Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 1 May 2014

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Enaction (philosophy) was copied or moved into Enactivism with this edit on April 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Philosophy: Mind Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind

	Cognitive science (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

I'd like to include some more content from The Embodied Mind and also discuss the relationship of enactivism to embodiment and artificial intelligence.

Sjackisch (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why's Martin Heidegger not referenced, anyone? KTyson (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger has focused a lot less on the body than Merleau-Ponty, who combined Heiggerian ideas with his focus on the body. That might be the reason. --Andreasvc (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychology / Philosophy

Is there a way to change the page title for this article? I feel that "Enactivism" or "Enactivism (Philosophy)" would be much more accurate. I am going to try expanding this article with correct citations at some point, then adding it to the philosophy portal. (Epavlica (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC))

Not Clear - Needs a Re-write

Part of the point of an encyclopedia is to explain concepts to layman. This appears to be written by someone which does not have a good understanding of the topic and is therefore full of jargon and not explained with the clarity that one might hope.

Jim, July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.26.172 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Evan Thompson is not a psychogist, but a philosopher

As one of the trio named, it would make sense to have mention of Stuart Hampshire, who borrowed freely from Continental contemporaries without crediting them, as had Gilbert Ryle.

Notably missing are European contemporaries of Merleau-Ponty outside France.

Philosophers tend to point to Descartes, but historically there is also an important Christian heresy concerning embodiment which for centuries ran counter to Christian neo-Platonic thought and even now remains outside official theology of the mainstream of English-speaking Western religion. The doctrine that Jeshua, called The Nazarene, was simply a man has a parallel in the Japanese introduction of the Emperor as a god and the post-1945 withdrawal of this spiritual embuement as in Japan both assertion and retraction were social phenomena related to changes in power and social structure.

While not strictly in conflict with dualism, both the heresy and the retreat of supernaturalism undermine the requirement within a cultural context for a defense of dualism in a philosophical anthropology. In this regard, see Heidegger's borrowings from Japanese Buddhist thought and his wish to teach in or even to emmigrate to Japan (per Karl Jaspers.)

G. Robert Shiplett 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision of introduction

The lead sentence of this article is:

"Enactivism is a theoretical approach to understanding the mind proposed by Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch."

While this sentence is true, I'd suggest it is a poor first sentence for two reasons. The most important reason is that it is not clear from this sentence what 'enactivism' is, beyond being some kind of theory of mind (of which there are many). The second reason is that although the word 'enactivism' was proposed by these authors, the subject has moved on from their formulation, and making this source the first sentence seems to imply that their formulation is what is meant by the term today. However, Andy Clark and DiPaolo have suggested that the Varela approach stresses sensorimotor activities that are 'cognitively marginal', and both DiPaolo and Rohde have suggested the more important application of enactivism is to high-level cognitive processes, including even science itself.

If there is some consensus that this first sentence needs to be changed, I can offer some possible replacements. For example,

"Enactivism argues that cognition depends on a dynamic interaction between the cognitive agent and its environment: "Organisms do not passively receive information from their environments, which they then translate into internal representations. Natural cognitive systems...participate in the generation of meaning ...engaging in transformational and not merely informational interactions: they enact a world.

Ezequiel A Di Paolo, Marieke Rhohde, Hanne De Jaegher (2014). "Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play". In John Stewart, Oliver Gapenne, Ezequiel A Di Paolo, eds (ed.). Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. MIT Press. pp. 33 ff. ISBN 978-0262526012. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Other possibilities are out there, of course. Brews ohare (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made this change and added a paragraph on the recent views de-emphasizing sensorimotor activity by DiPaolo, Andy Clark, and Rohde. Brews ohare (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Brews but for now please use the existing inline style per WP:CITEVAR.—Machine Elf  14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I'd suggest that Snowded look at this article and make any deletions here before proceeding. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge premature: At this juncture, any attempt to merge this article with Enaction (philosophy) is premature, as that article and this one are in flux. In principle, Enaction (philosophy) ultimately will focus upon the philosophical aspects of Enactivism, while Enactivism will be a broader treatment including biology, psychology, sociology, machine interfacing, robotics, education, mental development, and so on. Brews ohare (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, For example, could you look at the sections Scholars with sympathetic ideas, Other related scholars, and Yet other authors of similar Natural Growth of Knowledge theories? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bob, I did look at this in assembling the list of topics for a new article. Some I left out (like autopoesis) as it really has not intruded on philosophy others were there under other names. But I may well have missed some. Basically I think this article is premature and we should (i) expand the Enactivism one then (ii) create the philosophical context in a new article but my proposal (or some variant thereof) ----Snowded 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, So I take it that you think there is no problem with WP:NOR, etc. regarding those three sections, or do you think they should be deleted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies I misunderstood the question. I am not too fussed about lists to be honest as long as there is a source to back each one up. Lists don't make statements in the way that content does. Others might be concerned however and if so I would not oppose their deletion ----Snowded 16:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, Re "I am not too fussed about lists to be honest as long as there is a source to back each one up." — AFAICT there is no source given, so what do you want to do? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw a note on the talk page to the effect that they had been validated so you may find something on the talk pages? Your other option is simply to delete any you think are not relevant and see if anyone defends them. Happy to back you up as needed ----Snowded 18:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "I saw a note on the talk page to the effect that they had been validated" — This talk page? Where is the note? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a strong memory of it in the header on the talk page but I can't find it, so its possible I confused it with one of the other articles I monitor. Either way go ahead and delete ----Snowded 02:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't looking to delete the material. I was interested in your position to get an idea of whether the material was stable with respect to the possibility of you deleting it. Anyhow, I'll leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Then ask directly! When I said I was not too much fussed about lists I thought I had answered that possibility. If we merge the it makes sense to just get rid of it as it adds little but not worth an effort otherwise ----Snowded 03:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

MachineElf has undertaken to merge the articles without any consensus. Brews ohare (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Examination of sources

Snowded eliminated a list of sources added by Mormequill a year ago without any text to explain their presence. The list was presented as follows:

"The most important recent publications in the field are arguably Evan Thompson's (2007) Mind in Life, Daniel Hutto and Erik Myin's (2013) Radicalizing Enactivism, the edited volume Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, and Alva Noë's (2012) Varieties of Presence.

1. Thompson, Evan (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press. ISBN 0674057511. A follow-up on The Embodied Mind, apparently with a treatment of Husserl and departures from Cartesian dualism. Book review here.
2. Hutto, D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds Without Content. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ISBN 0262018543.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Review found here
3. Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E., ed. (2010). Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ISBN 9780262014601.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
4. Noë, Alva (2012). Varieties of Presence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674062146. Review found here

I've filled in some links, and hope that a suitable discussion might recommend their reincorporation in the article in a more extensive discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

it's pretty patronising to assume editors can't follow a diff you know. Aside from that the text is one editor's opinion, and we need a source to make statements like that. I will make some other amendments later when I have a proper keypad not the iPad.----Snowded 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Humbug. I put these sources here so they would be handy. I pointed out your perfectly reasonable reason for their removal. You just like to gripe. Brews ohare (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be useful to keep a list of reliable sources in a section of the talk page for editors to use for future edits. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Varela , Thompson & Rosch, the seminal work on enactivism

In this edit Snowded removed a citation to The Embodied Mind by Varela , Thompson & Rosch, the seminal work on enactivism. This work is almost universally cited as the source where the term 'enactivism' was coined. The removed footnote was:

Francisco J Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0262261234. We propose as a name the term enactive to emphasize the growing conviction that cognition is not the representation of a pregiven world by a pregiven mind but is rather the enactment of a world and a mind on the basis of a history of the variety of actions that a being in the world performs{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Using a direct quote this footnote provides the historical introduction of this term.

The one-line edit summary used by Snowded to support removal of this reference is correct reference for statement, and the reference he substituted for The Embodied Mind was the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Embodied Cognition, namely:

Robert A Wilson, Lucia Foglia (July 25, 2011). Edward N. Zalta, ed (ed.). "Embodied Cognition: §2.2 Enactive cognition". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). {{cite web}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

This derivative source actually cites The Embodied Mind as the seminal work:

"The book The Embodied Mind (Varela, Thompson and Rosch 1991) was an attempt to re-direct the cognitive sciences by infusing them with the phenomenological perspective developed in the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1945)...Varela, Thompson, and Rosch introduced the concept of enaction to present and develop a framework that places strong emphasis on the idea that the experienced world is portrayed and determined by mutual interactions between the physiology of the organism, its sensorimotor circuit and the environment."

It is a detriment to the article Enactivism to avoid mention of The Embodied Mind, a work cited in this connection by virtually every other article on the subject.

I have therefore reverted Snowded's removal of this source, and entertain the hope that in the light of this careful explanation for this reversion that this action will be understood. Brews ohare (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference supports a valid third party reverence to their use. There is no need to clutter up the text with primary sources already covered. It can be in additional reading if you want.----Snowded 14:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The existence of secondary references to a seminal source is no reason to avoid mention of that source. On that basis historically important work never would be cited on WP. A bogus argument. Brews ohare (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A different explanation provided by Snowded for his second removal of the reference to The Embodied Mind in his one-line edit summary is references support the text they do not expand on it. The suggestion is that a footnote cannot contain a quote (even though the template provides for that option) but must stick to bibliographic information. That viewpoint has no basis in practice on WP or anywhere else. Footnotes that expand on text are to be found everywhere in books, papers and in WP articles. Brews ohare (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You just removed a reference which supported the text and replaced it with a primary source. Please Brews try and think before you act. Its nothing to do with the text in the foot note and I made no reference to that. ----Snowded 14:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can read what you said. What matters is the primary source referred to by everybody that writes about Enactivism, The Embodied Mind, should be cited and linked so readers can go look at it if they want to. That is what all other articles on the subject do. There is no need to replace a seminal work with a secondary source, and anyway, the secondary source is cited at the end of the paragraph for those interested in a summary. Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Then put it in further reading Brews, at the moment the statement that they originated the phrase is unsupported as you have removed the reference and the whole sentence could legitimately be deleted. All you have to do is put it in further reading. I'll attempt a compromise, but this refusal to you to understand the dangers of using primary sourcing compromises your ability to make any impact on wikipedia. ----Snowded 14:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, glad to accept your 'compromise'. Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sociological

As far as I can see the references are all to cultural psychology not sociology and belong elsewhere, if significant. Before I hard edit on this, what test of significance was applied to selecting this text? Why is it classed as sociological? ----Snowded 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the 'psychology' section is about individual matters, while the 'sociology' section is about cultural factors. It is probably not an aptly chosen title, but the subject matter doesn't depend on the header. As the Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology puts it: "Enactivism is an emerging perspective both in cognitive science and in cultural psychology. Whereas the enactive approach in general has focused on sense-making as an embodied and situated activity, enactive cultural psychology emphasizes the expressive and dynamically enacted nature of cultural meaning" Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I renamed the subsection as "cultural aspects" and re-arranged the subsections. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In broad agreement but I don't think its a separate subject - see my edit summary on the changes I just made which are not major (I think) ----Snowded 11:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cultural aspects

Snowded has reverted the following sourced material concerning enactivism in the field of cultural psychology. See this subsection on 'Cultural aspects'. Snowded's one-line edit summary is:

Minor changes, I don't think we need to define the purpose of cultural psychology here and its a part of the previous section. Cultural aspects would need to include anthropology

It is unlikely that Snowded's personal opinion about enaction in cultural psychology should trump an extended article in the Oxford Handbook:

"Whereas the enactive approach in general has focused on sense-making as an embodied and situated activity, enactive cultural psychology emphasizes the expressive and dynamically enacted nature of cultural meaning."

Cor Baerveldt and Theo Verheggen (May 2012). "Chapter 8: Enactivism". The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. pp. 165ff. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0009. ISBN 9780195396430.

It may well be a valuable addition to include enaction in anthropology as well, but omission of one topic hardly supports removal of a different topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

To quote Andy Clark: "The single most important task for a science of the biotechnological mind" is the search for better understanding of "the range and variety of types of cognitive scaffolding and the different ways in which non-biological scaffoldings can augment (or impair) performance on a task." "A major part of our cognitive environment is other people, and their distinctive knowledge bases." "But understanding our peculiar profiles as reasoners, thinkers, and knowers of our worlds requires an even broader perspective: one that targets multiple brains and bodies operating in specially constructed environments replete with artifacts, external symbols, and the variegated scaffoldings of science, art, and culture." Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not disputed the definition of cultural psychology but the inclusion of the definition with you extended commentaries. Clark mentions culture as one of several factors he does not lead with it so you cannot justify that title. Cultural psychology however defined does not encompass culture, that title would need anthropological use as I said. There was legitimate material which I left with some minor changes. But you have to assert your original ideas you cannot work with other editors. ----Snowded 23:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, you reverted a modified version of 'Cultural aspects' that sets the stage more carefully than the original. It's hard to understand that a quote from Andy Clark is "my original idea". And its hard to see why 'cultural aspects' don't merit their own sub-section when the psychology aspect is about perception and sensorimotor skills, and nothing about culture. And it is impossible to understand why having no material on enactivism in cultural anthropology should mean that enactivism in cultural psychology should be ignored in a subsection on 'cultural aspects'. Brews ohare (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: It is gratifying to see that putting this material to a sub-subsection with a new source and titling it Participatory sense-making has got it past your editorial scrutiny. Brews ohare (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Material transferred from Enaction

In this edit Snowded elected on his own recognizance to revert all the material transferred from Enaction in preparation for the deletion of that article as a result of a four-party consensus. His one-line edit summary is Sorry brews its cultural psychology and there is a lot of OR synthesis in that which has no relevance to these deletions.

I hope he will attempt to explain himself if he wishes to continue to insist. Brews ohare (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You used the excuse of moving material to reinsert disputed material and titles Brews . I'll go through it later but if you revert then we go back to the position before you made the first edit per WP:BRD until there is agreement. If you had just brought across material I would not have had to do this. ----Snowded 23:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Baloney: you reverted everything, not just the additions about cultural aspects. And of course, you are wrong about that, and too nervous about justifying your actions to make any attempt at talk-page discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of explanation necessary to understand sentence on 4E′s

In this edit Snowded removed all but the first sentence of this paragraph:

Enactivism fits into a broader context for cognition sometimes called the 4E′s, a shorthand for embodied, embedded, extended, and the topic here, namely, enacted. A brief sketch of the 4E′s can be based upon Rowlands. The term 'embodied' signifies that mental processes make use of a physical plant, not just a brain but a wider set of structures. (p. 67) The term 'embedded' stresses the environment in which this plant is located. (p. 68) The term 'extended' points out the tools or apparatus employed by the physical plant in learning about, modifying, and adapting to its environment, that can sometimes be regarded as part of that plant, or may be simply extensions of that plant. (p. 59) And finally, enaction stresses the dynamic interaction between the environment and the physical plant, a back-and-forth feedback in which knowledge is constructed and the interactive mechanisms themselves are reshaped. (p. 74) Enactivism is focused upon this last aspect.

References

1. Special issue on 4E cognition: Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, Extended; Richard Menary (November 24, 2010). R Menary, ed (ed.). "Introduction to the special issue on 4E cognition" (PDF). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 9 (4). doi:10.1007/s11097-010-9187-6. {{cite journal}}: |editor= has generic name (help)
2. Dave Ward, Mog Stapleton (2012). "Es are good. Cognition as enacted, embodied, embedded, affective and extended". In Fabio Paglieri, ed (ed.). Consciousness in Interaction: The role of the natural and social context in shaping consciousness. John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 89 ff. ISBN 978-9027213525. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help) On-line version here.
3. Mark Rowlands (2010). "Chapter 3: The mind embodied, embedded, enacted and extended". The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. MIT Press. pp. 51 ff. ISBN 0262014556.

As usual, Snowded avoided all talk-page explanation and provided only a one-line edit summary:

coatrack, this article is about enactivism the reference is enough.—Snowded

Why (please tell me why) does Snowded think that the general reader of this article should be forced to go read the cited academic sources of the first sentence in order to discover what is meant by the jargon the 4 E′s? Could it be a huge misuse of space to provide the brief summary of this term provided here, or (as seems likely) could it be a huge convenience to the reader to (i) have a simple explanation and (ii) a readable source (Rowlands) to explore further, if they wish?

And why is this a 'coatrack', when no other explanation of the 4E′s is available on WP? (It used to be in Enaction (philosophy), but it was yanked there too, and now that article is slated for deletion.)

And what about the use of the term 'embodied' and 'embedded' elsewhere? Might the reader like to know what they mean?

Maybe Snowded simply wants to prevent this material from appearing? He has said that 'one fine day' he will write a magnum opus on WP explaining the 4E′s and "post-Cartesian thinking". Maybe the thunder of that momentous and long-awaited ceremony will be diminished by this prior disclosure? Brews ohare (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You are needlessly expanding the article Brews. I'm not bothering to respond otherwise to you until you stop throwing insults and silly speculation. Needless cluttering the talk page with material that can be linked is not helpful either by the way, but you already know that ----Snowded 10:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a useful addition Snowded. You have provided no reason at all for its reversion except this arbitrary opinion of your own. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I provided a reason Brews, you (i) didn't agree with it and (ii) can't keep a civil tongue in your head. Until you can cope with disagreement and follow WP:Civil I will keep interaction to a minimum. ----Snowded 15:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So now a valid WP policy for deletion is "Snowded doesn't agree" and need not even indicate his reason(s)? Brews ohare (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No more than a valid reason for inclusion is "Brew's likes it". Try and pay attention to what you were told by several editors on the OR notice board in respect of consensus. ----Snowded 18:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the text here, as said, is to help the WP reader who might wonder what the 4E s are. It's unlikely that your whim constitutes 'consensus'. Brews ohare (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

See previous response. Pity really I thought you were starting to co-operate, putting material up accepting modifications. ----Snowded 19:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What we have here Snowded is one more example of your obstructive behavior removing useful well-sourced material from WP articles without talk-page discussion and only with your personal assertions of your personal preferences. Brews ohare (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages FIve Pillars

The frequent recriminations and insults between two editors here (and elsewhere) is in my view likely to alienate readers, prevent progress on articles, and to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. If we have disagreements then they should either be resolved publicly through mediation, or discussed privately in non-public emails. Resources should not be wasted on repeated public differences and accusations. See Misplaced Pages:Five_pillars: this says that we should treat each other with respect and civility, and that we should not engage in personal attacks. So cut it out, and behave like the adults you are. There are resources to help you deal with this situation rather than boring us all with endless accusation and personal stuff.

TonyClarke (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please link to an insult I've made Tony, I have pointed to repetitions of behaviour for which Brew's has been sanctioned but thats been the limit, as has Machine Elf and several other editors.----Snowded 07:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tony: Snowded routinely deletes well-sourced and useful material I contribute to various articles. He refuses to provide any justification or analysis in support of his actions, and abuses the one-line edit summary with cryptic or erroneous comments that he refuses to elaborate upon.

Your admonition to 'cut it out' is a lot less useful than your joining the discussion and providing some useful commentary on content. That would force some responsibility here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tony, you are entirely familiar with the 4E's and the Ward-Stapleton paper. No doubt you could present a useful opinion regarding inclusion of this explanatory paragraph, or propose a contribution of your own. Brews ohare (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You must be aware that the huge majority of philosophy articles were contributed around 2006 or 2007 and have seen nothing but minor edits since. The originating authors in many, maybe most, cases have not contributed to WP for years. The philosophy work project is moribund. As a result of this apathy a few editors like Snowded and MachineElf dominate the field and insist upon their own agendas. You could help a lot here to bring some balance to the situation. Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Stub-Class philosophy of mind articles
• Unknown-importance philosophy of mind articles
• Philosophy of mind task force articles