to provide further context. However, if neither of you want to include the second sentence on Yacob then I’ll drop the matter. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the IEP article History of African Philosophy. It only mentions Yacob twice and Heywat once, all in a single paragraph questioning whether their ideas should be considered African philosophy: Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat, both Ethiopian philosophers with Arabic and European educational influences. The question is, are the ideas produced by these people indubitably worthy of the name ‘African philosophies’?...it may be uncharitable to say to the African historian that Amo or Yacob was not an African. But, does being an African translate to being an African philosopher? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 That is from one source. A Companion to African Philosophy which features a range of professional philosophers devotes two chapters to Zera Yacob.
According to Ethiopian philosopher Teodoros Kiros - (p183) "Ethiopian philosophy is unique in Africa because it is both written and oral. In the written tradition, Zera Yacob is undoubtedly the dominant figure. The oral tradition is present in songs, poems, proverbial sayings, etc. These have been systematically translated and analyzed by Claude Sumner, the foremost scholar of Ethiopian philosophy, in his editions of The Book of the Wise Philosophers and The Life and Maxims of Skendes".
As previously mentioned, I do believe the second sentence should be included however if there is no consensus support for the proposed addition then I'll leave the matter as it stands. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use tertiary sources to get a feeling for how different aspects of an article should be balanced. Another encyclopedia article with a significantly narrower scope (specifically African philosophy) only providing a brief mention is rather strong evidence that this even broader article should mention them not at all. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this violate WP:Proportion? I think it's crucial to outline the oral nature of early philosophy as an explanation for lack of widespread written traditions, and highlight the cultural products as repositories for knowledge, preservation and transmission.

African philosophy before the 20th century was primarily conducted and transmitted orally as ideas by philosophers whose names have been lost to history. While early African intellectual history primarily focused on folklore, wise sayings, and religious ideas, it also included philosophical concepts, such as the Nguni Bantu concept of Ubuntu in moral philosophy. Systematic African philosophy emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. It discusses topics such as ethnophilosophy, négritude, pan-Africanism, Marxism, postcolonialism, the role of cultural identity, relativism, African epistemology, and the critique of Eurocentrism. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning the oral nature is a good idea. What about shortening your suggestion to

Early African philosophy was primarily conducted and transmitted orally. It focused on community, morality, and ancestral ideas, encompassing folklore, wise sayings, religious ideas, and philosophical concepts like Ubuntu.[6] Systematic African philosophy emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. It discusses topics such as ethnophilosophy, négritude, pan-Africanism, Marxism, postcolonialism, the role of cultural identity, relativism, African epistemology, and the critique of Eurocentrism.[7]

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s much better, thank you Kowal2701 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Imbo, Samuel Oluoch (1998). An Introduction to African Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8476-8841-8.
  2. ^ Wiredu, Kwasi (15 April 2008). A Companion to African Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-470-99737-6.
  3. ^ Herbjørnsrud, Dag (2019-05-10). "Beyond decolonizing: global intellectual history and reconstruction of a comparative method". Global Intellectual History. 6 (5): 614–640. doi:10.1080/23801883.2019.1616310. ISSN 2380-1883. S2CID 166543159.
  4. ^ Imbo, Samuel Oluoch (1998). An Introduction to African Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8476-8841-8.
  5. ^ Wiredu, Kwasi (15 April 2008). A Companion to African Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-470-99737-6.
  6. ^
    • Grayling 2019, African Philosophy
    • Chimakonam 2023, Lead Section, 6. Epochs in African Philosophy
    • Mangena, Lead Section
  7. ^

google books in citations

Hi Phlsph7 I noticed the deletion of the archive urls [4], however you also removed all the normal google books urls, not just the archives. So this goes beyond the discussion you referenced which is about the archive version. Is it really necessary to delete the normal google urls? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew Lancaster and thanks for bringing up the point. The problem is that IABot adds archives if there is a url-parameter. So if you just remove the archives but leave the url-parameter, the archives will be re-added the next time IABot runs. Personally, I don't feel strongly about it either way. It's just that several reviewers have asked for the archives to be removed and there seems to be no point to this if a bot re-adds them later.
As I see it, the main value of external links to Google Books comes from the page previews they offer (not all of them do). This way, readers can open the link and directly verify the information. In our article, the links to Google Books page previews are usually found in the short footnote templates. They were not removed. Looking at the very first cite book template (Adamson & Ganeri 2020), the url-parameter was removed but short footnote template to it still has a link to the Google Books page preview.
  • Short footnote template in reference [67]: ... Adamson & Ganeri 2020, pp. 101–102...
  • Cite book template in bibliography: Adamson, Peter; Ganeri, Jonardon (2020). Classical Indian Philosophy. A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps. Vol. 5. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-885176-9. ...
Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a shame. I personally like google book links if there is no other link available. They help speed up verification discussions quite often. I guess a lot of people have put time into collecting them. Couldn't we just wait for someone to fix that bot?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the Google Books urls without the archive urls. The problem seems to be that the bot is widely used so a bigger discussion would needed to establish consensus for changing the bot's behavior. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the essay WP:Google Books and Wikipedia. I tend to think that it's better to keep the Google Books URLs, for reasons listed at WP:Google Books and Wikipedia#Why we use it anyway, if Google Books provides at least a preview and if there is no better link available. Perhaps the {{cbignore}} template will stop IABot from adding archive-urls? Biogeographist (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of the cbignore-template. I added it to all the cite-templates with Google Books URLs. Let's see if this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is to just revert any addition of archive urls to still-living external links. These are not really helpful to readers and take a lot of space. The important thing is that there exists a wayback machine backup that we can link to if URLs ever rot, but there's no need to include that in articles when the original external links still work. –jacobolus (t) 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel, Heidegger, Leo Strauss

These are three heavy-weights of all philosophers. What do you think about [5]?

Hegel's POV is rendered according to a WP:SECONDARY source (Heidegger), and Leo Strauss' POV is also rendered according to a secondary source.

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV was used, and if somebody else wants to improve nuance, I have nothing against that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the editor who removed these citations was doubting whether there would be enough consensus for their notability, or at least thinking that there should first be talk page discussion. You are of course right that they are interesting. I also suspect that they add something to the other ones we have. Philosophy has indeed long been characterized as a type of thinking which is willing to push beyond socially acceptable norms. Didn't Plato have Socrates say somewhere that real philosophers seem made to most people? In any case, maybe it would be better if it was made more clear what these definitions add to the ones we already have. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good at pithy sentences, I'm not so good at nuanced explanations. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello tgeorgescu and thanks for your suggestion. There are countless characterizations of philosophy and whole books could be filled only disucssing this topic. We only have a handful of paragraphs to discuss them so we really need to be picky to ensure that we only present the most important ones. Heideggers interpretation of Hegel's characterization of philosophy as "the world turned upside down" and Strauss's characterization of philosophy as "denial of the gods of the city" are not the most typical or well-knowns ones. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tgeorgescu, Sorry to have reverted without explanation right before checking out from Wikipedia for the day. My reasoning was mostly that already given above. Additionally, the view attributed to Hegel is correct, but misleading without additional context, and the Strauss definition, in my view, is too figurative to stand on its own without explication. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
AI generated comment, see WP:LLMTALK.
Your concern about including Sophia in the philosophy etymology section is acknowledged, but her inclusion is justified based on reliable academic sources and Wikipedia’s "due weight" policy. Below is a structured rebuttal:
=== 1. Etymological and Historical Relevance ===
The term *philosophy* (φιλοσοφία, philosophía) directly derives from the Greek sophía (σοφία), meaning "wisdom." This connection is foundational:
  • Plato explicitly framed philosophy as the "love of wisdom" (philo-sophia), elevating sophía from mere technical skill to a virtue tied to divine insight and rational inquiry. See Plato’s Republic, Book IV: [6].
  • Hellenistic philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle distinguished sophía from phrónēsis (practical wisdom), cementing its role in metaphysical discourse. See Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI: [7].
  • Gnostic and Christian traditions later personified Sophia as divine wisdom, further embedding her into Western philosophical theology. See Nicola Denzey Lewis, Introduction to Gnosticism: [8].
Conclusion: The term sophía is inseparable from the etymology of philosophy. Omitting its personification neglects a documented historical layer.
=== 2. Due Weight in Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy ===
Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight, "due weight" requires proportional representation of all significant viewpoints in reliable sources. Key points:
  • Academic Consensus: Multiple peer-reviewed sources discuss sophía as both a concept and a personified entity. For example, Philo of Alexandria’s works: [9].
  • Cultural Impact: Sophia’s influence extends beyond philosophy into theology (e.g., Gnosticism, Russian Sophiology) and literature, reflecting her interdisciplinary significance. See Sergei Bulgakov’s Sophia: The Wisdom of God: [10].
  • Etymology Depth: While "love of wisdom" is the baseline definition, explaining sophía’s evolution from a skill to a divine principle enriches the article’s context without undue focus. See the Oxford Classical Dictionary entry on "Sophia": [11].
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: [12].
=== 3. Addressing Counterarguments ===
  • "Other Articles Exist": While WP:OTHERCONTENT discourages redundancy, the philosophy article’s broad scope requires contextualizing sophía as a root concept.
  • "Mere Trivia": Sophia’s personification is not tangential. For instance, Plato’s Protagoras lists sophía among cardinal virtues, and early Christian theologians linked her to the Logos (Christ). See Plato’s Protagoras: [13].
=== Proposed Revision for Clarity ===
To balance brevity and depth, the etymology section could state:

Philosophy (φιλοσοφία, philosophía) derives from the Greek sophía (σοφία, "wisdom"), a term central to Hellenistic thought. Originally denoting technical skill, sophía evolved into a metaphysical ideal, later personified in religious contexts as Sophia, a divine figure of wisdom. See Nicola Denzey Lewis, Introduction to Gnosticism: [14].

=== Supporting Sources ===
1. Plato’s Dialogues: Republic and Protagoras define sophía as wisdom integral to philosophy. See Plato’s Republic, Book IV: [15].
2. Philo of Alexandria: Harmonized sophía with Jewish Chokhmah, influencing early Christian theology. See Philo’s On the Creation: [16].
3. Gnostic Texts: Pistis Sophia and Nag Hammadi codices frame Sophia as a cosmic wisdom figure. See Nicola Denzey Lewis, Introduction to Gnosticism: [17].
4. Modern Scholarship: Works by Lewis, Bulgakov, and Aurobindo analyze Sophia’s philosophical legacy. See Sergei Bulgakov’s Sophia: The Wisdom of God: [18].
Including Sophia aligns with Wikipedia’s mandate to reflect "significant published scholarship." Omitting her would underrepresent a well-documented facet of philosophy’s etymology.
Proposed Action: Retain a concise mention with citations to ensure neutrality and depth. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:49, 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 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[19], 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]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philosophy
No tags for this post.