Proposal for uk.philosophy.* heirachy
gwen_...@cybergal.com
called uk.atheist, I am interested to see if anybody likes the idea of
proposing an heirachy called uk.philosophy.*
>
> There currently is no philosophy
> based sub-hierarchy, but that does not preculde one being proposed.
> uk.culture.philosophy.* would probably be the best placing for such a
> hierarchy and it's creation would allow you to propose
> uk.culture.philosophy.atheism (you can propose the sub-hierarchy and
> your own group in a single proposal if you wish).
>
Now, this is a very interesting proposal. Philosphy certainly cannot be
described as a 'narrow' interest. What about the proposal to create a top
level heirachy called uk.philosophy?
At once there would be a logical place for atheism in uk.philosophy.atheists,
this would be the sort term solution.
The longer term, and more important (in my opinion) result would be that
there would be a proper place for the discussion of philosophy. Since the UK
is one of the top countries on the world for philosophers - the British
school of philosophy still leads analytical philosophy - it is silly, and a
great gap, that our newsgroups do not have a philosophy heirachy. I would see
at least the following groups possible:
uk.philosophy.atheist - as discussed above
uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
uk.philosophy.moral - moral philosophy
uk.philosophy.ethics - ethics
uk.philosophy.science - the philosophy of science
uk.philosophy.aesthetics - art etc
uk.philosophy.history - this history of philosophy
uk.philosophy.maths - the philosophy of mathematics
uk.philosophy.biology - this philosophy of biology
uk.philosophy.metaphysics - if anybody wants to talk about this
uk.philosophy.language - Quine, Chomskey etc.etc.
uk.philosophy.problems - a moderated group for the discussion of particular
philosophical problems
uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they believe
is important for their life
I would love it of somebody would propose this. If there is general support
and nobody wishes to propose it, I would be happy to.
The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
Any ideas?
I will post this same message under the heading: a proposal for a uk heirachy
uk.philosophy.*. Many people will not read it under the group rejection title
Gwen
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Drew
aren't any real ones at the mo (sci.logic possibly excepted), unless
I've missed them.
>The longer term, and more important (in my opinion) result would be that
>there would be a proper place for the discussion of philosophy. Since the UK
>is one of the top countries on the world for philosophers - the British
>school of philosophy still leads analytical philosophy - it is silly, and a
I don't see that it matters where they're put, as I said there aren't
any real philosphy groups anyway. But at least putting them in the
uk.* heirarchy means they won't be flooded out by Phil 101 students
trying to get us lot to do their homework. But then again they might
get no traffic.
>. I would see
>at least the following groups possible:
>
>uk.philosophy.atheist - as discussed above
I know why you're saying this, but really it ought to be
uk.phil.religion or religion.atheist. Or perhaps uk.phil.theology. i
just feel that restriction all the discussion to atheism might be a
bit restricting and not exactly consonant with philosophical practice.
>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
Well, not sure about this one. What would be discussed in it? Russell
- subjects would fit better in uk.phil.maths, uk.phil.language or
uk.phil.ethics. Wittgenstein? Better in uk.phil.lang or
uk.phil.maths. Who's that leave us? Duns Scotus?
>uk.philosophy.moral - moral philosophy
>uk.philosophy.ethics - ethics
Just out of interest, what's the difference between these two? Stick
them together.
>uk.philosophy.science - the philosophy of science
>uk.philosophy.aesthetics - art etc
>uk.philosophy.history - this history of philosophy
Ok.
>uk.philosophy.maths - the philosophy of mathematics
I'd rename this uk.phil.logic. Then if you feel the need you could
have uk.phil.logic.maths (see below)
>uk.philosophy.biology - this philosophy of biology
Why biology? Why not chemistry, physics, and psychology groups as
well? I think you might be creating so many sub groups that there
will no traffic in any of them. Subsume this into uk.phil.science.
>uk.philosophy.metaphysics - if anybody wants to talk about this
Well, they could talk about if they're talking about anything....
>uk.philosophy.language - Quine, Chomskey etc.etc.
Possibly another one to put under logic? Then again, maybe not. The
subjects overlap, but not completely. I mean, I'd put Quine under
logic, but maybe not Chomsky.
>uk.philosophy.problems - a moderated group for the discussion of particular
> philosophical problems
>uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they believe
> is important for their life
My general feeling is that this is a good idea, but that you are
splitting definitions too finely and creating too many groups, which
if nothing else will stifle discussion. My suggestion is e.g.
almagamate uk.phil.maths + language into a general uk.phil.logic,
which can also be used to discuss formal logic, types of logic,
induction, etc. Then, if there's too much traffic, create
uk.phil.logic.maths etc. But if this is in the uk.* heirarchy, I
doubt you'll get too much traffic. If it is in the soc.* heirarchy,
then you might well need to.
>I would love it of somebody would propose this. If there is general support
>and nobody wishes to propose it, I would be happy to.
I haven't really the time, but go for it!
>The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
>naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
>culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
talk.* heirarchy? Or is that asking for trouble?
Anyway, see what you think.
Cheers,
Drew
Blade Runner
>My general feeling is that this is a good idea, but that you are
>splitting definitions too finely and creating too many groups, which
>if nothing else will stifle discussion.
I think the proponent gave these as examples of groups that /could/ be
formed not /would/ to make the case for a top level hierarchy.
It is certainly a broad subject.
I think if I'd been a committee member I'd have stopped digging at
uk.people.atheist(s) <g>
--
Geoff (Blade Runner)
Newsgroups: alt.uk.virgin-net.oldbies, uk.local.north-staffs
North Staffs Oatcakes Homepage http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
You may have to put the cat out to reply via e-mail
Steve Lewin
< snip 'philosopy as a top level group' >
>
>I would love it of somebody would propose this. If there is general support
>and nobody wishes to propose it, I would be happy to.
>
You can try it but I would think it unlikely to succeed. See below.
>The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
>naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
>culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
>
You mean uk.culture.philosopy ? If you want a group in soc.* you're in
the wrong place. I guess you took no part in the debates about the
culture hierarchy or you you would be aware that it is a very wide
ranging hierarchy which could easily encompass philosophy. In fact I'm
not at all sure why you don't think that philosophy is a cultural
activity anyway.
But anyway I would support uk.culture.philosophy.* I would not support
it as a top level group. The interests of, I would guess, a very small
minority of uk.* users do not require a new hierarchy IMO.
Steve
Andy Mabbett
<aj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
I missed that one - please don't mix UK and British issues like that.
You would need uk.[culture.]philospohy.uk, which is a tautology, and
reduces to uk.[culture.]philiosohpy.misc or some such.
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham Assist
Birmingham City Council - http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
Phone: (+) 44 121 303 3640 - Fax: (+) 44 121 212 1930
Post: 3rd Floor, Central Library, Birmingham B3 3HQ
gwen_...@cybergal.com
sle...@iclretail.icl.com (Steve Lewin) wrote:
>
> You mean uk.culture.philosopy ? If you want a group in soc.* you're in
> the wrong place. I guess you took no part in the debates about the
> culture hierarchy or you you would be aware that it is a very wide
> ranging hierarchy which could easily encompass philosophy. In fact I'm
> not at all sure why you don't think that philosophy is a cultural
> activity anyway.
>
mathematics and science and the study of thought. It could consider
culture, in that you could have a philosophy of culture, but this would
probably just be a small part of aesthetics, which is a branch of
philosophy.
The uk.culture.* heirachy has only had 15 posts in the last few weeks
according to dejanews.
>
> But anyway I would support uk.culture.philosophy.* I would not support
> it as a top level group. The interests of, I would guess, a very small
> minority of uk.* users do not require a new hierarchy IMO.
>
>
I doubt that the philosophy heirachy would be as much as a minority interest
as to only have fifteen posts in a month or so!
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Blade Runner
<amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[..]philospohy [..]philiosohpy
Well, tried to write anyway... :o)
Andy Mabbett
writes
>The uk.culture.* heirachy has only had 15 posts in the last few weeks
>according to dejanews.
So?
>I doubt that the philosophy heirachy would be as much as a minority interest
>as to only have fifteen posts in a month or so!
If people wish to discuss philosophy as it applies to the UK, they will
do so in uk.people.philosopers, uk.culture.* or wherever, equally well.
The low level of posts to uk.culture.* is a refection of the fact that
it is a new hierarchy with, at present, only two groups.
C Speed
>The uk.culture.* heirachy has only had 15 posts in the last few weeks
>according to dejanews.
>>
>> But anyway I would support uk.culture.philosophy.* I would not support
>> it as a top level group. The interests of, I would guess, a very small
>> minority of uk.* users do not require a new hierarchy IMO.
>>
>I doubt that the philosophy heirachy would be as much as a minority interest
>as to only have fifteen posts in a month or so!
The uk.culture.* sub-hierarchy is brand spanking new and has only a couple of
groups under it at the present. That doesn't make it a "minority interest".
For a long time there were not many groups or postings under uk.sport.* -
would you claim therefore that sport is a minority interest?
The uk.culture.* sub-hierarchy has the potential to contain many many
different groups and lower hierarchies, covering a range of interests that
could each one sustain an active group or sub-hierarchy. That, and not the
number of postings currently there, is why it was a) permissible as a
second-level hierarchy and b) voted into existence.
What you need to demonstrate to show a need for uk.philosophy.* is a) that it
is an issue that either affects a very large number of people or covers a
very broad area of sub-topics and b) why it shouldn't go under uk.culture.*.
Having dipped into the discussion concerning the creation of uk.culture, I
was under the vague impression that philosophy was intended to be a part of
that sub-hierarchy. Probably someone who was more involved than me could
give a better precis of the intentions and reasonings there.
Claire
--
******************************************************************************
* Claire Speed * PGP KeyID: 1024/72329329 http://www.mcc.ac.uk/Claire/ *
* C.S...@mcc.ac.uk * A9 C4 1B 74 67 CC 59 2D F2 2F 06 9F 91 6A B1 69 *
******************************************************************************
Steve Lewin
>In article <369f1c02....@news.cafevik.icl.co.uk>,
> sle...@iclretail.icl.com (Steve Lewin) wrote:
>>
>> You mean uk.culture.philosopy ? If you want a group in soc.* you're in
>> the wrong place. I guess you took no part in the debates about the
>> culture hierarchy or you you would be aware that it is a very wide
>> ranging hierarchy which could easily encompass philosophy. In fact I'm
>> not at all sure why you don't think that philosophy is a cultural
>> activity anyway.
>>
>Philosophy is an intellectual discipline, it is the foundation behind
>mathematics and science and the study of thought. It could consider
>culture, in that you could have a philosophy of culture, but this would
>probably just be a small part of aesthetics, which is a branch of
>philosophy.
>
The scope of the subject may be interesting but it is also completely
irrelevant. The uk.* hierarchy is not intended to form any definitive
taxonomy.We are merely to find a place to put minority interest
newsgroups. Philosophy may be a large subject but there few people
doing it.
>The uk.culture.* heirachy has only had 15 posts in the last few weeks
>according to dejanews.
Then you'll have plenty of space to move in and make of it whatever
you like.
It's odd but this feels like the same argument we keeping having over
football, museums and pretty well everything else. Everyone believes
that their particular interest is far too large and important to be in
any existing hierarchy.
>> But anyway I would support uk.culture.philosophy.* I would not support
>> it as a top level group. The interests of, I would guess, a very small
>> minority of uk.* users do not require a new hierarchy IMO.
>>
>I doubt that the philosophy heirachy would be as much as a minority interest
>as to only have fifteen posts in a month or so!
>
You may be correct but as yet I have only seen one person expressing
any real interest in the subject. If you can find an existing
hierarchy which you prefer to uk.culture then I'll be happy to
consider it but IMO uk.philosophy is a non-starter. But it's only my
opinion.
Steve
gwen_...@cybergal.com
per...@mcc.ac.uk (C Speed) wrote:
>
> What you need to demonstrate to show a need for uk.philosophy.* is a) that it
> is an issue that either affects a very large number of people or covers a
> very broad area of sub-topics and b) why it shouldn't go under uk.culture.*.
>
for it to be there! As I have said before, philosophy is not culture, nor
is it just about culture. It would be a silly place to put it.
I have no objection to the culture heirachy - uk.culture.opera,
uk.culture.theatre, uk.culture.poetry, uk.culture.class-system would all
make a lot of sense there.
>
> Having dipped into the discussion concerning the creation of uk.culture, I
> was under the vague impression that philosophy was intended to be a part of
> that sub-hierarchy. Probably someone who was more involved than me could
> give a better precis of the intentions and reasonings there.
>
I can't see it making any sense at all! If anything, I could see a group
called uk.philosophy.culture where the philosophy of culture was discussed,
but even then it would fit much better in uk.philosophy.aesthetics.culture,
as culture is just a sub-topic of aesthetics.
Tim Willets
So do I - so long as the interest is sufficient to generate traffic.
>>uk.philosophy.atheist - as discussed above
>
>I know why you're saying this, but really it ought to be
>uk.phil.religion or religion.atheist.
Nope. I'm an atheist. I.e. I do not hold religious beliefs based upon
faith. To put an atheism group in *.religion.* is to make a major
category error. Mind you. we've already had that debate.
> Or perhaps uk.phil.theology.
Hm. uk.phil.theology.atheism? Surely not. Atheism may get discussed as
part of the philosophy of religion, but personally I'd regard it as even
less a branch of theology than it is a religion. The nearest parallel I
can think of would be to class creationism under science.
> i
>just feel that restriction all the discussion to atheism might be a
>bit restricting and not exactly consonant with philosophical practice.
Philosophy does tend to resist being easily chopped up into neat little
packages.
>
>>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
>
>Well, not sure about this one. What would be discussed in it?
The overall history and thought of what may loosely be called the
British school of philosophy (essentially British empiricism I suppose)
when regarded as an overall way of looking at the world perhaps.
> Russell
>- subjects would fit better in uk.phil.maths, uk.phil.language or
>uk.phil.ethics. Wittgenstein? Better in uk.phil.lang or
>uk.phil.maths. Who's that leave us? Duns Scotus?
Ayer would presumably go into *.lang and *.logic, as perhaps would Ryle.
>
>>uk.philosophy.moral - moral philosophy
>>uk.philosophy.ethics - ethics
>
>Just out of interest, what's the difference between these two? Stick
>them together.
Agreed.
>>uk.philosophy.maths - the philosophy of mathematics
>
>I'd rename this uk.phil.logic. Then if you feel the need you could
>have uk.phil.logic.maths (see below)
Makes sense.
>>uk.philosophy.biology - this philosophy of biology
>
>Subsume this into uk.phil.science.
Agreed.
>
>>uk.philosophy.metaphysics - if anybody wants to talk about this
>
>Well, they could talk about if they're talking about anything....
A *.metaphysics group would seem to indicate a need for a *.materialist
(or *.empiricist) group, plus somewhere else to debate which group
particular topics belong in :)
>
>>uk.philosophy.language - Quine, Chomskey etc.etc.
>
>Possibly another one to put under logic?
See below.
>
>>uk.philosophy.problems - a moderated group for the discussion of particular
>> philosophical problems
Why moderated? And what would be discussed there that couldn't be
discussed elsewhere?
>>uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they believe
>> is important for their life
I don't see a need for such a group. There are enough places to wibble
already.
>
>My general feeling is that this is a good idea, but that you are
>splitting definitions too finely and creating too many groups, which
>if nothing else will stifle discussion.
Agreed.
I understand the point about discussion of philosophy being out of place
under uk.culture.* (though I'm not sure I'd make a matter of extreme
principle out of it, even if it does make as much sense to me as
uk.culture.comp.lang.c++ would). Rather than form a large number of
groups from the start I'd suggest it may be more appropriate to form a
smaller number (maybe a uk.*.philosophy or, better, uk.philosophy.misc
and a group under that one for discussion of atheism to meet an
immediate demand).
> My suggestion is e.g.
>almagamate uk.phil.maths + language into a general uk.phil.logic,
The philosophy of language is not entirely congruent with mathematics or
logic (as you say, they overlap but not entirely), and it may not be
obvious that language is to be discussed in a "logic" group. Maybe a
different name would clarify things (though I can't think of one myself
at the moment).
>
>>I would love it of somebody would propose this. If there is general support
>>and nobody wishes to propose it, I would be happy to.
>
>I haven't really the time, but go for it!
Sounds like it may well be a good idea.
>
>>The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
>>naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
>>culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
I'd prefer to see uk.philosophy.* (or uk.phil.* to keep group names to a
sensible length).
--
Tim Willets
James Coupe
<t...@willets.demon.co.uk> writes
>> Or perhaps uk.phil.theology.
>
>Hm. uk.phil.theology.atheism?
Would theology hold up to being classed in uk.sci.*?
I note that we have sci.philosophy.tech in the newsgroup line now, so I
think the idea has some merit, perhaps.
--
James Coupe If you read a uk.* newsgroup, read uk.net.news.announce
Irregular Verbs #5: I brief, You leak, They are being prosecuted under
Section 4 of the Official Secrets Act.
Jezza
<77o7c5$rk0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <77nsb6$r1s$1...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
> per...@mcc.ac.uk (C Speed) wrote:
>>
>> What you need to demonstrate to show a need for uk.philosophy.* is a)
that it
>> is an issue that either affects a very large number of people or covers
a
>> very broad area of sub-topics and b) why it shouldn't go under
uk.culture.*.
>>
>The reason that it shouldn't fit into uk.culture, is that it makes no
sense
>for it to be there! As I have said before, philosophy is not culture, nor
>is it just about culture. It would be a silly place to put it.
>
>uk.culture.theatre, uk.culture.poetry, uk.culture.class-system would all
>make a lot of sense there.
Once again the amateur taxonomists and philosophically (and culturally)
illiterates
on the committee and unnc have demonstrated their lack of knowledge.
I think that there should be a uk.philosophy.* hierarchy as I am convinced
by Gwen's
argument.
Why don't you try for an RFD for such a hierarchy. I for one will support
you, Gwen
--
Jezza, Hotwells, Bristol, UK
http://www.hotwells.freeserve.co.uk/
Get off the sofa, Go and see a live show.
Blade Runner
<je...@hotwells.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I think that there should be a uk.philosophy.* hierarchy as I am convinced
>by Gwen's
>argument.
I'm tempted to agree but putting the question to SWMBO (who is a
mature student and knows about such stuff) philosophy is always set
within a cultural context (I dunno, swot she said)
Actually I think you can have a philosophy of anything, culture,
politics, religion - just as you can have a culture of anything I
suppose.
Uh-oh. This is getting complicated.
<thinks>
<thinks some more>
If it's going in uk.* it's clearly philosophy with relevance to the
uk. (I'm getting there now.) Philosophy with relevance to the UK is
based on the /culture/ of the UK so it fits under culture (phew) :o)
Besides, generally speaking it pays to agree with SWMBO
gwen_...@cybergal.com
"Jezza" <je...@spamtrap.hotwells.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The reason that it shouldn't fit into uk.culture, is that it makes no
> sense
> >for it to be there! As I have said before, philosophy is not culture, nor
> >is it just about culture. It would be a silly place to put it.
> >
> >I have no objection to the culture hierarchy - uk.culture.opera,
> >uk.culture.theatre, uk.culture.poetry, uk.culture.class-system would all
> >make a lot of sense there.
>
> Once again the amateur taxonomists and philosophically (and culturally)
> illiterates
> on the committee and unnc have demonstrated their lack of knowledge.
>
> by Gwen's
> argument.
>
> you, Gwen
>
>
Thank you for your support. It might make sense to make a joint proposal for
such a group. I will contact you if it does. The committee does reject
proposals for RFD's simply on the basis that they don't want more top level
heirachies, so it is probably worth while continuing this discussion to get
more support before making another application.
I would be interested to understand why the committee is quite so rigid on
the topic of new top level heirachies, but, apart from mentioning it here, I
am not sure how one finds this out.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
blac...@geocities.com (Blade Runner) wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:48:31 -0000, "Jezza"
> <je...@hotwells.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >by Gwen's
> >argument.
>
> mature student and knows about such stuff) philosophy is always set
> within a cultural context (I dunno, swot she said)
>
This would be the left-wing deconstructionist european view of the matter.
Analytical philosophy is a different matter. The philosophy of mathematics,
and logic are culture free, to name but two.
>
> Actually I think you can have a philosophy of anything, culture,
> politics, religion - just as you can have a culture of anything I
> suppose.
>
You can't have a culture of logic. You can, as you say, have a philosophy of
pretty well anything - though, as I have said before, the philosophy of
culture is a subset of aesthetics.
>
> If it's going in uk.* it's clearly philosophy with relevance to the
> uk. (I'm getting there now.) Philosophy with relevance to the UK is
> based on the /culture/ of the UK so it fits under culture (phew) :o)
>
The British school of philosophy is deals with many non-cultural matters, like
logic and mathematics, so it is not based on culture. Not to mention the rest.
Drew
>
>So do I - so long as the interest is sufficient to generate traffic.
Naturally - that's why I agree with you that too many groups shouldn't
be created to start with, only if found necessary later on.
>>>uk.philosophy.atheist - as discussed above
>
>Nope. I'm an atheist. I.e. I do not hold religious beliefs based upon
>faith. To put an atheism group in *.religion.* is to make a major
>category error. Mind you. we've already had that debate.
Category error, yes. But we're creating newsgroups, not writing
books. It may be a category error to put philosphy under culture, but
does it really matter as long as the groups are created?
>Hm. uk.phil.theology.atheism? Surely not. Atheism may get discussed as
uk.phil.theo.anti? :-)
>part of the philosophy of religion, but personally I'd regard it as even
>less a branch of theology than it is a religion. The nearest parallel I
>can think of would be to class creationism under science.
I see your point. Just seems to me that discussion of atheism will
require discussion of religion, just as discussion of creationism will
require a discussion of evolution at some point.
But anyway, I know you've gone through this already (though I missed
that discussion), but my main problem is that it just seems to me
strange to have a group dedicated to atheism, but no group to discuss
philosophy of religion.
>Philosophy does tend to resist being easily chopped up into neat little
>packages.
>
All the more reason to make fewer broader groups.
>>>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
>> Russell
>>- subjects would fit better in uk.phil.maths, uk.phil.language or
>>uk.phil.ethics. Wittgenstein? Better in uk.phil.lang or
>>uk.phil.maths. Who's that leave us? Duns Scotus?
>
>Ayer would presumably go into *.lang and *.logic, as perhaps would Ryle.
My point really is that this group is superfluous. If you want to
discuss Russell's Theory of Descriptions, go to phil.lang. If you
want to discuss his Principia Mathematica, go to phil.logic/maths.
Ayer - phil.lang, phil.logic, phil.metaphysics depending on what
you're talking about. Ditto Hume, Mill, Locke, etc.
>>>uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they believe
>>> is important for their life
>
>I don't see a need for such a group. There are enough places to wibble
>already.
Yeah, but it might keep them out of the other groups...:-)
>I understand the point about discussion of philosophy being out of place
>under uk.culture.* (though I'm not sure I'd make a matter of extreme
>principle out of it, even if it does make as much sense to me as
>uk.culture.comp.lang.c++ would). Rather than form a large number of
>groups from the start I'd suggest it may be more appropriate to form a
>smaller number (maybe a uk.*.philosophy or, better, uk.philosophy.misc
>and a group under that one for discussion of atheism to meet an
>immediate demand).
Agreed.
>The philosophy of language is not entirely congruent with mathematics or
>logic (as you say, they overlap but not entirely), and it may not be
>obvious that language is to be discussed in a "logic" group. Maybe a
>different name would clarify things (though I can't think of one myself
>at the moment).
Well, uk.phil.logic+lang. Or something.
>>>The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
>I'd prefer to see uk.philosophy.* (or uk.phil.* to keep group names to a
>sensible length).
Agreed, but to be honest, as long as "philosophy" is in the title
somewhere, they could shove it under uk.comp.* for all it really
matters.
Drew
gwen_...@cybergal.com
> - subjects would fit better in uk.phil.maths, uk.phil.language or
> uk.phil.ethics. Wittgenstein? Better in uk.phil.lang or
> uk.phil.maths. Who's that leave us? Duns Scotus?
>
I don't see that the discussion only goes where it is 'better'. If there were
a number of people discussing various topics in uk.philosophy.british - maybe
the history of the school, or its particular problems, then, if a separate
thread on Wittgenstein started, it would fit there.
>
> >uk.philosophy.moral - moral philosophy
> >uk.philosophy.ethics - ethics
>
> Just out of interest, what's the difference between these two? Stick
> them together.
>
Ethics is more about rules. I would have no problem putting them both under
ethics. Moral philosophy is more about the question of right and wrong and the
bases for their existing.
>
> >uk.philosophy.science - the philosophy of science
> >uk.philosophy.aesthetics - art etc
> >uk.philosophy.history - this history of philosophy
>
> Ok.
>
> >uk.philosophy.maths - the philosophy of mathematics
>
> I'd rename this uk.phil.logic. Then if you feel the need you could
> have uk.phil.logic.maths (see below)
>
I worry about the abbreviation 'phil'. It would be fine for naming a seminar
phil101, but the ambiguity would be with philately or philology. Alternatively
it could be taken to mean love, which could lead to all sorts of difficulties.
>
> >uk.philosophy.biology - this philosophy of biology
>
> Why biology? Why not chemistry, physics, and psychology groups as
> well? I think you might be creating so many sub groups that there
> will no traffic in any of them. Subsume this into uk.phil.science.
>
I agree. I mention biology as there are interesting questions in biology at
the moment that are not really to do with the philosophy of science - such as
the emergence of conciousness and the nature of life.
>
> >uk.philosophy.language - Quine, Chomskey etc.etc.
>
> Possibly another one to put under logic? Then again, maybe not. The
> subjects overlap, but not completely. I mean, I'd put Quine under
> logic, but maybe not Chomsky.
>
I could see a lot of interesting questions discussed here - logic is a
separate discipline. Pinker's recent book 'The Language Instinct' with its
implications for the nature of the mind, would be a good topic - particularly
with reference to the teaching of English in the UK.
>
> >uk.philosophy.problems - a moderated group for the discussion of particular
> > philosophical problems
> >uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they
believe
> > is important for their life
>
> My general feeling is that this is a good idea, but that you are
> splitting definitions too finely and creating too many groups, which
> if nothing else will stifle discussion. My suggestion is e.g.
> almagamate uk.phil.maths + language into a general uk.phil.logic,
> which can also be used to discuss formal logic, types of logic,
> induction, etc. Then, if there's too much traffic, create
> uk.phil.logic.maths etc. But if this is in the uk.* heirarchy, I
> doubt you'll get too much traffic. If it is in the soc.* heirarchy,
> then you might well need to.
>
I agree. I mention these groups to show what heirachy could, in principle,
develop, I would suggest just two or three major groups to begin with.
>
>
> >The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
> >naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
> >culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
>
> talk.* heirarchy? Or is that asking for trouble?
>
I find the talk.* heirachy too lose for the subject.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
Tim Willets <t...@willets.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <369f0cdb...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>, Drew
> <aj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>
> So do I - so long as the interest is sufficient to generate traffic.
>
>
> >>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
> >
> >Well, not sure about this one. What would be discussed in it?
>
> British school of philosophy (essentially British empiricism I suppose)
> when regarded as an overall way of looking at the world perhaps.
>
Absolutely! I think that it could also be a place for mentioning events,
lectures or conferences that would be of interest. Maybe it would be a good
place for people to call for papers. It could be an amusing place to discuss
the failings of European 'philosophy' too!
>
> > Russell
> >- subjects would fit better in uk.phil.maths, uk.phil.language or
> >uk.phil.ethics. Wittgenstein? Better in uk.phil.lang or
> >uk.phil.maths. Who's that leave us? Duns Scotus?
>
> Ayer would presumably go into *.lang and *.logic, as perhaps would Ryle.
>
Maybe we would need *.truth too...
>
> >
> >>uk.philosophy.metaphysics - if anybody wants to talk about this
> >
> >Well, they could talk about if they're talking about anything....
>
> A *.metaphysics group would seem to indicate a need for a *.materialist
> (or *.empiricist) group, plus somewhere else to debate which group
> particular topics belong in :)
>
Oh, dear!
>
>
> >
> >>uk.philosophy.problems - a moderated group for the discussion of particular
> >> philosophical problems
>
> Why moderated? And what would be discussed there that couldn't be
> discussed elsewhere?
>
I just thought I would mention the possibility of moderation. It would keep
away people who wanted to say, my problem with philsophy is..
>
> >>uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they
believe
> >> is important for their life
>
> I don't see a need for such a group. There are enough places to wibble
> already.
>
There certainly are! Some people find philosophy to be an unavoidably tempting
subject to wibble about - this would keep them contained.
>
>
> I understand the point about discussion of philosophy being out of place
> under uk.culture.* (though I'm not sure I'd make a matter of extreme
> principle out of it, even if it does make as much sense to me as
> uk.culture.comp.lang.c++ would). Rather than form a large number of
> groups from the start I'd suggest it may be more appropriate to form a
> smaller number (maybe a uk.*.philosophy or, better, uk.philosophy.misc
> and a group under that one for discussion of atheism to meet an
> immediate demand).
>
This is a good idea. I would prefer uk.philosophy.general myself, but this
is mere style.
>
> > My suggestion is e.g.
> >almagamate uk.phil.maths + language into a general uk.phil.logic,
>
> The philosophy of language is not entirely congruent with mathematics or
> logic (as you say, they overlap but not entirely), and it may not be
> obvious that language is to be discussed in a "logic" group. Maybe a
> different name would clarify things (though I can't think of one myself
> at the moment).
>
What about uk.philosophy.language?
>
> >
> >>I would love it of somebody would propose this. If there is general support
> >>and nobody wishes to propose it, I would be happy to.
> >
> >I haven't really the time, but go for it!
>
> Sounds like it may well be a good idea.
>
Delighted to hear it! Would you be interested in being a joint proposer? This
doesn't involve any work.
>
> >
> >>The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
> >>naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
> >>culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
>
> I'd prefer to see uk.philosophy.* (or uk.phil.* to keep group names to a
> sensible length).
>
uk.philos.* would be a less ambiguous abbreviation in my mind.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <369f0cdb...@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>, Drew
> <aj...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>
> You would need uk.[culture.]philospohy.uk, which is a tautology, and
> reduces to uk.[culture.]philiosohpy.misc or some such.
>
British Philosophy is a recognised name of a particular school of philosophy.
It emerged in the UK.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
blac...@geocities.com (Blade Runner) wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:57:58 GMT, aj...@cam.ac.uk (Drew) wrote:
>
> >splitting definitions too finely and creating too many groups, which
> >if nothing else will stifle discussion.
>
> formed not /would/ to make the case for a top level hierarchy.
>
>
> It is certainly a broad subject.
>
>
> I think if I'd been a committee member I'd have stopped digging at
> uk.people.atheist(s) <g>
>
If it leads to a better taxonomy with a new and lively uk.philosophy.*
heirachy. Filled at first with just uk.philosophy.atheism,
uk.philosophy.general and, say, uk.philosophy.problems then the backwards and
forwards discussion will have been worth while. The committee will have
something to be proud of.
Blade Runner
>> I'm tempted to agree but putting the question to SWMBO (who is a
>> mature student and knows about such stuff) philosophy is always set
>> within a cultural context (I dunno, swot she said)
>>
>
>This would be the left-wing deconstructionist european view of the matter.
>Analytical philosophy is a different matter. The philosophy of mathematics,
>and logic are culture free, to name but two.
SWMBO grins.
I think you'll have a bit of a job on your hands to get a new top
level now that uk.culture actually exists (and that has nothing to do
with the strength of your argument by the way - newsgroup placing is
not always 100% logical)
FWIW I was against the uk.culture.* hierarchy being formed because I
thought it's remit was too broad. I preferred the more focussed
uk.heritage but could not get sufficient support. Had that proposal
been taken up your case would have been stronger.
Given the general dissatisfaction with 'all-encompassing' hierarchies
I feel somewhat vindicated.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
blac...@geocities.com (Blade Runner) wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:49:30 GMT, gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> I think you'll have a bit of a job on your hands to get a new top
> level now that uk.culture actually exists (and that has nothing to do
> with the strength of your argument by the way - newsgroup placing is
> not always 100% logical)
>
get rid of historical anomalies. If it simply becomes an historical anomaly
itself, this is hardly progress!
>
> FWIW I was against the uk.culture.* hierarchy being formed because I
> thought it's remit was too broad. I preferred the more focussed
> uk.heritage but could not get sufficient support. Had that proposal
> been taken up your case would have been stronger.
>
> Given the general dissatisfaction with 'all-encompassing' hierarchies
> I feel somewhat vindicated.
>
You are. It is as foolish as having very, very specific ones, like
uk.knitting.
I have often wondered, through life, why so many people wish to go for
pendulum swings. If something isn't working, go for the opposite - when that
is shown to be just as bad, swing back to the previous case. What on earth is
wrong with a resonable middle ground??
Lyn David Thomas
writes:
>
> If it leads to a better taxonomy with a new and lively uk.philosophy.*
> heirachy. Filled at first with just uk.philosophy.atheism,
> uk.philosophy.general and, say, uk.philosophy.problems then the backwards
> and forwards discussion will have been worth while. The committee will
> have something to be proud of.
I have some sympathy with a uk.philosophy.* hierarchy, and the positioning
of an atheism group in it, though I understand the committee's reluctance
to sanction another top level hierarchy (they are here under the
instructions of the ISPs who explicitly do not want more without
_exceptionally_ good reasons.
Of course we could rmgroup all the uk.religion.* groups and put them
under uk.philosophy.religion.* - if we were designing things from
the start that is how I'd do it.
--
__
*Lyn David Thomas* \/
Web pages start at
http://www.stuffing.demon.co.uk/lyn
gwen_...@cybergal.com
l...@stuffing.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article: <77pvuu$9t3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gwen_...@cybergal.com
> writes:
> >
> > If it leads to a better taxonomy with a new and lively uk.philosophy.*
> > heirachy. Filled at first with just uk.philosophy.atheism,
> > uk.philosophy.general and, say, uk.philosophy.problems then the backwards
> > and forwards discussion will have been worth while. The committee will
> > have something to be proud of.
>
> I have some sympathy with a uk.philosophy.* hierarchy, and the positioning
> of an atheism group in it, though I understand the committee's reluctance
> to sanction another top level hierarchy (they are here under the
> instructions of the ISPs who explicitly do not want more without
> _exceptionally_ good reasons.
>
I think that, given the importance of philosophy, there are very, very good
reasons! I have had e-mail suggesting that it could be that the reason that
this has not been in place before is that usenet people have tended to be
computer science, engineering or scientific types who are not familiar with
the humanities, and may not be aware of the importance of philosophy to
science, engineering and computer science.
>
> Of course we could rmgroup all the uk.religion.* groups and put them
> under uk.philosophy.religion.* - if we were designing things from
> the start that is how I'd do it.
>
I see your point. I wouldn't go for this myself as I see religion as the
antithesis of philosophy. If it encouraged members of the religious groups to
consider philosophy, I would be happy for it to be done in the interests of
pedagogy and sanity.
Drew
>> >uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
>I don't see that the discussion only goes where it is 'better'. If there were
>a number of people discussing various topics in uk.philosophy.british - maybe
>the history of the school, or its particular problems, then, if a separate
>thread on Wittgenstein started, it would fit there.
Still not sure. Surely a catch-all history group would serve better.
In any case, as I see it, the big divisions in philosophical schools
is the anglo-american analtytic tradition, the continental tradition
and eastern philosophy.
>I worry about the abbreviation 'phil'. It would be fine for naming a seminar
>phil101, but the ambiguity would be with philately or philology. Alternatively
>it could be taken to mean love, which could lead to all sorts of difficulties.
I wasn't actually proposing this - just couldn't be bothered to type
out the entire word every time.
>> >uk.philosophy.biology - this philosophy of biology
>I agree. I mention biology as there are interesting questions in biology at
>the moment that are not really to do with the philosophy of science - such as
>the emergence of conciousness and the nature of life.
That's a point - but surely that's more philosophy of mind than
philosophy of biology, which _is_ a subcategory of the philosophy of
science.
>I agree. I mention these groups to show what heirachy could, in principle,
>develop, I would suggest just two or three major groups to begin with.
Yup.
>> >The suggestion was for a group called soc.culture.philosophy to fit into the
>> >naming guidelines. This does not make sense to me as philosophy is not a
>> >culture, nor is philosophy just about culture.
Agreed, but on pragmatic grounds, does it matter? As long as they
have philosophy in the title somewhere, people will know what they're
about and be able to find them by doing a quick search. ANd I can
hardly see people refusing to post to them because they're under
uk.culture or whatever!
Drew
andy roberts
>Agreed, but on pragmatic grounds, does it matter? As long as they
>have philosophy in the title somewhere, people will know what they're
>about and be able to find them by doing a quick search. ANd I can
>hardly see people refusing to post to them because they're under
>uk.culture or whatever!
I'm sure this is what most people do. So all these discussions about
hierarchy placement are probably a complete waste of time - we might just as
well have uk.groups.a-to-m.* and uk.groups.n-to-z.*
--
Andy R.
Dave
During a discussion that started with atheism and expanded to encompass
the creation of a uk.philosophy.* hierarchy.....
>>>I agree that there is a need for more philosphy groups
>>
>>So do I - so long as the interest is sufficient to generate traffic.
>
>Naturally - that's why I agree with you that too many groups shouldn't
>be created to start with, only if found necessary later on.
>
>>>>uk.philosophy.atheist - as discussed above
>>
>>Nope. I'm an atheist. I.e. I do not hold religious beliefs based upon
>>faith. To put an atheism group in *.religion.* is to make a major
>>category error. Mind you. we've already had that debate.
>
>Category error, yes. But we're creating newsgroups, not writing
>books. It may be a category error to put philosphy under culture, but
>does it really matter as long as the groups are created?
Although I, too, would prefer to see a logically structured, easily
understood, hierarchy there comes a point where we approach pedantry.
Is there really a need to place philosophy (the persuit of wisdom and
knowledge) at the top level when a little flexibility could see it under
uk.sci ?
>>Hm. uk.phil.theology.atheism? Surely not. Atheism may get discussed as
>
>uk.phil.theo.anti? :-)
Or even uk.religion.none with the possibility of uk.religion.agnostic to
follow. 8-)
>>part of the philosophy of religion, but personally I'd regard it as even
>>less a branch of theology than it is a religion. The nearest parallel I
>>can think of would be to class creationism under science.
>
>I see your point. Just seems to me that discussion of atheism will
>require discussion of religion, just as discussion of creationism will
>require a discussion of evolution at some point.
If you wish to argue that creationism is a valid evolutionary theory,
then that is exactly where it should be (uk.sci.biology.creationism).
>But anyway, I know you've gone through this already (though I missed
>that discussion), but my main problem is that it just seems to me
>strange to have a group dedicated to atheism, but no group to discuss
>philosophy of religion.
*snip*
>Agreed, but to be honest, as long as "philosophy" is in the title
>somewhere, they could shove it under uk.comp.* for all it really
>matters.
Now that *is* a little extreme. I would also say that uk.culture is not
quite right. Under science seems (IMHO) the best fit.
--
Da...@community-spirit.demon.company.uk
To receive important announcements concerning the uk.* news heirarchy,
you should subscribe to the low-volume newsgroup uk.net.news.announce .
Discussions about the matters raised can be found in uk.net.news.config
Charles Lindsey
>The longer term, and more important (in my opinion) result would be that
>there would be a proper place for the discussion of philosophy. Since the UK
>is one of the top countries on the world for philosophers - the British
>school of philosophy still leads analytical philosophy - it is silly, and a
>great gap, that our newsgroups do not have a philosophy heirachy. I would see
>at least the following groups possible:
>uk.philosophy.atheist - as discussed above
>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
>uk.philosophy.moral - moral philosophy
>uk.philosophy.ethics - ethics
>uk.philosophy.science - the philosophy of science
>uk.philosophy.aesthetics - art etc
>uk.philosophy.history - this history of philosophy
>uk.philosophy.maths - the philosophy of mathematics
>uk.philosophy.biology - this philosophy of biology
>uk.philosophy.metaphysics - if anybody wants to talk about this
>uk.philosophy.language - Quine, Chomskey etc.etc.
>uk.philosophy.problems - a moderated group for the discussion of particular
> philosophical problems
>uk.philosophy.life - for people who want to witter about what they believe
> is important for their life
What is missing in this discussion is that philosophy is a much
misunderstood term. It actually has two more-or-less distinct meanings:
1. As a strict scientific discipline. The sort of things philosophers from
Plato to Wittgenstein get all worked up about. The correct place for that
would be uk.sci.philosophy.*. Except that it hardly has much of a UK
dimension (even if, as claimed, the "British School" invented a lot of it,
surely they should be selling their arguments to the whole world). So I
would have thought the first place to discuss that sort of thing would be
in a Big-8 hierarchy. And there is indeed already such a place:
sci.philosophy.tech Technical philosophy: math, science, logic, etc.
Usually, the only reason for creating a uk.* group for a scientific
discipline is if there is some especially UK aspect to it, or if the topic
is so popular that the worldwide groups are flooded out by the Merkins. I
doubt that is the case here.
2. As a sort of synonym for "ideology", or for "a person's outlook on
life". That is the sense in which the word is used in
uk.politics.philosophy, and that is the sense in which it would be used in
any *.philosophy.atheism group. And as such, it needs to be kept well
clear of the strictly scientific stuff (you would not want
uk.sci.philosopy.atheism). OTOH, that sort of meaning of "philosophy" is
much more of a cultural sort of thing, which is why
uk.culture.philosophy.* was suggested for it.
Now look at Gwen's list, and see into which category they fall.
1. Strictly scientific.
uk.philosophy.british
uk.philosophy.science
uk.philosophy.maths
uk.philosophy.biology
uk.philosophy.metaphysics
uk.philosophy.language
uk.philosophy.problems
And observe how these would all make fine topice for a Big-8 group, but
hardly generate enough traffic for a uk.* one.
2. Ideology.
uk.philosophy.atheist
uk.philosophy.moral
uk.philosophy.ethics
uk.philosophy.aesthetics
uk.philosophy.history
uk.philosophy.life
And observe how aesthetics (art) and history were especially regarded as
proper topics for uk.culture.* during the long discussions which lead to
its being set up.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Drew
>quite right. Under science seems (IMHO) the best fit.
Nooooooo! :-) Even culture's a better fit. Philosopy of science,
yes; mathematical logic, possibly; logic, hmmm; aesthetics, ethics,
metaphysics, p. of history, religion, law, politics, ancient greek,
never!
Drew
Andy Mabbett
<Da...@community-spirit.demon.company.uk> writes
>uk.religion.agnostic to follow. 8-)
I'm not sure if that would be a good idea...
(My agnosticism is wavering, TBH)
;-)
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
Visiting Birmingham? See http://www.birmingham.gov.uk
So I asked her "why have a man with a six pack; when I've got a half- barrel?"
Andy Mabbett
writes
>> >>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
>>
>> You would need uk.[culture.]philospohy.uk, which is a tautology, and
>> reduces to uk.[culture.]philiosohpy.misc or some such.
>>
>It isn't a mixing of 'issues'.
>
>British Philosophy is a recognised name of a particular school of philosophy.
>It emerged in the UK.
In which case, it would need to be
uk.[].philospohy.types.british
or uk.[].philosophy.british-school
or somesuch.
Andy Mabbett
<c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>It actually has two more-or-less distinct meanings:
[snip much sense]
I think that's about right.
Drew
No. There is
a) analytic philosophy. This is the anglo-american tradition, as
opposed to..
b) continental philosophy. E.g Satre, and;
c) Eastern philosophy. Which has a serious religous strand, with the
new-age traveller philosophy being a bastardised version of this.
>1. As a strict scientific discipline. The sort of things philosophers from
>Plato to Wittgenstein get all worked up about. The correct place for that
>would be uk.sci.philosophy.*. Except that it hardly has much of a UK
>dimension (even if, as claimed, the "British School" invented a lot of it,
>surely they should be selling their arguments to the whole world). So I
>would have thought the first place to discuss that sort of thing would be
>in a Big-8 hierarchy. And there is indeed already such a place:
>
>sci.philosophy.tech Technical philosophy: math, science, logic, etc.
Nope. It's interesting that you mention Plato...do you really think
that he viewed philosophy as a strict scientific discipline? What I am
trying to say is that sci.phil.tech & sci.logic are fine for phil. of
science, logic, mathematical logic, philosophy of mathematics etc.
But not for discussion of ethics, language, aesthetics, phil. of law,
phil. of religion, phil. of politics. Despite the fact that these are
not about scientific topics (and therefore do not fit under the sci.*
heirarchy), they are serious areas of research with a strict method,
and have been since the time of Plato. See below.
>2. As a sort of synonym for "ideology", or for "a person's outlook on
>life". That is the sense in which the word is used in
This is new-age philosophy, or personal philosophy. Nothing to do
with philosphy in the sense meant in this thread. For example....
>uk.politics.philosophy, and that is the sense in which it would be used in
...uk.politics.philosophy discusses political philosophies. This is
completely unrelated to the philosophy of politics.
>any *.philosophy.atheism group. And as such, it needs to be kept well
>clear of the strictly scientific stuff (you would not want
>uk.sci.philosopy.atheism). OTOH, that sort of meaning of "philosophy" is
No again. The same philosophical tools & methods are used to study
aesthetics / ethics / etc. as to study philosophy of science. You
seem to me, for example, to be confusing the study of ethical systems
(which is social anthropology) with philosophical topic.
>Now look at Gwen's list, and see into which category they fall.
>1. Strictly scientific.
.
.
>uk.philosophy.metaphysics
.
Metaphysics? Strictly scientific?
>And observe how these would all make fine topice for a Big-8 group, but
>hardly generate enough traffic for a uk.* one.
Agreed. See below.
>2. Ideology.
>uk.philosophy.atheist
>uk.philosophy.moral
>uk.philosophy.ethics
>uk.philosophy.aesthetics
>uk.philosophy.history
>uk.philosophy.life
>
Out of this lot, the only one I would place in your second grouping is
the life group, which seems awfully new-agey. The rest are serious
topics. Expect perhaps atheism.
But anyway, this is getting out of hand. All I really wish to say is
that although there are newgroups for logic and phil. of science,
there seem to be none for ethics, language, aesthetics, philosophy of
mind, metaphysics etc. I don't really care where they're created, and
I don't for a moment think we should create as many as have been
discussed here. But there ought to be some groups for the discussion
of (non-scientific) analytic philosophy. At the moment, there are
scientific groups which discuss philosophy as it relates to science,
and touchy-feely alt.philosphy.* groups, but none for academic
philosophy. And this is a shame.
Drew
Charles Lindsey
>Nope. It's interesting that you mention Plato...do you really think
>that he viewed philosophy as a strict scientific discipline? What I am
>trying to say is that sci.phil.tech & sci.logic are fine for phil. of
>science, logic, mathematical logic, philosophy of mathematics etc.
>But not for discussion of ethics, language, aesthetics, phil. of law,
>phil. of religion, phil. of politics. Despite the fact that these are
>not about scientific topics (and therefore do not fit under the sci.*
>heirarchy), they are serious areas of research with a strict method,
>and have been since the time of Plato. See below.
Actually, I think we are in broad agreement, except for one thing: you are
taking too narrow a view of "science".
The sci.* hierarchy (and hence by analogy the uk.sci.* hierarchy) takes a
very broad view of science (using the term more in the sense of the German
"wissenschaft"), covering all subjects in which a strict scientific
discipline is employed (e.g. sci.math, sci.logic, sci.lang, sci.econ,
sci.crypt). So philosophy (excluding its more 'woolly' branches) would be
quite in order there.
>>1. Strictly scientific.
>.
>.
>>uk.philosophy.metaphysics
>.
>Metaphysics? Strictly scientific?
If the claims of metascience are examined in a scientific manner (as
implicit by the word 'philosophy' in the title) then yes.
>>And observe how these would all make fine topice for a Big-8 group, but
>>hardly generate enough traffic for a uk.* one.
>Agreed. See below.
--
Pink...@my-dejanews.com
Dave <Da...@community-spirit.demon.company.uk> wrote:
> >uk.phil.theo.anti? :-)
LOL.
>
> Or even uk.religion.none with the possibility of uk.religion.agnostic to
> follow. 8-)
These suggestions are getting bewildering. :)
I like the uk.religion.none but it appears to 'comic' for most peoples taste.
uk.religion was met with frenzied hatred in some camps.
uk.philosophy while nearly suitable is not considered important enough by
others.
I hate LABELLING. My POV is being catagorised by cyber-librarians!
Someone wake me when the voting starts. :)
PinkyMan #1365
Alex Buell
> I hate LABELLING. My POV is being catagorised by cyber-librarians!
> Someone wake me when the voting starts. :)
Tell your 'puter to vote.
Cheers,
Alex
--
/\_/\ Legalise cannabis now!
( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today!
> ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - rewritten for text browser users!
Linux tahallah 2.2.0-pre7 #71 SMP Wed Jan 13 22:10:07 EST 1999
Two Intel Pentium Pro 166MHz processors, 331.78 total bogomips, 48M RAM
System library 2.0.109
Jim
>In article <ofHYhDBQ...@community-spirit.demon.co.uk>,
> Dave <Da...@community-spirit.demon.company.uk> wrote:
>> >uk.phil.theo.anti? :-)
>LOL.
>>
>> Or even uk.religion.none with the possibility of uk.religion.agnostic to
>> follow. 8-)
>
>These suggestions are getting bewildering. :)
>
>I like the uk.religion.none but it appears to 'comic' for most peoples taste.
>uk.religion was met with frenzied hatred in some camps.
>uk.philosophy while nearly suitable is not considered important enough by
>others.
Perhaps uk.philosophy.atheism and uk.philosophy.theism (or
uk.philosophy.religion)? These two viewpoints both come under the
heading of philosophy - they are in fact probably the most important
questions facing humanity at the moment. (Just think how the world would
be changed if we could decide the argument once and for all. I don't
think that uk.philosophy.* is likely to achieve this, but still...)
Second, may I suggest uk.philosophy.newbies, too? A place where those
without philosophy degrees could ask the stupid questions that beginners
need to ask without being ridiculed?
Just some thoughts,
--
Jim@Bealzebub Demon
Email: Add . and suffix .co.uk to the above
Bill Jillians
claiming the name Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>,
scribed:-
>In article <77pvoe$9q2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gwen_...@cybergal.com
>writes
>>> >>uk.philosophy.british - to discuss british philosophy
>>>
>>> I missed that one - please don't mix UK and British issues like that.
>>> You would need uk.[culture.]philospohy.uk, which is a tautology, and
>>> reduces to uk.[culture.]philiosohpy.misc or some such.
>>>
>>It isn't a mixing of 'issues'.
>>
>>British Philosophy is a recognised name of a particular school of philosophy.
>>It emerged in the UK.
>
>In which case, it would need to be
>
> uk.[].philospohy.types.british
>or uk.[].philosophy.british-school
>
>or somesuch.
I recommend somesuch.
BJ
--
From now my life ALWAYS. Yellow is the colour of salvation. Soul II Soul
-> -> -> -> Keep on Moving.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
quite a good idea of the general view. I will propose an 'RFD' for
uk.philosophy.* to be an heirachy in the next few days. We can then have the
official discussion - if the committee approves this one!
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Street Face
name gwen_...@cybergal.com, scribed:-
>Thank you for all your helpful ideas. Now that we have discussed this, I have
>quite a good idea of the general view. I will propose an 'RFD' for
>uk.philosophy.* to be an heirachy in the next few days. We can then have the
>official discussion - if the committee approves this one!
>
>Gwen Jones
>
>
>There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
>
Hey ... that's fine with me.
Form a committee (YOU ... YOU ... You..... and You) and get on with it
all.
BJ
--
Bill Jillians: No children, No wife, No girlfriend. NO PROBLEM.
Home?: http:\\ourworld.compuserve.com\homepages\bill_jillians\index.htm
A Great Philosopher once wrote ... "Naughty, NAUGHTY ... very NAUGHTY !!"
Eboneezer Goode - Shaman
gwen_...@cybergal.com
heirachy is not forgotten. It is still with the committee who are thinking
about approving it. I am not sure why this part of the process takes so
very long, but it seems that it does.
Lets hope we see something turn up soon!
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
andy roberts
:
>Just to let people know. The proposal for the RFD for the uk.philosophy.*
>heirachy is not forgotten.
Oh good.
> It is still with the committee who are thinking
>about approving it. I am not sure why this part of the process takes so
>very long, but it seems that it does.
>
>Lets hope we see something turn up soon!
>
As long as it isn't another rejection notice.
Whilst we're waiting, would it be possible to mention which initial groups
are included with the hierarchy proposal?
--
Andy R
gwen_...@cybergal.com
other groups can be added once the heirachy is established.
andy roberts
<7bmmfj$tcu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> :
>In article <36dfd2d8...@news.zetnet.co.uk>,
> andy...@zetnet.co.uk wrote:
>> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote in message <7bjo16$9i5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>> :
>>
>> >Just to let people know. The proposal for the RFD for the uk.philosophy.*
>> >heirachy is not forgotten.
>>
>> Oh good.
>>
>> > It is still with the committee who are thinking
>> >about approving it. I am not sure why this part of the process takes so
>> >very long, but it seems that it does.
>> >
>> >Lets hope we see something turn up soon!
>> >
>>
>> As long as it isn't another rejection notice.
>>
>> Whilst we're waiting, would it be possible to mention which initial groups
>> are included with the hierarchy proposal?
>>
>Yes, to make it really easy to decide we only proposed uk.philosophy.misc,
>other groups can be added once the heirachy is established.
>
Thanks for the info. Let's hope it all goes smoothly.
I shall be working on the principle that the uk.philosophy.atheist
charter will be able to be a minimalist document, allowing the
hierarchy charter to deal with binaries,adverts,sigs etc.
--
Andy R