Talk:Indian philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] LPSG

The following comment was left on my talk page:

Namaste. I noticed that you added a link on the article for Indian philosophy ([1]) but that site seemed to be a collection of general materials not related to Hindu philosophy specifically. The only item I found there that seemed relevant was a paper on Hindu Philosophy that I think would be considered a self-published document and thus not a WP:RS for this topic. If you feel that the site is important I would encourage you to raise the issue on the talk page for the article so it can be examined more closely. It is good to see someone with an interest in philosophy participating, and I look forward to dialog on this matter if you feel that I have acted in error, as I so often do. Buddhipriya 23:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you probably only clicked on the first link in my addition and failed to notice the second (which I think is the thing you are calling "a self-published document"). The second link (which is one part of the site linked to on the first link) was to the recommended reading list provided by the philosophy department of University College, London to students writing a paper on Indian philosophy (analogous to at least a full-year course at an American university). In general, these recommended reading guides are of the utmost quality (naming the best general introductions, translations, etc. in a given area of philosophy), but Indian philosophy is not my specialty so I cannot confirm that this is the case here. I hope that you look again and reconsider whether this might be a useful resource for individuals considering what to read in this area, but I trust your judgment if you conclude that this isn't appropriate here. - KSchutte 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. I think the second item is a relevant external link according to WP:EL but I would place it under the section for External Links. Take a look at the edit I just made to the article to see if you agree. The other link is for a general Western philosophy department, and that I do not see as relevant. Buddhipriya 00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll just edit it a little for clarification. - KSchutte 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be edited down so that it is just a list?

Most of the text in this article is unsourced. It seem to be mainly a list of links to other articles, which is where detail can be found and better maintained. Should this article be edited down and made specifically a navigation list? Buddhipriya 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this should be the long-term goal of this page, but if the current text seems harmful or misdirected it might be nice to replace it with a sentence or two whose accuracy cannot legitimately be disputed. (It seems to be "filler" text anyway.) I've thought of doing similar things with the worthless text at 20th-century philosophy. - KSchutte 22:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with KSchutte. The long term goal should be to develop this into a high-class, descriptive (non-list) article. So we should remove any statements that are simply "wrong" or "harmful", but for others it may be better to add sources ourself. I'll try to put in some time, and at least start the wikification process. Abecedare 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a quick pass through the article to slim it down a bit. I am concerned that if we duplicate material that is in the detail articles, maintaining the content will be difficult. I do not have much experience with overview articles, so I look forward to what Abecedare can do with it. My general feeling is that almost all of the articles on Hindu philosophy topics are very weak and it would be interesting to try to mount an effort to tune up a series of them. The value of this one is as a pointer to other things. Buddhipriya 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> I think this article needs to be re-written in the summary style i.e. have a short descriptive paragraph on each important topic with links provided to the Main articles for details. I have taken a stab at a descriptive intro just to provide seed-material - right now it overly relies on one source (Radhakrishnan (1929) and thus is likely to be dated and over-emphasizing a single POV. So feel free to modify/rewrite it. As India and Philosophy articles show, it is certainly possible to write a cogent article on a vast topic, which can then serve as a road-map to the reader for further exploration. Abecedare 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, looks much better already! OK, I will do another pass to try to try to add a different source for some broad issues. Buddhipriya 00:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I added a few things from Chatterjee and Datta of a general nature. Enough changes for me today. I hope Abecedare or another editor will take another whack at it before I do another session. I think the trick is to avoid too many details on the individual points but find thematic material that cuts across multiple schools. There are some general criticisms which perhaps can be tackled, such as the frequent charges that Indian philosophy is pessimistic, a claim that is specifically discussed by Chatterjee and Datta. I hope I have not quoted them too often, but the article was starting from zero and it is easier for me to pick through one source at a time. Buddhipriya 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In looking over the citation to periods, I noticed in my copy of the source materials that Radhakrishnan and Moore continue their period analysis by noting a decline in the dynamism of Indian thinking about the 16th century when (in their words) "India became the victim of outside powers" (A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, p. xxi). I think this is true, and that these authors are mainstream sources, not firebrand nationalists. I think this material should be put into the article, but fear that if I do it it may provoke the sort of haggling that is so tiresome on other Hindu pages. I also have no desire to fall into the trap of being called a political POV pusher. I actually have very little interest in politics, but I do think this is an occasion when some mention should be made. What would be the best way to approach this issue? Buddhipriya 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu_Philosophy

What do do regarding the overlap problems with content in Hindu Philosophy which is also in need of work? Buddhipriya 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has replied to the above question. Does anyone have a good suggestion on how to reduce forking between this article and Indian philosophy which of necessity covers much of the same ground, Indian philosphy being a superset of Hindu philosphy? Buddhipriya 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up needed

This article needs a thorough cleaning-up. The Jainism section earlier was a copy-paste from Jain-samaja & Co. Did not contain even a singe of proper encyclopaedic language. Same goes with section on Sikhism and to an extent, Buddhism also. Often religious satsang gets mixed up in an encyclopaedia. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Thereof we cannot speak...


This article does not seem to be acquainted with anything that contemporary scholars of Indian Philosophy (not Religion) would recognize as constitutive of philosophical discussion in Classical to Pre-Modern India (200 C.E-1600 C.E). Or of anything that classical Indian philosophers would recognize as the practice they were engaged in, for that matter.

Shankara and Nagarjuna are not the only two people who thought in India. Not by a long shot. They are, in fact, not particularly representative either.

Tihs article fails miserably not simply in terms of what it discusses, or the works it cites (rather, fails to cite), but in terms of its basic and evident ignorance of the history of Sanskrit literature and its genres. There are philosophical genres in Sanskrit (and theological, in Medieval Tamil), but none of this is to be found in this article. No hint of the "sort of" thought engaged in by Indian intellectuals, not the range of their concerns, nor the diversity of analytic methods and arguments.

Apart from relying on grossly inadequate sources, the fact that the word 'pramANa' (epistemic warrant) does not show up is symptomatic of the article entirely missing the history and character of the tradition in India. No references to the works of B. K. Matilal, Jitendranath Mohanty, to name just two scholars who have done much to correct the gross inaccuracies and misapprehensions of Indian thought (the conflation of Sankara's mysticism, popular among Bengali middle-class spirituals in the 18th-19th century, with philosophical thought in general, is a particularly eggregious problem that could have been solved by one inexpensive book by Matilal "On Perception"); but while one wants to take the authors' confusion of Vedantic theology and philosophical theology practiced indepednent of scriptural warrant (as it is in the Nyaya tradition post 450 c.e) to task, a more pressing problem must engage us: the author of this article shows no sign of knowing the difference either in Sanskrit texts, or in the history of Philosophy in the West, between what philosophy (in a weak "wise sayings" sort of mode) one can find in pre-philosophical literature, on the one hand, and philosophical texts proper, which take as their concern general categories in epistemology, metaphysics, and language, as their concern, and proceed in the mode of problems and arguments, proofs and refutations--methods closer to the spirit of Islamic, Medieval and contemporary analytic philosophy.

There is philosophy in Classical India. None in this article.

As a concerned Student of Indian Philosophy, I really hope the editors can see to it that someone does better. 128.135.96.119 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)