Talk:Pluralism (philosophy)

The stages of pluralism in civilize nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.94.48.206 (talk • contribs)

Radical pluralism

The article could maybe present a bit of information on the philosophy of radical pluralism, which is a bit different from typical pluralism in that it is radical. ADM (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the pre-Socrates, but I'm confident in saying that Parmenides' philosophy is not characterized by "ever-changing flux" as the article suggests. Rather it is one of unchanging constancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.91.28 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The practical upshot is more or less the same if one wants an account of change between those extremes, but of course, flux was Heraclitus, not Parmenides.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Logic on Wikipedia

If one is going to accept both contradiction and truth ("several conflicting but still true descriptions of the world") why bother continuing? Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Every coin has two sides. BlueMist (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting

Pluralism appears to have several meanings in philosophy. This article covers 2 distinct meanings which have no reason to be covered on the same article. There is already an article covering epistemological pluralism, in which the Epistemology section should be merged. The metaphysical section should be split into a new article. I am not sure how that article should be named, Ontological pluralism or Metaphysical pluralism. --Chealer (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Within "Metaphysics", the "Metaphysical Pluralism" section does not even exist yet. Metaphysical pluralism is the multiplicity of metaphysical models, as exhibited by Plato and Nelson Goodman. It will need to be made clear how it is different from "Ontological Pluralism". BlueMist (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the split tag. This discussion has ceased and it is not clear what is intended or why. If discussion resumes in the future and a concensus is reached on how to split then replace the split tag, or even better, carry out the split.

Merging

The tag to merge Epistemology has had no discussion. There is now a tag to say that the section does not even meet standards. If there is a problem with the section then it should either be rectified or removed. Merging the section to another article is just moving the problem.

RfC: New version of Ontological pluralism

A new version of the article ontological pluralism has been written and comments are requested on its talk page at User:Brews_ohare/ontological_pluralism#RfC:_New_version_of_Ontological_pluralism.. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At the moment the subject is treated as a subsection Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism that refers to Classical elements as the 'main article' on the subject. In fact, classical elements is an account of " ancient beliefs inspired by natural observation of the phases of matter; with the classical elements: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas and fire is equivalent to plasma." That discussion in fact has nothing to do with ontological pluralism in today's philosophy. This is also the subject of the first and longest of two paragraphs in Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism.

There is a second paragraph discussing one aspect of Wittgenstein's thought on the subject of language games. This discussion is very tangential to the topic and it s bearing is not made clear.

There is nothing here reflecting modern work on the topic such as that referred to in Matti Eklund (2009). Carnap and Ontological Pluralism, Huw Price (1992). Metaphysical Pluralism, Joshua Spencer (2012). Ways of Being, and on and on.

Considering the poor treatment of this topic on WP, it is time something was changed, and this draft article is a step in that direction. Some comment would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

New lead paragraph for section on ontological pluralism

I have added a new introductory paragraph to the section 'ontological pluralism' that widens the scope of this term beyond an archaic reference to Aristotle's elements to reflect a more modern interpretation of this topic. Two sources have been supplied. The entire subsection needs to undertake a wider discussion that reflects a wider modern view of the topic. Brews ohare (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• This new introductory paragraph, reproduced below was deleted by Snowded as part of his campaign to disallow changes to WP articles.

Ontological pluralism is the view that there are different ways or modes of being. "There are numbers, fictional characters, impossible things, and holes. But, we don’t think these things all exist in the same sense as cars and human beings." In very technical terms, ontological pluralism claims that an accurate description of reality uses multiple quantifiers that do not range over a single domain of discourse.

References

Snowded's revert also removed some sub-headers and some rewording, particularly in the paragraph describing metaphysics, that are useful. The article before Snowded's revert can be seen here. Such blanket reversion of good-faith attempts to improve articles with no attempt to respond to this Talk page discussion is inimical to WP development. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out at the introduction to this thread, the present treatment of ontological pluralism is outdated and far too narrow. The deleted paragraph corrected this matter, and Snowded has made no comment about this issue that needs to be addressed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Brews, please try and understand that the edit summary can be used as well as the talk page. I'm open to an argument that there should be balanced additional material from modern sources (although you do insert material from the same narrow range of authors on many articles so please not 'balanced'), but I'm less happy with your headings and the loss of a historical narrative. Your addition of Turner is in effect your selection of what is important for the lede, and you really need a third party not a primary source selected by you. So look at adding some relevant and balanced material, and lets see what other think about headings and sequencing. Above all try and realise that other editors also have the good of wikipedia at heart; that they disagree with you should not be a condemnation ----Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Pardon me, but I have no interest in debating your particular type of non-reasoning objections. There is nothing wrong with my sources and you have no basis at all for disagreeing with them (an anonymous WP editor vs. published sources) or with the general contention that the topic has to be defined more broadly. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well you have been debating with my "non-reasoning" objections over multiple RfCs on many articles without support Brews so I think you will have to engage a little more. Try reading the comment and responding to it, rather than simply reacting because your edit, the whole edit, and nothing but the edit has not been instantly accepted. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please recognize that changes in ontological pluralism are necessary. Yes Snowded, I have put up with one example after another of ridiculous objections to minor edits based upon your personal tastes, or perhaps distastes. Here we have the latest. Brews ohare (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Two things are clear. First that there is nobody with any interest in fixing the problems with ontological pluralism, namely that it treats a sub-topic classical elements as the entire subject. Second, no-one has pointed out anything wrong with the proposed new introductory paragraph that fixes the problem, and no suggestions for its improvement have been made. What's next? Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be a bit technical for the opening paragraph, but that is probably just the nature of the beast. In any case, I like the deleted (and well sourced) paragraph. I haven't reviewed the whole debate going on here, but Brews seems like he's making excellent additions. I'll try and take a look and serve as a third party. - Atfyfe (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You have to show relevance of material selected for the lede, which means a source which justifies the selection, If you can do that (which Brews has not) then no issues ----Snowded ^TALK 19:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The paragraph literally defines "ontological pluralism" in the 2 of the 3 sentences that make up the paragraph. It could not be more relevant. I'll look at his sources, but I am baffled by what your objection could be. - Atfyfe (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can help diagnose the problem. Brews and Snowded appear to be thinking of "ontological pluralism" in entirely different senses. Snowded seems to be thinking of ontological pluralism in a sense that is "directly related with the belief in classical elements, and exists in many ancient world views. " That is not at all the sense in which Brews means ontological pluralism, which is instead directly related to debates over dualism and monism in philosophy of mind. I am not sure how to resolve the problem. Brews is correct that in philosophy ontological pluralism is more about fundamental different ontological categories (between time, matter, space, consciousness, fictional characters, etc.) whereas "ontological pluralism" in science is about different types of physical material. So I presume neither of you will give ground, so the question before us is how can we divide the entry into different sub-sections that can respect these wholly different discussions. - Atfyfe (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Atfyfe: My original proposal found here made some additional changes to help the article fit together better, including a segue in the introductory paragraph of Metaphysics and a few sub-sub-headers. Perhaps something like this would solve the problems, at least in part? Brews ohare (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea is to treat classical elements as an historically interesting version, but the more modern view as being wider ranging. Brews ohare (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I am seeing this as an article on Philosophy Atfyfe and I hope Brew's is as well as he is under a permanent topic ban on Physics related articles, broadly construed. I'm more than happy for modern elements to be there provided (i) so called classical elements are not made an afterthought and (ii) the modern elements are based on third party sources not Brew's selection of those modern sources he is reading. To create an overall structure we need an authoritative source. The Oxford companion to Philosophy has the subject Monism and pluralism, and it is a paragraph long on that difference. It does not extend into a wider discussion. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps useless to say, Snowded, you ignore the points that (i) classical elements does not exhaust the topic of ontological pluralism, and it is not ignored as the entire present treatment is left intact, (ii) a broader meaning is in common use and has been authoritatively sourced (and exampled) in the proposed paragraph making your request for more authoritative sourcing moot, and (iii) dualism does not exhaust ontological pluralism either. Perhaps also useless to point out, the section should be enlarged to refer to work like Eklund that clearly uses the broader meaning and attributes ontological pluralism to Carnap, to Hirsch and to Putnam. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it is how the Cambridge book treats it. You can't just select material you find relevant and then make a definitive statement about the field as a whole. You need a source which discusses the relevance and balance of that material. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Snowded, that is not policy. Relevance in this case is certainly not an issue. As for balance, it would seem that you feel that somehow it is unbalanced to present the modern well-sourced more general definition, as though there were controversy over this matter. There isn't. What we have right now in ontological pluralism is the Aristotelian version of classical elements which is very well represented by a lengthy paragraph and an article of its own. At a minimum this narrow-minded presentation is a violation of WP:NPOV. Brews ohare (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is Brews, if you make a statement about the field as a whole, especially in the lede as you did. Adding new material with some of your sources might be OK as that can be built on ----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a glimmer of compromise here. You're suggesting that presentation of of the general view and the restriction to Aristotelian classical elements be made more parallel? Brews ohare (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is how that could be done:

Ontological pluralism

Ontological pluralism takes several forms. Among them are the the belief in classical elements that exists in many ancient world views, and the more recent interpretation that it is the discussion of different ways or modes of being. These and other approaches are discussed in more detail below.

Classical elements

Main article: Classical elements

blah blah blah (present text in article)

Modes of being

A more recent interpretation of ontological pluralism is that it discusses different ways or modes of being. "There are numbers, fictional characters, impossible things, and holes. But, we don’t think these things all exist in the same sense as cars and human beings." In very technical terms, ontological pluralism claims that an accurate description of reality uses multiple quantifiers that do not range over a single domain of discourse.

References

Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is great. On wikipedia I have found the best option is always to find some way to sub-divide a section/entry so that both editors can be represented. I have to say, I think if we were limited for space that Brews has the more relevant/important discussion of ontological pluralism. However, we are not limited for space. SO let's just divide the sub-section into an entry on "modes of being" and an entry on "classical elements". - Atfyfe (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

The present section ontological pluralism contains an unsourced introduction to Wittgenstein:

"Another example of ontological pluralism can be found in Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion of language-games; the idea that different mutually agreed rule systems, and in the case of ontological matters, ontological rule systems, are adopted in conversation and communication for a purpose which delineates the rules, constituting the language-game's meaning. For example, it is common to refer to a film, novel or otherwise fictitious or virtual narrative as not being real. Thus a functional ontological distinction is made, despite the fact one really did see the film, and one really did read the novel; that is, despite the fact that one cannot experience something that isn't real, or at least, a real experience. In the context of the language-game however, the characters in the film or novel are not real, where the 'real world' is the everyday world in which we live."

I believe this exposition is completely unrelated to classical elements and so requires a separate subheader. Also, the general idea of an ontological distinction between the reality described in a novel, and 'reality' itself falls under the rubric of 'modes of being' and should be lumped into a section on that topic along with a much more extensive discussion of 'modes of being'. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

With the new structure of ontological pluralism, I have introduced the material about Wittgenstein in the subsection Ontological pluralism#Modes of being. I've largely rewritten the previous text quoted above and included three quotations from the Philosophical Investigations. The first of these quotations uses Wittgenstein's own presentation of the idea of drawing boundaries around meanings for special purposes. The second presents Wittgenstein's very lucid comparison of the connection between these overlapping meanings that do not allow a clean division unless a convention is adopted that excludes some aspect of meaning. The third quotation points out that the theories of science constitute one way of drawing such boundaries and defining conventions that restrict the meaning of terms.

These points could be made in the WP text and Wittgenstein simply cited as support. However, I believe the quotes take advantage of Wittgenstein's unmatchable eloquence, and also have the merit of being his own words, so the possibility of misreading him is avoided. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's reverts

In several reverts including one with the comment Excessive quotation and also linking to carnap stuff , Snowded has removed the explanation of Wittgenstein's contribution, several pertinent quotations, and additional material relevant to ontological pluralism as discussed by Carnap and by Quine. He has made no attempt to discuss the reasoning provided in this thread. Further discussion is needed, both as to why explanation of Wittgenstein's efforts has been emasculated, and as to why the discussion by Price, and Eklund about Quine and Carnap and Wittgenstein have been deleted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If this material appears to be too lengthy for a subsection in Pluralism (philosophy), then the redirect from ontological pluralism can be made into a full article, as I have attempted earlier, and as is already the case for epistemological pluralism. That would allow for a fuller development of Price, Eklund and other modern philosophers. Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The material is more than well covered in linked articles. You are using the same material and sources on multiple articles and its not necessary. If I look at the Oxford Companion, a recent publication the entry is very simple and does not have any of the material you are suggesting. Also on quotations, you keep doing this, selecting quotations and adding your commentary. This is not a place for you to write under graduate essays it is an encyclopaedia. We have to create a proportionate representation of relevant material, not extended sections expanding on what editors reading of limited sources ----Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments about 'undergraduate essays' are, of course, simply insults devoid of value. Your vague comments about what is 'proportionate' and 'extended sections' supports making ontological pluralism a separate article. Then things can be condensed here. What is not contained in the 'Oxford Companion' is legion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It (the Oxford Companion) is what Wikipedia calls a reliable third party source. I am sure you think you could have done a better job, but you haven't been published on the subject so it is something you have to learn to live with ----Snowded ^TALK 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: I didn't suggest the 'Oxford Companion' is unreliable, but that it is not an exhaustive treatment of ontological pluralism. It does say the following however, about Jacques Maritain: "he advocates ontological pluralism, claiming there are various non-reducible levels of existence, e.g. the physical, the biological, the psychological, the social, and the spiritual; and similarly he insists upon the diversity of our ways of knowing reality..." [emphasis added]. You may note that 'ontological pluralism' by this account is far, far broader than mere 'philosophy'. It is hard to understand how you can discount the discussions by Price and by Eklund, and indeed the entire discussion of various ontologies by Wittgenstein, Carnap, Hirsch, Putnam and who knows who else. Brews ohare (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Pluralism, it is not the appropriate place for an 'entire discussion of various ontologies" by any number of philosophers. Tone down the edit summaries by the way, you are just building a case ....----Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A complete misreading of my comment. Argumentative to no purpose. Your chosen source supports a wider view of the subject. The comparison of multiple ontologies is ipso facto a consideration of ontological pluralism. Brews ohare (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Brews, please be guided by Snowded... Sorry I haven't had much time lately, I started a new job.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)