User:Peter Damian (original account)/Philosophylaughingstock

Why actual Philosophers don't write in Wikipedia

Philosophy I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper.

The Bristol Stool Scale

Thanks for alerting me. To be honest, and I might as well be, I find [him] ludicrous, self-contradictory, often deeply uncivil (and equally often deeply obscure), baselessly arrogant, and lacking in self-control, self-awareness, and understanding of philosophy. He and a few other editors have taken over Philosophy, which is a laughing stock; it and one or two other similar articles have often been cited in my hearing as evidence that Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously or used as a reliable resource. Although I find that depressing, I don't feel that there's anything that anyone can do; editors like [him] are tirelessly logodiarrhoeic (somewhere between types 6 and 7 on the Bristol Stool Chart), and have no sense of or respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Even if I had the time and energy to commit myself full time to improving the article, they would frustrate that attempt. Just look at the article's history as soon as the protection was removed: rocket-powered hysterical editing, with edit-warring thrown in, all with the net result of... the usual mess.

Interesting definition of philosophy

Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love/afinity/friendship + sophia, wisdom) concerns itself with how to live one's life (ethics), what one knows, can know, and how one knows it (epistemology), and what can be said to exist (metaphysics).

As a consequence of the collapse of colonialism and imperialism in the twentieth century, philosophy now is classified according to three major geographical regions, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and African philosophy.

Defining philosophy is controversial in part because it is also its own subject; accordingly, there are diverse definitions of philosophy.

Russell's authorship of the Grundlagen

Great Britain, until the 1940s, continued its Idealist and Hegelian traditions. In 1911 Betrand Russell came along. in his seminal work, written with Alfred North Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, in imitation of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The work was founded upon Frege's logician. Russell had mathematical interests, and had published his thesis as his second published book entitled the Foundations of Mathematics around the turn of the century. He was much moved, as others of his time had been, by revolution caused by the discovery of Non-Euclidean geometry whereby Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not an axiom. His thesis was that Projective geometry was a priori. Five years later, when Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, a theory of physics, in which space was non-Euclidean, Russell's work proved philosophically worthless, as he himself asserted. Russel now bowed to science and accepted that the physists were right, and that he had not been doing philosophy at all but physics. The mathematicians, and philosophers had done, that the nature of geometry, whether it had this or that set of axioms, was an empirical question to be answered by scientists.

The Story of Marxism

The story of Marxism and Revolution goes all the way back to the French Revolution, where many of the fighters who were more left-wing had lost and the Bourgeois took control. Later in the 19th Century there had been sporadic revolutionary activity throughout Europe. Such was the promise of Marxism to the vast majority of working people that it terrified the politicians and company owners. Along with the French Revolution came major escalations in the activities of secret police. In Russia the Tzar began imprisoning leftists. Many similar actions were taken throughout Europe to quote a well known commentator of that time, "A spectre is haunting Europe".

Lucifer vs. Good vs. Evil

Although the term [good] is generally not considered to be a real or defined property under the laws of physics, in common useage it sometimes interchanged with what is referred to as order within the subject of statistical thermodynamics, as a state of low entropy.

As it is today, the introduction to this article is the most absolute PoV I've ever seen, with some bits of pure nonsense (like the part on entropy!!). Would someone please remove it? Velho 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The part on entropy is not nonsense at all. Your ignorance of the subject is quite amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.139.* (talk • contribs)

I've taken it out, once again. However, user 192.220.139.* is a repeat offender here and constantly and consistently pushes this bit of unsourced material back in. Nothing short of semi-protection can solve this problem. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Lucidish consistantly pushes it out. I repeat. Your ignorance of statistical thermodynamics does not necessesarily mean that it is not directly applicable to the subject. It is a short sentence in an extremely long article, with no links whatsoever to the subject of entropy or statistical thermodynamics anywhere else. This is a fundamental failure when it comes to this article that can be easily rectified with a few short sentences and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.220.139.* (talk • contribs)

Maybe it is applicable. Maybe it's even true. This doesn't excuse the inclusion of a bold unsourced comment which has no prime facie validity. The fact there are "no links whatsoever" is exactly the reason why it is junked. Wikipedia is about verification, not truth. If the failure is "fundamental", then surely you can cite a respectable source for it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! Lucifer and his sock puppets has a psychological aversion to the existance of Goodness in the Physical universe!

[[User:|{ quaz3348 }]] 10:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! What to do?

[[User:|{ zpt2214 }]] 10:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What I Insist on Inserting

Vox Angelica, 1945.

I insist on inserting all the words, all the thoughts that cannot be contained by those who close their minds to the everlasting brightness of all the unknowns from this side of history to the next side of this world in which flows the patterns, the splashes of creativity so wide and so free that all who dare say, no, say disbelief, no way, no way all my worldly knowledge would I give for your yes, say yes, say yes. I understand that I do not have to have known I do not have to have been first, but I see, I see, I see that what I haven't seen is what is new to me and the unknown to me is a beautiful thing for all for all to know and to see and to fucking feel for the last time to know is not everything and to finally understand that all the words, all the thoughts that cannot be contained can be in my, your, our worlds, minds, so do you dig a man, a woman, surely a child? Can you see, can you write, can you fucking research all the possibilities of who and what you know before you scorn, cast off, ignore, accuse -- I insist on inserting I demand the insertion of- I request that my insertion be inserted insistence on insertion is imperative to assumption and assumption upon insertion will lead to further introductions of presumed suppositions and learned predispositions but the supposition of such depositions will make politicians' predilections and benign depositions into evil dispositions so my insistence is intended and will be amended this entry will not stand it will expandit will expand... I insist on inserting every bland life, every bandaid scrape, every abandoned babydoll with tattered yarn hair shit-encrusted, every nameless band, every broken tape, every note of every shitty song written, every wished eyelash, every stutter, every Mr. Pibb pop top, every bloody finger wrapped in wet toilet paper, every awkward date and first kisses, every girl who took too much valium but couldn’t die, every collapsed home, every soaked animal, ever idle minute, every ripped organ, every God, every word unwritten, every nerd-bitten slur slipped in like a dick, every first orgasm, every final rattle, every oxygen, every universe, every jot and tittle, every whim plucked -- a churning massive voice, a nonsensical muse / amused I insist on inserting my little finger into the collective cavity to find the source outsourced...To probe ...the probable existence of his Cocaine Jesus because if this predisposition was not a supposition of my predilection to the one we call forbidden then you must rename me to the one who came before me so that we can go on living in this world of your dreams. Inserting a word, inserting a nail, an eyeball, a name, inserting my mystery, inserting my slit wrist in your happy family laughing American turkey dinner. But most of all keep inserting your thought … thoughts … thoughtfulness … Insert tab A into slot B and follow course: slick and sick. Until it’s split and sizzling disassembled like Johnny Five licking Alley Sheady’s clit, lit and blazing, burnt and crispy, every molecule an ash, every atom smashed, until all the cities cinders like Hiroshima on Christmas. Odin’s yule log – Jesus on a stick.

Epistemology and false knowledge

Should the Venn diagram be altered so that "Knowledge" overlaps an area of "Belief" that is not part of "Truth"? Certainly there is such a thing as false knowledge.[1]

"If someone claims to believe something, he or she is claiming that it is the truth." -- this makes no sense. "If someone claims to believe something, he or she is claiming that it is the truth". I believe that if someone claims to believe, someone claims to believe, and that is distinct from claiming knowing the truth. [2]

knowledge implies belief

I know P but I believe P to be untrue-- the article says this is a contradiction, but is it? I know the bible God, but I believe the bible god to be untrue seems a perfectly rational statement for an atheist who can know the bible god as well as any believer without believing this god to be true.[3]

It's About Power and Madness, not Truth

• Are the issues of Power and Madness expressed in Michel Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge? Is he not an extremely important philosopher of Postmodernism? Should he, and his views, not receive a prominent place in the Philosophy Page?
• What do you mean by Madness?
• What's the relevance of your use of the word Fuckwit in this philosophical discourse?
• What's the relevance of the Bristle Stool Chart to philosophy?
• Why did Powerful Wikipedia Administrator User:Banno bar Ludvikus?
• How do you know User:Peter J King is who he says he is?
• Aside from User:Mel Etitis being a Powerful Wikipedia Administrator, how do you know that he is in fact an Oxford University philosophy Professor? And can you name one work he has published?
• The cabal you mention, is mostly of your own making, and it is responsible for the current poor quality of the page. And that is due to the way Power is currently excercised in this cyberspace (known as Wikipedia) of the Information Age. And you, User:Dbuckner, are primarily responsible for that - followed very closely my your alleged philosophical mentor who supports you with his Bristle Stool Chart.
• Do you think we should only interpret, or also change? Can this question be understood in light of mediocrity?

Wikipedia needs a lot of work

From Larry Sanger, Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism [4]

...One has only to compare the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Wikipedia's Philosophy section. From the point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Wikipedia needs a lot of work.

There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.

Incidentally, I had various run-ins with Sanger before Wikipedia was created, and didn't think much of him — but I have to agree with his analysis as quoted above. The Philosophy article, which should be one of Wikipedia's flagship articles, is a laughing stock. As a professional philosopher myself, I find it deeply embarrassing --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavia: not an English-speaking country?

Wikipedia shouldn't be telling people that Scandinavia is an English-speaking country, that Karl Marx was a contemporary commentator on 1950s politics, that Russell deemed Principia Mathematica somewhat of a success. A reversion war has ensued, understandably I think. I would support locking the page, on a version without the crap obviously. I can see no other way to compel editors to respond to correction of obvious errors on the Talk page rather than just republishing the same errors.

The Psycho-atomic Circuit

I have happened upon a couple of articles which desperately need some rational attention from people with more experience in dealing with Wikipedia fights than I do:

• Time travel is an obvious crank attractor, but at present dubiously describes such things as relativistic time dilation as a form of time travel into the future, which is not really a physical reading but more wishful thinking. Many other problems.

• Prometheus Rising is supposed to be about a book by the same title, but is actually a platform for touting the 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness, which includes such wisdom as "The Psycho-atomic Circuit allows access to the intergalactic consciousness that predates life in the universe (characterized as God, the Overmind or aliens), and lets humans operate outside of space-time and the constraints of relativity. This circuit is associated with Ketamine and DMT by Leary. (Called also by Leary The Neuro-Atomic Circuit or The Metaphysiological Circuit, Robert Anton Wilson called this circuit The Quantum Non-Local Circuit.)"

Advice for dealing with this insanity would be appreciated.

Wikipedia better than Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

On the matter raised as to whether the online Stanford Philosophy site is better than wiki, I think most of it would be disallowed here as being Original Research or Essay. So in that sense wiki's philosophy is better. It also has a lot more than Stanford.

Jan Cox (philosopher extraordinaire)

Jan Cox (b.June 2,1938 - November 5, 2005) is a controversial figure, was an Atlanta, Georgia based self proclaimed philosopher who had some unique ideas regarding reality, consciousness, society and where that one-shoe-in-the-road came from. He was considered by some to be a philosopher, musician, postmodern mystic, an author, an aspiring politician, and television personality, while others also considered him to be an “entertainer of ideas,” and teacher of point-blank reality.

Controversy

In addition, Jan Cox wasn't a philosopher of any seriousness with academic respect; but, Jan Cox was a petty criminal and cult leader.

Perhaps there is a section for cult leaders who've achieved minor notoriety, or for those with pretensions to superiority.

The true nature of philosophical inquiry

Philosophy is written by people who can't fuck properly so they have 'psychic orgasms' instead. Philosophy is all a kathartic stale vicarious psychic 'cum'.