Talk:Q5891

DDC 170

12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC): draft, please use the template talk page for comments;

tree might be delayed by ~15 minutes; suggested values for TREEVIA and TANDEMTREEVIA: subclass of (P279) , instance of (P31) , part of (P361) , has part(s) (P527) , occupation (P106) , field of work (P101) , etc.

in order to see another language please change the WMFLCODE-parameter value in preview mode only
philosophy (Q5891) · ^{purge · T · WLH · tree · reasonator} · DDC: 170 · DDCTANDEM: 000 · tree ^{using part of (P361)} · TANDEM: philosopher (Q4964182) · ^{purge · T · WLH · tree · reasonator}  · tree ^{using subclass of (P279)}

German description / Deutsche Beschreibung

Ich kann mir nicht helfen, aber die Beschreibung der Philosophie als "Fragen und Streben nach Erkenntnis des letzten Sinns" erscheint mir eher auf Religion zu passen (und selbst da nicht auf alle). Ja, in der Metaphysik geht es um den Sinn, aber doch nicht in Ästhetik, Ethik oder Erkenntnistheorie. Passender erscheint mir die englische Beschreibung der "Studien von allgemeinen und fundamentalen Problemen".

Not sure at all that Philosophy is sub-class of Science

Both Philosophy and Science are important, both of them are useful to the other, but none of them are subclasses of the other. When I read that Philosophy is a sub-class of « branch of Science », it seems very odd to me:

• Seems like Philosophy is mixed with « branch of Philosophy »;
• Some branch of Philosophy should not be studied as science, like ethics (which is prescriptive) or metaphysics (I don't know about logic and epistemology);

Therefore, if what I said previously is right, this triplet is not correct.

Teleosteen (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Some theorists define philosophy as a science, but this is not a widely accepted position. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)