List of important publications in philosophy(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
List of important publications in philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_philosophy
23 comments
It is amusing to see them try to shoehorn "Continental" works into "Analytic" categories. The idea, for instance, that _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_ is a text about ethics in the same vein as _After Virtue_ borders on the absurd.
No mention of Peter Singer?
Agree or disagree with his views, Animal Liberation is an important philosophical work due to its impact on contemporary culture.
Agree or disagree with his views, Animal Liberation is an important philosophical work due to its impact on contemporary culture.
Wikipedia's philosophy sections are... okay.
This doesn't have any member of the Frankfurt School...
Bonus points for also having no Derrida, Althusser, Fichte, Bergson or Simmel. (Apart from others, like Schleiermacher, Schlegel etc.)
Bonus points for also having no Derrida, Althusser, Fichte, Bergson or Simmel. (Apart from others, like Schleiermacher, Schlegel etc.)
This list seems to exemplify Alfred Whitehead's statement that "the safest general characterization of the philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." (With many of those footnotes by Aristotle.)
> is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato
It depends, really. As a Democritus fanboy I always take "offense" when hearing similar remarks, and I usually try (and fail) to make my point by offering a witty remark which might sound like Hobbes or Epicurus might have said it.
On a more serious note, this list is really bogus when it comes to "ancient Philosophy" because it ignores all the pre-Socratics. Ok, maybe some Sophists were not the most trust-worthy bunch of them all, but you cannot really omit Heraclitus or Democritus himself.
It depends, really. As a Democritus fanboy I always take "offense" when hearing similar remarks, and I usually try (and fail) to make my point by offering a witty remark which might sound like Hobbes or Epicurus might have said it.
On a more serious note, this list is really bogus when it comes to "ancient Philosophy" because it ignores all the pre-Socratics. Ok, maybe some Sophists were not the most trust-worthy bunch of them all, but you cannot really omit Heraclitus or Democritus himself.
I completely agree on the pre-Socratic point. Where's my man Parmenides? But in fairness, many pre-Socratic works are so fragmentary that it's difficult to even consider them works, nevermind philosophical works. Thus they typically fall under the purview of Classics departments. It's unfortunate that they're not taught more broadly and in a context that's more appropriate to their subject, but Classicists are probably the best equipped to handle these authors, given how time has present them to us.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but don't most of what we know about pre-Socratic philosophers come from secondary texts reporting on these philosophers' views? If so, then it will be difficult to consider these texts that have informed us about these authors as philosophical texts themselves.
For the most part, yes. Some fragments survived, but the majority of what we know about the pre-Socratics has been filtered through later doxographical works. While it certainly isn't optimal, together there's certainly enough of an understanding of the majority of the pre-Socratics to discuss them in a philosophical context without relegating them to Classics departments. Particularly given their relation to later thinkers. If you're interested, this article is an interesting place to start:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-ancient/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-ancient/
Once you pick out something, head over the Standford's Philosophy department to read more: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Plato is an amazing resource.
Its articles strike the perfect balance between intellectual rigour and general accessibility. It combines the traditional encyclopedic format with the authorship of academic experts. And if that wasn't enticing enough, the articles are published for free and list the author's contact information at the bottom.
Its articles strike the perfect balance between intellectual rigour and general accessibility. It combines the traditional encyclopedic format with the authorship of academic experts. And if that wasn't enticing enough, the articles are published for free and list the author's contact information at the bottom.
You're all right: this is a terrible article where a main descriptor is by definition subjective (important: to whom, for what, and for what reasons?). But why is it hacker news?
While we're at it, yes it needs a continental section, among many other improvements. This is a problem with tree taxonomy in fields of ideas. Anyone really feel like they really care about fixing this? Is that why someone posted it here?
While we're at it, yes it needs a continental section, among many other improvements. This is a problem with tree taxonomy in fields of ideas. Anyone really feel like they really care about fixing this? Is that why someone posted it here?
The irony: a page about philosophy displaying unabashed human subjectivity. Feminist philosophy has one entry, wonder why
You think there is a second article on feminist philosophy that is more notable than the average article on this short list?
Yes, "Feminism is for everybody" and/or "Gender Trouble" are just as, if not more, notable than "The Second Sex." Or maybe some of the earliest publications, like 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.'
Regardless of the details, there are certainly more than one notable work inside of feminism.
Regardless of the details, there are certainly more than one notable work inside of feminism.
"A Vindication of the Rights of Women" by Mary Wollstonecraft is already listed under "modern philosophy", as is "The Subjection of Women" by Mill, and Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" is under "bioethics".
I would think that such works as "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway, "Anarchism" by Emma Goldman, or "Gyn/Ecology" by Mary Daly are at least as worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings" or Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy".
I would think that such works as "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway, "Anarchism" by Emma Goldman, or "Gyn/Ecology" by Mary Daly are at least as worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings" or Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy".
> ...are at least as worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings" or Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy".
I said "average article" precisely because I didn't want people to just cherry pick a weak entry here and there. Any list of the top 100 whatever will be open to dispute. Saying "I think X was unfairly excluded because it's clearly more important than entry 97" is not good evidence of bias.
"A defense of abortion" is moral philosophy. If you classify it as feminism, the term is overly broad (and, of course, only weakens the case for bias).
I said "average article" precisely because I didn't want people to just cherry pick a weak entry here and there. Any list of the top 100 whatever will be open to dispute. Saying "I think X was unfairly excluded because it's clearly more important than entry 97" is not good evidence of bias.
"A defense of abortion" is moral philosophy. If you classify it as feminism, the term is overly broad (and, of course, only weakens the case for bias).
Wikipedia's philosophy articles are notoriously bad.
Notably empty category: Business ethics.
What is "the irony"?
Find some reliable sources and fix it, if it bothers you.
It's gotten harder to do so over the years. I used to lodge several edits, people would build on what was written. Now it seems like everything gets an automatic revert. I'd dismiss it as the mediocre quality of my contributions, but I don't think I'm alone:
> "Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit," Halfaker said.
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2013/UR_CONTENT_42836...
> "Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit," Halfaker said.
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2013/UR_CONTENT_42836...
The "Eastern Philosophy" section is a bad joke.