Yahoo Web Search

  1. People also ask

    Is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy an online encyclopedia?

    When was the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy published?

    Are there any Wikipedia pages that lead to philosophy?

    Who is the editor of the Journal of Philosophy?

  2. Philosophy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_philosophy

    The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan & Free Press. Kant, Immanuel (1881). Critique of Pure Reason. Macmillan. Bowker, John (1999). The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-866242-6. Baldwin, Thomas, ed. (2003). The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870–1945. Cambridge University Press.

  3. Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy

    Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition The Encyclopedia of Philosophy is one of the major English encyclopedias of philosophy . The first edition of the encyclopedia was in eight volumes, edited by Paul Edwards , and published in 1967 by Macmillan ; [1] it was reprinted in four volumes in 1972.

  4. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Internet_Encyclopedia_of

    2161-0002. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( IEP) is a scholarly online encyclopedia, dealing with philosophy, philosophical topics, and philosophers. The IEP combines open access publication with peer reviewed publication of original papers. Contribution is generally by invitation, and contributors are recognized and leading ...

  5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Stanford_Encyclopedia_of

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( SEP) combines an online encyclopedia of philosophy with peer-reviewed publication of original papers in philosophy, freely accessible to Internet users. It is maintained by Stanford University. Each entry is written and maintained by an expert in the field, including ...

  6. Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
    • Method Summarized
    • Origins
    • See Also
    • External Links

    Following the chain consists of: 1. Clicking on the first non-parenthesized, non-italicized link 2. Ignoring external links, links to the current page, or red links (links to non-existent pages) 3. Stopping when reaching "Philosophy", a page with no links or a page that does not exist, or when a loop occurs Mathematician Hannah Fry demonstrated the method in the 'Marmalade', 'socks' and 'One Direction' section of the 2016 BBC Documentary The Joy of Data.

    The phenomenon has been known since at least May 26, 2008, when an earlier version of this page was created by user Mark J. Two days later, it was mentioned in episode 50 of the podcast Wikipedia Weekly, which may have been its first public mention.

    Getting to Philosophy, a Node.jslibrary that allows to query any Wikipedia page and get the different pages names that will get to "Philosophy" (also avoids loops and use the second link)
    YouTube video demonstrating this observation, which starts with a random article and eventually ends up in the article Philosophy
  7. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — Wikipedia Republished ...

    wiki2.org › en › Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy

    Mar 06, 2021 · The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) combines an online encyclopedia of philosophy with peer-reviewed publication of original papers in philosophy, freely accessible to Internet users. It is maintained by Stanford University. Each entry is written and maintained by an expert in the field, including professors from many academic institutions worldwide. Authors contributing to the ...

  8. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy organizes scholars from around the world in philosophy and related disciplines to create and maintain an up-to-date reference work.

  9. Descriptions (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    plato.stanford.edu › entries › descriptions
    • What Are Descriptions?
    • Russell’s Theory of Descriptions
    • Motivations For Russell’s Theory of Descriptions
    • Extensions of The Theory of Descriptions
    • Objections to The Theory of Descriptions
    • Dissolving Descriptions
    • What Remains of The Theory of Descriptions?
    • Conclusion

    Ordinarily, when philosophers talk about descriptions, they have twokinds of expressions in mind: definite descriptions—understoodto be phrases of the form ‘the F’ (and theirequivalents in other languages), and indefinitedescriptions—understood to be phrases of the form ‘anF’ (and their equivalents in other languages). As we willsee, this way of carving up the kinds of descriptions is far tooblunt. First, there are many kinds of expressions that appear to havethis form but that are often argued not to be descriptions. Forexample, in the expression ‘John is a lawyer’ it is oftenclaimed that ‘a lawyer’ is not a genuine description, butis rather something different—a predicate for example. Second, it is arguable that there are many expressions having surfaceforms quite different from ‘the F’ or ‘anF’ that could count as being descriptions. For example, it seemsquite plausible that possessives like ‘my father’ aredescriptions (as in ‘the father of me’). Russell alsoproposed that ordinar...

    The key idea of Russell’s proposal is that a sentence like (2)containing an indefinite description, is understood to have thelogical form in (2′), and a sentence like (3) containing a definite description isunderstood to have the logical form in (3′). Boiled down to its simplest non-technical form, the idea is that anexpression of the form in (3) is shorthand for the conjunction of three claims: (Following Neale (1990) we will find it useful to substitute(3c′) for (3c), which retains Russell’s truth conditions and (as we will see)allows us to extend the theory to plural descriptions in a naturalway.) Thus tweaked, Russell’s analysis is that the semantics of a definitedescription in a sentence involves an existence claim, auniqueness claim, and a maximality claim.

    There are three main motivations for the theory of descriptions;the first is metaphysical, the second involves semantical concerns inthe philosophy of language, and the third is epistemological.

    The analysis of descriptions has been extended from canonical examplesof descriptions (expressions of the form ‘the F’and ‘an F’) to expressions that don’t have thissurface form. As we noted in section 3, one of the key motivations forRussell’s theory of descriptions was the idea that it could amelioratethe problem of non-denoting expressions—expressions like‘the golden mountain’, and ‘the present king ofFrance’. But the account has been extended to otherconstructions as well, including proper names, pronouns, and temporalanaphors, all with mixed results.

    The theory of descriptions has encountered its fair share ofcriticism. This criticism has ranged from contentions that Russellsimply got the truth conditions wrong in important cases to naggingworries about the details of the proposal—in particular worriesrelating to the nature of the descriptive content. As we will see,none of these concerns have been completely ameliorated.

    As noted in the beginning of this article, the Russellian account ofdescriptions not only offers a quantificational as opposed to areferential account of descriptions, but it packs three differentclaims into the analysis of descriptions: an existence claim,a uniqueness claim, and a maximality claim. As wewill see, all of these claims can be put under pressure, and all threearguably collapse under that pressure. Let’s begin by examining theuniqueness claim.

    It seems that all three components of Russell’s analysis face seriouschallenges. At this point, is there anything left to salvage?

    A close study of the syntax and semantics of natural language suggeststhat constructions of the form ‘the F’ and‘an F’ are not only rare in natural languages, butpotentially misleading in languages like English. These expressionsreally don’t carry out the logical roles that Russell and subsequentauthors have thought. However, Russell’s core insight remains intact:The critical question is whether the sentences in which they appearare quantificational or referential, and Russell may well be rightabout the critical cases here. That is, many apparently referentialconstructions may in fact be quantificational. What Russell didn’t seewas that surface grammar is more deceptive than even herealized. Elements like ‘the’ and ‘a’ do notdirectly encode quantifiers or uniqueness clauses. The task forphilosophers of language now is the thorny task of figuringout what information they doencode.

  10. Wikipedia | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

    www.britannica.com › topic › Wikipedia

    Wikipedia, free Internet-based encyclopedia, started in 2001, that operates under an open-source management style. It is overseen by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation and is one of the most-visited sites on the Internet. It uses a collaborative software known as wiki for editing articles.

  11. People also search for