Talk:Shelf:Philosophy

Proposal to move content not conforming to current definition of "philosophy" to alternative shelves
Several books within the "Philosophy" shelf do not belong there. The common definition of philosophy in the present day is a discipline that attempts to reason about various things through rigorous reason and logic. This is the definition used by wikibooks itself, as per the header in Category:Shelf:Philosophy:

"Books on this shelf deal with philosophy: the study of problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, justification, truth, justice, right and wrong, beauty, validity, mind, and language. Many other disciplines study such things. However, philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these issues by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument rather than, for example, experiments."

It matches the rough definition of Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. Philosophical inquiry is a central element in the intellectual history of many civilizations."

Importantly, philosophy is speculative and based on reasoning, not authoritatively assertive. As such, statements must follow rigorous logic and reason, making no definitive claim on reality unless it can be fully logically proven. Competing philosophies can live side-by-side for as long as either are not fully disproven. Although assertions indeed often form the starting point of logical reasoning, the philosophical part is the part that follows an assertion. Never can a sound philosophical theory claim the underlying assertion to be true without proof.

An authoritative assertion does not make an attempt at a proof, and does not come to the conclusion that we don't know for sure. Instead, they are part of a fixed worldview, a doctrine, and in a subset of cases, a religion.

Certain books in this shelf currently cover only authoritative assertions, without using them to apply logic and reasoning to gain further understanding. A good example of this is the book "Alchemy". The book, as it is currently written, does not use logic and reasoning to deduce conclusions; as such, it is not philosophy, even though the practice once might have been counted as such historically. In fact, since alchemy makes claims about the physical world, it acts at the same level of abstraction as science and engineering, rather than the more abstract discipline of philosophy. Using the scientific method, alchemy has in fact been disproven and is now commonly seen as pseudoscience. The only way for alchemy to hold true, is to authoritatively assert that alchemy is true: as such, it is neither based on abstract reasoning and logic, nor does it match physical observation.

Since there may still be use for such a book as a reference, for example as a historical predecessor to chemistry (like how the geocentric model of the universe preceded the heliocentric model, both of which have been disproven as they were preceded the more complete view we have today), or as a reference to cultural practice, or to catalog nonconforming worldviews. Even so, regardless of whether alchemy is true or not, it does not belong in the shelf Philosophy, since it is authoritatively assertive. I would propose moving this, and other such authoritatively assertive books to a new shelf: perhaps named "Alternative Worldviews". Potential other shelves could include, "Spirituality", "Doctrines", "Culture", "Historic Worldviews" and so forth. The exact naming is up for debate.

Other books in this shelf like Alchemy, which are not based on abstract reasoning but on concrete (non-abstract), alternative, and authoritatively assertive worldviews, include:


 * Ba Zi (In its current authoritatively written form, it is not a philosophical treatise, but a cosmological astrology. I suggest it be moved to a shelf like the proposed "Alternative Worldviews", or perhaps a shelf like "Astrology" or such. It can also be seen as a historic reference, in which case it may have a place in "History".)
 * Mysticism (In its current written form, it acts well as a religious or cultural reference, but not as a philosophical treatise, as it does not use logic and reason to support assertions. Instead, it merely states the assertions that mysticists believe in or their cultural practices, but does not consider a critical, systematic approach to draw logical conclusions within the realm of philosophy. I suggest it be moved into a shelf like the proposed "Alternate Worldviews".)
 * I Ching (Similarly to Ba Zi, in its current authoritatively written form, it is not a philosophical treatise, but a reference guide of ancient divination. It is a good historical and cultural reference, and furthermore can be a useful addition to the proposed "Alternate Worldviews" shelf, but it does not approach the subject with the critical logic and reasoning required to be considered a philosophical treatise. Like alchemy, the geocentric model, and so forth, it competes on a less abstract level with science and engineering, rather than with the more abstract levels of epistemology, metaphyics, ethics, and so forth, unless someone edits the book to focus more on the abstract aspects of ancient Chinese commentaries and avoids authoritative assertions about the physical world.)
 * Alchemy (As I already covered, this is an authoritatively assertive text about a practice that has been disproven by science. It furthermore does not attempt to undermine the foundation upon which science stands through rigorous and sound argumentation, like solipsism might.)

For each of these, a more knowledgeable person than me may write an actual philosophical treatise on some of these subjects, such that they do belong in the current shelf. I do hold the opinion that non-western or even fringe philosophical ideas would be a great addition to the Philosophy shelf, provided they are actual philosophical treatises, and not authoritative assertions. As such, they must abide by the critical rigor and logic required of any philosophical treatise. I would welcome such book projects with great interest, should contributors be interested in writing them. But as the books I listed are currently written, they do not belong in the Philosophy shelf, and I propose they be moved to a more appropriate shelf.

Please note here that I am judging only the appropriateness of the topic, scope, style, and target audience of the books as they currently are formatted and outlined, and am not judging on non-neutrality/bias, flawed arguments, quality, or completeness. There may be books present in the shelf that have flawed, biased or unbalanced arguments, but in and of themselves do attempt (biasedly) to approach the subject matter from a perspective of critical reasoning. Any such problems with these books would have to be discussed in the respective book's discussion pages themselves, and are out of scope for this proposal. Mazimil (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)