Talk:Philosophical movement

Old? comments

If it's not explicitly philosophical then it doesn't belong on this page. Otherwise, we could put every political movement out there.

anti-globalization movement - moral, political and ethical and not explicitly philosophical, but sharing certain key ethics and an ontology

I don't think this is true. In fact, many postmodernist philosophies claim that you can't objectively set quantitiative values on relationships between things.

Today philosophical movements are often expressed in a political economy that purports to set new quantitative values on relationships between things. This reflects a consensus in the philosophy of mathematics that mathematics is, for everyday purposes, often the most neutral point of view.

It's exactly this claim of the postmodernists that "you can't objectively set quantitiative values on relationships between things" that lead the anti-globalization movement to reject all forms of global measurement. This is definitely a philosophical (or theological) movement, if only for its localism. It's sort of the fusion of minarchy and anarchism with the basic assumptions of postmodernim. I guess I said it was "not explicitly philosophical" because it has no shared metaphysics beyond its foundation ontology which is all pretty much defined tacitly and by resistance. Not because philosophical claims are never made for it, nor by it. 24

So, if you re-read what you just wrote with that in mind, you may notice that you have contradicted yourself somewhat - first you discount the anti-globals on the grounds of not satisfying the conventional requirements of a philosophy, then you admit that by the standards of certain philosophers, notably body philosophers, those standards are irrelevant or dangerous - that philosophy as understood prior to the philosophy of action was simply an attempt to usurp a God-like neutral point of view. Which one may see in action here a lot... 24

I think you can't discount both political economy and body philosophy as movements - what's left? Only philosophy with no relevance to action or body? What use is that? 24

24, google hasn't heard of "body philosophy", nor has our resident (or former resident) philosopher, who, whether he disagreed with a particular position or not, would certainly acknowledge its recognition amongst other philosophers if it was so recognised. As far as we can tell, the term "body philosophy" is your own invention and is thus outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Robert Merkel

— Editor2020 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations please

This article is in bad need of some references to keep it from being WP:OR -- noosphere 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really weird to include the Renaissance as a philosophical movement--what philosophers were involved in this movement and what were their distinctive doctrines or methods or arguments? The same goes for Modernism. I have no idea what this "philosophical movement" is supposed to be. Even the Enlightenment was more of a general intellectual movement than a philosophical movement (unless you think that Hume, Rousseau, Kant, and d'Holbach are part of a philosophical movement the way Carnap, Schlick, and Neurath are). Scottish Enlightenment sure, because at least there's a clear and distinctive approach to ethics found in Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith. But seriously: the Renaissance? Modernism? What is this article talking about? --4.240.72.98

I totally agree about the Renaissance, which is a historical period. It was a period that gave rise to many movements in art, philosophy, literature, etc. But it certainly not a philosophical movement.--Trnj2000 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! No! No! Everything today is empiricism. When we say, "That doesn't make sense," what do we mean? We mean empirical evidence doesn't support the statement. The most wonderous thing about the triumph of empiricism is that it is all a fraud, for empirical thought has no more credibility due its machinations than does witchcraft or animism. The givens-premisses are all false.

Mathematics is a mere toy, too small to define even the smallest parcel in the Universe and so massively too large too lend and credibility to the incantations and games matheticians play with it.

Yes, science broadly defined has demonstratable triumphs, BUT!, so didn't witchcraft and animism. By isolating and fixating on the triumphs of paper-theories, modern man has ignored the real world entirely.

The path is found thus: Humans are very stupid, and essentially gullible fools. The cogito is the only triumph in modern philosophy worth mentioning prior to the discovery of the moral imperative sought by Kant and denied by Nietzsche.

The moral imperative is derived directly from the cogito. I think, therefore, I am. I cherish my life. There are apparently others alive and more to come. I will surely die someday. I should therefore live a (moral) life that detracts nothing from the experience of all those who might follow.

http://geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers Enjoy. Don Robertson10-06

objectivism

isn't a philosophical movement. it is barely considered philosophy, and that is likely promoting it a bit far, even though some minor characters in current philosophy are building their careers on it. a movement like the others listed? no. and adding it makes this article primarily into an article of loosely related things.--Buridan 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

Is atheism really a 'philosophical movement'? New atheism, or antitheism, perhaps, but is simple 'atheism' a contemporary movement?

Inclusion of modernism, atheism, Objectivism

@Teishin: As of now, the article has no sources, so the inclusion of anything is as much of an 'unsupported opinion' as its exclusion. Providing a source isn't necessary to improve unsourced text. The initial addition of the items I removed were not given rationales by those who added them, but I have given rationales for my removals, making my edits privileged in that respect. I will restate them here:

Modernism: Like the lede says, "[i]n contrast to the idea of a philosophical movement, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Romanticism are broader cultural "movements" that happened to be characterized by fairly distinctive philosophical concerns: although they are movements with philosophical cores, they extend beyond the field of philosophy into art and culture more broadly, hence are not specific enough to philosophy to be considered movements within it." This applies straightforwardly and obviously to modernism (if anything, even more so than the given examples). Modernism is neither a "specific school" nor a "fairly broad but identifiable sea-change in philosophical thought on a particular subject"; there is no particular subject, nor any constellation of particular subjects, which modernism addresses. If you were to name a subject, what you identify (i.e., Marxism or Logical Positivism) may itself be a school of thought, but "modernism" would remain vastly more broad than whatever determination you were to make.

Atheism: Atheism is not a philosophical school of thought; it is the absence of faith, which, taken alone, is an incredibly diverse universe of differing and contradictory positions (or non-positions). Atheism is, in the broadest sense permissible and perhaps only as a negation, a philosophical position, but so is Anti-foundationalism, and neither are movements. It is incredibly ahistorical to suggest that it is merely a contemporary movement. Besides the fact that there is no "fairly specifiable time and place" in which we could locate the presence of atheism the 'school of thought' to the exclusion of any other time and place, its inclusion could also be subjected to the same critique as modernism. The vast majority of atheists, just like the vast majority of Christians and Muslims and Jews, are not philosophers, do not participate in philosophical discourse or its institutional sites of production, and do not publish philosophy books. It would be wrongheaded to put Christianity on this page, because Christianity was clearly not a philosophical movement, but a movement in the totality of society which produced specific philosophical movements (that are listed on the page) as aliquot parts of its greater whole. Same with atheism; not so with Postmodernism, which is used in multiple fairly distinct senses, of which one is intended to signify a concrete and identifiable philosophical movement. One cannot say the same of atheism because the word by itself is only used in one type of sense, which sense is not a movement in philosophy.

Objectivism: Not a movement, but the specific theory of one individual, and a marginal (and discredited) one at that. "What makes a movement identifiable and interesting as distinct from a specific theory is simply that a movement consists in a large flourishing of intellectual work on one or more ideas"; no such large flourishing exists for Objectivism. (Randian) Objectivism is a single system of thought bound to particular institutions, which 'control' the official legacy of Objectivism and dictate its course, not a trend composed of those disposed towards certain philosophical considerations. The difference between Objectivism and every other item on the page is so vast as to disqualify it at this point. If it were ever to expand to include Juche thought, we could think about putting Objectivism back in.

71.191.208.132 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@71.191.208.132: This is mostly a page of links. If you are looking for sources supporting the links, you should be looking for sources on the linked pages, not on this page. Given the need for brevity with Edit Summaries, it's difficult to give a perfect summary. It seems if you were to hold the other links to the same standard you propose, you would have had to eliminate all of them. Hence, providing a source for a rationale for eliminating these is needed for improving unsourced links. Teishin (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit and sources

I've started an attempt to add sources, copyediting and rewriting where there is pasted or unsourced content. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction

Don't we need to make a distinction between philosophical movements, schools of philosophy, and List of philosophies? Now the seem to be all jumbled up. Editor2020 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I think philosophical movement should be better defined in this article but I'm not sure how. Maybe some version of the old opening sentence could be reinstated perhaps, but rewritten. The opening that I just wrote came from one book, but maybe we could find something better. Is a philosophical movement culturally broader than a school of philosophy, but not as culturally broad as a cultural movement e.g. the renaissance? And where can we find a source for something like that? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]