This is Sumesh's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Sumesh's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Sumesh
Recent Activity
Congrats for this great effort! But let me share my critical thoughts on the classification structure currently adopted. For a researcher in philosophy (as opposed to a historian), content-wise (or non-hierarchical ) index will be more useful. (http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/11/a-taxonomy-of-philosophy.html#comment-138063764). An associative structure will certainly make the indexing productive and revolutionary. The revolutionary part is that you can do away with two clusters -History of Western Philosophy, Other Philosophical Traditions- from the five basic clusters. Integration of different systems of knowledge is the result. To mention, in classifying a paper on meaning or cognition the place and time of the author need not get priority over the content of the paper. So there is no need to have independent African/American/Arabian/Chinese/Indian/Tibetan/and what you have, philosophy sections. Anyway, we do not have African biology/American chemistry /Arabian cognitive science/Chinese physics /Indian microbiology /Tibetan mathematics and the like. By assigning regional tag we indicate that that system of knowledge is dead which it is not. A content-based, associative structure will make the classification system very useful and rewarding for philosophers. For instance, some ancient, non-western traditions take perception and cognition vastly different from the stand of mainstream cognitive science of our time. A system that aims intelligible access to the knowledge base must provide a way of integrating bits of information like the one just mentioned. Traditional classifications do not facilitate this association of knowledge.
1 reply