Talk:Philosophy

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy until they reached their status as autonomous disciplines? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that Ludwig Wittgenstein understood philosophy as a linguistic therapy that aims to dispel misunderstandings caused by the confusing structure of natural language? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that Isaac Newton's opus on physics was at the time considered a work of philosophy? Source:
  • ALT3: ... that Bertrand Russell advocated philosophy as a means to free oneself from prejudices and self-deceptive notions derived from common sense? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Beaufort
  • Comment:

References

Sources

• Tuomela, Raimo (30 September 1985). Science, Action, and Reality. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-277-2098-6.
• Shivendra, Chandra Soti (2006). Philosophy of Education. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-81-7156-637-2.
• Joll, Nicholas. "Metaphilosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 15 May 2019. Retrieved 1 February 2022.
• Biletzki, Anat; Matar, Anat (2021). "Ludwig Wittgenstein: 3.7 The Nature of Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
• Cotterell, Brian (29 August 2017). Physics And Culture. World Scientific. p. 458. ISBN 978-1-78634-378-9.
• Maddy, Penelope (2022). A Plea for Natural Philosophy: And Other Essays. Oxford University Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-19-750885-5.
• Russell, Bertrand (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. p. 91.
• Pojman, Louis P.; Vaughn, Lewis, eds. (2009). Philosophy: The Quest for Truth (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk). Nominated by Phlsph7 (talk) and PatrickJWelsh (talk) at 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philosophy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article is certainly DYK-eligible! A QPQ has been done (hope to see HF back around these parts soon), and I have no concerns with the article content that would be a problem for DYK. I'm unsold on the hooks, though -- there's a seed of a great hook in ALT0, but it needs more concision to shine. Allow me to propose...
  • ALT0a: ... that most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
  • ALT0b: ... that most of the sciences formed part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
• ALT0b is a little more terse in a way that tends to work at DYK, but "individual" is a meaningful enough word in this context that I'm giving options with and without it to allow for some flexibility. Are you fine with these? Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • And another that just occurred to me, given all three are explicitly mentioned in the article. I think this is the best bet:
    • ALT0c: ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines?
  • Thoughts again? Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @Vaticidalprophet: Thanks for the suggestions, they all make good candidates. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
    • @Vaticidalprophet: Hi, I like option "c" best, but I'm fine with the others as well. Thanks for looking at this! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Nice -- I agree ALT0c is the best too :) Putting this on new-review for somebody to approve the new hooks, but I've already reviewed the article itself. Vaticidalprophet 15:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Article recently brought to GA, long enough, neutral, hooks are cited in the article, no copyvio/closeparaphrasing, hooks are within the character limit, accurate, sourced, probably of interest. QPQ is done. No image, which is a shame. After all, Martin Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. I find a general consensus for ALT0c. Free to fly. SN54129 12:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I added an image of Newton and the apple tree to the article (Philosophy#Etymology), which could be included. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Go for it, PatrickJWelsh; actually, it's extremely apt, considering that to modern eyes, Newton was a mathematician, whereas, as the hook suggests, he would also have been a philosopher to contemporaries. Well thought! SN54129 16:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy as a Meta- or Sub- discipline

@PatrickJWelsh:, the fragment "are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy" seems contradictory or inconsistent to me because the prefix "meta" is used to denote a thing is beyond, above, or at a higher level while the prefix "sub" is used to denote a thing is under, below, or at a lower level. This seems to be a conflict that can be easily resolved by removing that fragment from the sentence "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in the subdiscipline known as metaphilosophy." It makes things simpler and more clear. Correct or wrong it's unnecessary information. ProofCreature (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ProofCreature,

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page!

Metaphilosophy is meta in that it positions itself "above" philosophy by taking philosophy itself as its topic.

It is, however, also a subdiscipline in that it is itself only one small part of philosophy. Possibly "subfield" would be a better term here, but I do not see any actual inconsistency in the current language.

To explicitly spell out x in this respect to y, and also y in this respect to x would, in my judgment, be unnecessarily tedious. I don't particularly think the general article on philosophy should get into metaphilosophy, but this particular sentence does not strike me as an issue.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't see the inconsistency in the language? You explained it in your comment; that it is above philosophy and a part of philosophy.

I get that I am focused on semantics, here, but the conflict implies a problem with Metaphilosophy in general.

To otherwise resolve a conflict without semantics, to have a thing be both below and above in relation to another thing, one would require a Holy Spirit like entity. Spirits seem to be antithetical to Philosophy's reliance on logic.

ProofCreature (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Reflexivity is a basic feature of consciousness. This may indeed be remarkable, but it is no demerit to any school or branch of philosophy to express and reflect upon as much. If anything, the contrary.

"Below" and "above" are entirely metaphorical, and so different parts of philosophy can be both in different respects without contradiction.

Philosophy highlights self-inquiry more than any other generally recognized discipline, but it is hardly alone in reflecting upon its own methods and operations. Any contradiction at work is dialectical and most likely does not warrant more detailed discussion in the general article on philosophy.

In any case, nothing magical is in any way required or implied. Philosophy does not need a Holy Ghost anymore than you do when, for instance, you think about the kind of person that you want to be—which is something that all of us do with respect to ourselves!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that etymologically, the sentence could sound contradictory if one tried to make sense of the term "metaphilosophy" based on the roots of its parts. However, not everything that might sound contradictory is contradictory. If the sources say that the claim is true (which they do) then this trumps the etymological impression. Patrick's explanation of the reflexive nature of philosophy could also be used to expel the etymological impression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Proof I am right about Philosophiing (like radii)(;)(Philosophying?))), Philosophiers Really Love the Way They Talk About Would They Talk About It, and Women as well, Proverbs 1:20; Love is Wisdom is Sex, Have A Blessed Day, let’s see if we can get a Philosophier page soon. Mintosoares (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh:, @Phlsph7:, I disagree with you both. My argument is entirely semantics. I disagree that a word with a prefix denoting a superiority like "meta-" should be given a secondary connotation found in the word "subdisipline".

It's easy enough to remove the conflict by removing half the sentence or even just the word "subdiscipline". Additional content in the article is not required. In this situation the correction is removal, not embelishment. The following seem correct to me:

"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial."  

"Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy." 

I have no disagreement with reflexivity, but if that's "metaphilosophy" I think the article (and, if used that way, the entire academic field) is using the wrong word for it.

Tangenially:

I disagree that most words are metaphorical. Prefixes like "meta-" or "sub-" or words like "above" and "below " symbolize a real, known, idea as do most other words (There are exceptions for words that symbolize fictions like dragons or ghosts). buthat'sjustme, I suppose. It is very apparent to me that for many people they're just words, no one means anything by them; they are immaterial.

ProofCreature (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

While I acknowledge your reasoning and your position, the article should reflect what the reliable sources say. Here are some examples:

• From [1]: This book is an introduction to metaphilosophy - the branch of philosophy that....
• From [2]: ... this area ...has ... been acknowledged as a distinctive branch of philosophy ... entitled metaphilosophy
• From [3]: Metaphilosophy is a field or branch of philosophy...

If we have to change it then your second suggestions ("Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy.") would be better but my impression is that we can keep it as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Merge this page along with Outline of philosophy 2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Would also like to propose scientificalness, scientificness, scienceness, conscienceness, with some other verbs that are surrounding this study of mine called philosophias, math and con/:scienceness, thanks! Mintosoares (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

scientificness as well Mintosoares (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Con/:scienceness as a merge with conscience meaning with science (knowing) -ness (to be) and a close of the relationship between “conscience(ness)” and consciousness! Mintosoares (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Therefore the question remains, is consciousness an exquisite form that can be described through science when realizing “-scious, science” are of the same word , have a great sense for this question Mintosoares (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That'd make some sense. If nothing else there should be a prominent link in Philosophy to Outline of Philosophy. Though maybe that's accomplished by the Part of a series on Philosophy template.

ProofCreature (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There are already several links from Philosophy to Outline of philosophy. Philosophy is a regular article while Outline of philosophy is an outline, i.e. a collection of links. I don't see how merging makes sense since a long list of links does not belong into a regular article. See also WP:MERGEREASON. We could turn Outline of philosophy into a redirect to Philosophy but no reason has been mentioned why we shouldn't have an outline of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

linked in see also Cal3000000 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding an Image to the "Indian Philosophy" and "Other traditions" subsections.

I was going through the page and released the Philosophy#Western, Philosophy#Arabic–Persian, and Philosophy#Chinese subsections under the Philosophy#History section have images of a philosopher from their respective traditions, but the Philosophy#Indian and the Philosophy#Other traditions subsections do not have one.

This is a request to add an images of a philosopher from the respective traditions and to decide which philosopher or image should be added.

For the Philosophy#Indian, I believe Nagarjuna, Adi Shankara, or Swami Vivekananda would be the best as they were very influential and well known.

In Philosophy#Other traditions Japanese philosophy, African philosophy, and Indigenous American philosophy are discussed. I believe it would be the most appropriate to add a philosopher from either African philosophy or Indigenous American philosophy as the previous two traditions are not well known and Japanese philosophy is heavily influenced by both Chinese and Indian philosophy. GayaniGojo (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this oversight, I added an image of Adi Shankara. I don't think that we need an image for the section "Other traditions" but if there are concrete suggestions of well-known representative figures, we could consider them. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed sentence amendment: Other traditions

The section on African philosophy seems to be short, underdeveloped and lacking contextual depth in comparison to other areas i.e. Indian, Chinese and Latin American philosophy.

I propose adding two sentence additions which may be rewritten (depending on the view of other users) but the content below derive from reliable sources.

"The philosophical tradition in Africa derived from both ancient Egypt and scholarly texts in medieval Africa. Among the most notable examples from this tradition emerge from the work of the 17th-century philosopher Zera Yacob, and that of his disciple Walda Heywat. Yacob in his writings discusses religion, morality, and existence."

Sources

Samuel Imbo - An Introduction to African Philosophy

Kwasi Wiredu - A Companion to African phillosophy

Dag Herbjørnsrud - "Beyond decolonizing: global intellectual history and reconstruction of a comparative method" WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the recent addition, it's worth noting verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and the quality of prose also particularly matters for additions to a featured article like this one. It's more than just a copyediting issue, as one would need to start over with the sources in order to come up with a worthwhile tertiary analysis imo, as what was added is comparatively undigested and unmotivated in the article's greater context. Like I said, I think an addition to this effect is worthwhile, but as written it presently says very little and is a net negative, hence the reversion. Remsense ‥ 诉 04:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, Can you expand on what specifically needs to be expanded to constitute a positive addition and a "teritrary analysis" for the wider article ? This seems to be a case of restructuring the content for a more digestible format. WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Alternatively, how about a condensed version of the sentence which adds further clairty to the prose ?

"The philosophical tradition in Africa derived from both ancient Egypt and scholarly texts in medieval African kingdoms such as Mali, Ghana and Songhai which had an established tradition of Islamic, intellectual scholarship. A philosophical literature also developed in Ethiopia during the seventeeth century in relation to theodicy, principle of ethics and psychology under the 17th-century philosopher Zera Yacob, and that of his disciple Walda Heywat." WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the issues that jumped out at me was the assertion of the, seemingly singular, philosophical tradition in Africa. This is clearly patterning the language used in the source, but importantly the source specifically says It is therefore in the written text that we must look for African philosophy. If we define philosophy as critical, written thought, the philosophical tradition in Africa extends as far back as the ancient Egyptians and the scholarly works in medieval Africa. It's much more clear here that we're just talking about chronology and not chains of direct influence, even though it's still presented as a whole.

What's more, the passage above is given in the source as part of the particular approach of Lansana Keita, but it's given unattributed in wikivoice. It also feels WP:CLOP-adjacent. I tried rewriting the passage, but I do not feel comfortable doing so, since the presentation in this source is so broad, and I am not adequately familiar with other sources. This is part of the difficulty of writing at such a zoomed-out level, especially in areas that have historically been underrepresented in RS, I think. It may be that there is little in this section not because there aren't secondary sources to cite, but because views in them are so diverse for one reason or another, if that makes sense. Remsense ‥ 诉 05:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense - How about I drop the first sentence at this stage and only include the second sentence related to the philosophical tradition in Ethiopia ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think an addition specifically concerning East Africa (as well as one about the Bantu tradition, moreover) is likely very much worthwhile, but I'm not sure I would make it specifically about Zara Yaqob. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense, yes but other sections make specific reference to individual philosophers. Also, Yakob is often cited as the most notable figure from Ethiopia at that specific time. The chapter also discusses his protege in similar detail. It is only a single sentence. WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello WikiUser4020 and thanks for your suggestion. The passage on African philosophy is shorter than some passages on other traditions because it gets significantly less attention in the academic discourse, see WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. We only have a few paragraphs to give a very condensed summary of the history of the wide field of philosophy so we have to be very picky about what to include. As far as I'm aware, detailed overview sources on the history of philosophy in general do not mention Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat. It's probably better for Wikipedia to cover these details in articles on more narrow topics, like African philosophy.

I agree that the first sentence of your suggestion could violate WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7, Although, yes I do share concerns about the under representation of these traditions in academic discourses which impacts their coverage on Wikipedia. However, the section on this particular area could still have 1 or 2 sentences to provide further context. However, if neither of you want to include the second sentence on Yacob then I’ll drop the matter. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the IEP article History of African Philosophy. It only mentions Yacob twice and Heywat once, all in a single paragraph questioning whether their ideas should be considered African philosophy: Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat, both Ethiopian philosophers with Arabic and European educational influences. The question is, are the ideas produced by these people indubitably worthy of the name ‘African philosophies’?...it may be uncharitable to say to the African historian that Amo or Yacob was not an African. But, does being an African translate to being an African philosopher? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 That is from one source. A Companion to African Philosophy which features a range of professional philosophers devotes two chapters to Zera Yacob.

According to Ethiopian philosopher Teodoros Kiros - (p183) "Ethiopian philosophy is unique in Africa because it is both written and oral. In the written tradition, Zera Yacob is undoubtedly the dominant figure. The oral tradition is present in songs, poems, proverbial sayings, etc. These have been systematically translated and analyzed by Claude Sumner, the foremost scholar of Ethiopian philosophy, in his editions of The Book of the Wise Philosophers and The Life and Maxims of Skendes".

As previously mentioned, I do believe the second sentence should be included however if there is no consensus support for the proposed addition then I'll leave the matter as it stands. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We use tertiary sources to get a feeling for how different aspects of an article should be balanced. Another encyclopedia article with a significantly narrower scope (specifically African philosophy) only providing a brief mention is rather strong evidence that this even broader article should mention them not at all. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this violate WP:Proportion? I think it's crucial to outline the oral nature of early philosophy as an explanation for lack of widespread written traditions, and highlight the cultural products as repositories for knowledge, preservation and transmission.

African philosophy before the 20th century was primarily conducted and transmitted orally as ideas by philosophers whose names have been lost to history. While early African intellectual history primarily focused on folklore, wise sayings, and religious ideas, it also included philosophical concepts, such as the Nguni Bantu concept of Ubuntu in moral philosophy. Systematic African philosophy emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. It discusses topics such as ethnophilosophy, négritude, pan-Africanism, Marxism, postcolonialism, the role of cultural identity, relativism, African epistemology, and the critique of Eurocentrism. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I think mentioning the oral nature is a good idea. What about shortening your suggestion to

Early African philosophy was primarily conducted and transmitted orally. It focused on community, morality, and ancestral ideas, encompassing folklore, wise sayings, religious ideas, and philosophical concepts like Ubuntu. Systematic African philosophy emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. It discusses topics such as ethnophilosophy, négritude, pan-Africanism, Marxism, postcolonialism, the role of cultural identity, relativism, African epistemology, and the critique of Eurocentrism.

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Phlsph7 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s much better, thank you Kowal2701 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

References

google books in citations

Hi Phlsph7 I noticed the deletion of the archive urls [4], however you also removed all the normal google books urls, not just the archives. So this goes beyond the discussion you referenced which is about the archive version. Is it really necessary to delete the normal google urls? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andrew Lancaster and thanks for bringing up the point. The problem is that IABot adds archives if there is a url-parameter. So if you just remove the archives but leave the url-parameter, the archives will be re-added the next time IABot runs. Personally, I don't feel strongly about it either way. It's just that several reviewers have asked for the archives to be removed and there seems to be no point to this if a bot re-adds them later.

As I see it, the main value of external links to Google Books comes from the page previews they offer (not all of them do). This way, readers can open the link and directly verify the information. In our article, the links to Google Books page previews are usually found in the short footnote templates. They were not removed. Looking at the very first cite book template (Adamson & Ganeri 2020), the url-parameter was removed but short footnote template to it still has a link to the Google Books page preview.

• Short footnote template in reference [67]: ... Adamson & Ganeri 2020, pp. 101–102...
• Cite book template in bibliography: Adamson, Peter; Ganeri, Jonardon (2020). Classical Indian Philosophy. A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps. Vol. 5. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-885176-9. ...

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that's a shame. I personally like google book links if there is no other link available. They help speed up verification discussions quite often. I guess a lot of people have put time into collecting them. Couldn't we just wait for someone to fix that bot?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I restored the Google Books urls without the archive urls. The problem seems to be that the bot is widely used so a bigger discussion would needed to establish consensus for changing the bot's behavior. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

See also the essay WP:Google Books and Wikipedia. I tend to think that it's better to keep the Google Books URLs, for reasons listed at WP:Google Books and Wikipedia#Why we use it anyway, if Google Books provides at least a preview and if there is no better link available. Perhaps the {{cbignore}} template will stop IABot from adding archive-urls? Biogeographist (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of the cbignore-template. I added it to all the cite-templates with Google Books URLs. Let's see if this solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My recommendation is to just revert any addition of archive urls to still-living external links. These are not really helpful to readers and take a lot of space. The important thing is that there exists a wayback machine backup that we can link to if URLs ever rot, but there's no need to include that in articles when the original external links still work. –jacobolus (t) 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hegel, Heidegger, Leo Strauss

These are three heavy-weights of all philosophers. What do you think about [5]?

Hegel's POV is rendered according to a WP:SECONDARY source (Heidegger), and Leo Strauss' POV is also rendered according to a secondary source.

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV was used, and if somebody else wants to improve nuance, I have nothing against that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the editor who removed these citations was doubting whether there would be enough consensus for their notability, or at least thinking that there should first be talk page discussion. You are of course right that they are interesting. I also suspect that they add something to the other ones we have. Philosophy has indeed long been characterized as a type of thinking which is willing to push beyond socially acceptable norms. Didn't Plato have Socrates say somewhere that real philosophers seem made to most people? In any case, maybe it would be better if it was made more clear what these definitions add to the ones we already have. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm good at pithy sentences, I'm not so good at nuanced explanations. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello tgeorgescu and thanks for your suggestion. There are countless characterizations of philosophy and whole books could be filled only disucssing this topic. We only have a handful of paragraphs to discuss them so we really need to be picky to ensure that we only present the most important ones. Heideggers interpretation of Hegel's characterization of philosophy as "the world turned upside down" and Strauss's characterization of philosophy as "denial of the gods of the city" are not the most typical or well-knowns ones. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tgeorgescu, Sorry to have reverted without explanation right before checking out from Wikipedia for the day. My reasoning was mostly that already given above. Additionally, the view attributed to Hegel is correct, but misleading without additional context, and the Strauss definition, in my view, is too figurative to stand on its own without explication. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)