Template talk:Social and political philosophers

Categorization of "tradition"
@Trakking: "organization of names into their respective tradition" is problematic and too arbitrary. For example, what does make you believe Michel Foucault is a socialist? Or, are Thomas Sowell and Friedrich Hayek that different tradition? what does make Martin Heidegger a liberal thinker? These "traditions" are so arbitrary. Chronological orgnization is less arbirary than orgaization of names into traiditions. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for your comment.
 * Foucault used to call himself a socialist, he was undoubtedly socialist in his approach (criticizing hierarchies etc.) and he primarily (only?) inspires people left of classical liberalism.
 * Sowell takes conservative stances in arguing for a free market, whereas Hayek does not. Also, Hayek wrote an essay on why he is not a conservative.
 * I am glad you reminded me of Heidegger, however, as I thought of removing him from the list altogether, since he was an existential and spiritual philosopher rather than a social and political philosopher. Trakking (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Trakking: Well, there are many other problems in orgnization of names into traditions. There are too problematic cases in this table because of arbitrary classification. Bertrand Russell is classified into "socialist" group, but he can be also classified into a "liberal". Ronald Dworkin is classified into "other" group, but he also can be classified into a "liberal". Raymond Aron is classified into "liberal" group. However, some refered him as a "conservative". Averroes is classified as a "classic", then why not Augustine classified as a "classic"? Erasmus is classified as a "other" group, but he can also "liberal" or "religous." "Orgnization of names into traditions" is too arbitary and inconsistent.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, Thomas Paine is classified into "Socialist" group, but he can be "liberal". Is Max Stirner really more "liberal" than Friedrich Nietzsche? (Nietzsche is classified into "other" group, Stirner is classified into "liberal" group.) Again, "Orgnization of names into traditions" is too arbitary and inconsistent. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Russell was a devoted socialist. See his book Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918), for example.
 * Dworkin was one of few names on the list I wasn't familiar with or had read, so I put him in the Other section, but if you say he's a liberal he can be added there. Thanks.
 * Aron was a classical liberal, clearly. I am well-read within the conservative tradition and he is never cited by anyone there.
 * Augustine is known as a religious thinker, who lived at the very end of antiquity. With "classic philosophers" one does not mean Christian thinkers, but pagan thinkers like Aristotle and Cicero.
 * Erasmus lived prior to the existence of liberalism/conservatism/socialism, all of which emerged in the 18th century. He was not a purely religious thinker, either, as he was heavily influenced by antiquity and he was as much of a critic of religion as an exponent.
 * Paine is a bit trickier, but I think it's safe to say he was more of a socialist than a liberal, given his revolutionism, his populism and his Georgism. He is cited by few modern classical liberals.
 * Stirner was the liberal individualist par excellence. Nietzsche, by contrast, was in many ways illiberal, as he believed society ought to be ruled by a harsh aristocracy. Or as H. L. Mencken put it: "There is a considerable gulf between Stirner and Nietzsche, even here. The former's plea is for absolute liberty for all men, great and small. The latter is for liberty only in the higher castes: the chandala he would keep in chains."
 * To summarize, there are solid reasons for why the philosophers are put in their respective categories. Still, there may be one or two that ought to be changed. I will put Dworkin in the liberal section. If you have any other suggestions I will take it in consideration. Trakking (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Trakking:If you think Bertrand Russell is a socialist due to Proposed Road to Freedom, It can be made the case that Mill, who is considered as a liberal commonly, can be classified into "socialist"
 * John Stuart Mill: "In short, I was a democrat, but not the least of a Socialist. We were now much less democrats than I had been, because so long as education continues to be so wretchedly imperfect, we dreaded the ignorance and especially the selfishness and brutality of the mass: but our ideal of ultimate improvement went far beyond Democracy, and would class us decidedly under the general designation of Socialists." (in his Autobiography)
 * Max Stirner remarked, "The liberals are zealots, not exactly for the faith, for God, but certainly for reason, their master. They brook no lack of breeding, and therefore no self-development and self-determination; they play the guardian as effectively as the most absolute rulers."(in his "Political Liberalism" (1844)) Therefore, is Max Stirner an anti-liberal?
 * John Stuart Mill can be classified as a "liberal". Max Stirner can be classified as a "liberal". But, my point is not whether they are liberal or not. My point is that "Classic/Conservative/Liberal/Religious/Socialist/Other" classification itself can be problematic and arbitrary. There can be claims, such as "Why not the "feminist" tradition? Then, Mary Wollstonecraft and Christine de Pizan can be same category.", or "Why not the "republican" tradition? Then, Jefferson, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Madison can be classified as a single category." etc., etc., etc. Chronological orgnization is less arbirary than orgaization of names into traiditions. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Y-S.Ko Political philosophy since the French Revolution has revolved around three distinct ideologies, namely Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism. This is a fact. And this is why political philosophers are easy to categorize.
 * There are two additional ideologies, fairly big: Feminism (as you mentioned) and Anarchism (where Stirner belongs). But in most cases, feminists and anarchists fall under Socialism (de Beauvoir, Kropotkin etc.) as the overarching ideology. Stirner is an oddball in the Anarchist tradition: he denies the social dimension of the ideology, which is why few influential anarchists admired him. He is known for espousing liberal ideas, really. His ideology—Individualist anarchism—is closer to Liberalism than Socialism. The main proponent of Individualist anarchism, Benjamin Tucker, said for example: "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism."
 * As long as there are solid sources that categorize the named philosophers into these respective traditions, everything is fine. Mill may have called himself a Socialist, but this was before the terminology was well developed. In reality he was an exponent of what is today known as Social liberalism. All sources indicate this. Trakking (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trakking: (1) If the premise "Political philosophy since the French Revolution has revolved around three distinct ideologies, namely Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism. This is a fact. And this is why political philosophers are easy to categorize." is true, then why are there "other"? (Arendt, Camus, Durkheim, Gentile, Kołakowski, Nietzsche (...) are post-French Revolution thinkers.) If it is easy to categorize thinkers into three traditions, then there cannot be too many "others."--Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good observation. However, there are always eccentrics, such as Camus and Nietzsche, who are not easily put in a box. Gentile was the chief ideologue of Fascism, an ideology which is notorious for its syncretism: it mixes socialism with conservatism. Kołakowski was a socialist at first, then became a religious thinker later in life. Durkheim was conservative, by the way: I'll add him in the conservative section. Trakking (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are eccentrics and syncretism and changing philosophy, and so on. This is why problematic "others" exist. If this template is organized chronologically, orgnization is much clearer, because there would be no problem due to eccentric, syncretism and so on. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion (change to chronological order)
If this template is organized chronologically, orgnization is much clearer, because there would be no problem due to eccentric, syncretism and so on. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are referring to the "Other" section. All the other thinkers are correctly categorized, as solid sources indicate. My suggestion is that we transfer some of the "Others" to their closest category. So we put Sade in the liberal field, Vico in the conservative field (he was a proto-conservative) etc. Trakking (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Why should Wikiquote choose "tradition" category rather than "chronological" category? Generally, Wikiquote chose chronological or alphabetical order, because of NPOV issue. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Trakking: If you read Wikiquote talk:Templates, There is a discussion about categories by some wikiquote editors, Quoting Kalki: 'I also feel editor-created "category" headings within an author's page should be discouraged, especially for sourced quotes unless there seems to be a general agreement that the subject probably warrants some separation for that particular author.' I think similar reason can be applied here. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are sources for all thinkers, so there shouldn't be any problem. Those I was unsure of I looked up. But if there is some specific thinker you would like to change, we could do it. And if a thinker is an exponent for two ideologies we can add him in both, as with Tocqueville (con and lib) and Rousseau (lib and soc).
 * Your preferred format is "formal," but this one is based on content, putting similar thinkers in the same respective box. For example, if one would read a book about political philosophers, they would go through them in terms of Conservatism etc. instead of just alphabetical, which is arbitrary. Some names are even spelled differently in different languages, Russian names for example. And as for chronology—is this when the thinkers were born or when they were productive? Because that makes a huge different. Someone can be born in premodern times but make all their contribution in modern times—so they're a modern thinker. Someone can be born the last year of a century. Etc. The current system is the most effective way of a coherent categorization. Trakking (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical/chronological sorting to subject-related sorting is generally prefered in Wikiquote. Yes, Alphabetical/chronological sorting is not without their problems. However, Alphabetical/chronological sorting is less subjective than content-based sorting. This opinion is not only my own preference. This is general attitude of wikiquote. This is consistent with general wikiquote formatting policy (see Templates: "either chronological or sequential order, if possible, or alphabetical order if not"). For example, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Category:Libertarian films shows this attitude of many wikiquote editors. (I was in there, I didn't support deletion of that category. However, Wikiquote's general position to political ideology-related categorization is more hostile than my position.) --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Well, I got rid of the "Other" section, which I thought of as the main problem. But if anyone else objects to the current categorization, in accordance with your line of reasoning, we may change it. Trakking (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

New category?
I would recommend some new category to accommodate the following thinkers that don't quite fit in... and are e.g. accordingly mentioned twice over or not at all as of the current template:

Speaks for coining it "Aristocratic" (*as in "aristocratic radicalism"): Speaks for coining it "Elitist": Somewhat more ambiguous but clearly worth including: Now, since "aristocratic" primarily refers to a person's family background, I would definitively favor elitist as a new category, for it - among other things - subsumes "democratic elitism" a la Strauss or Mosca, but also the more monarchical than aristocratic thinkers like de Maistre or Yarvin! Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Friedrich Nietzsche
 * Ortega y Gasset
 * Thomas Carlyle
 * Julius Evola
 * Bertrand de Jouvenel
 * H. L. Mencken
 * René Guénon
 * Vilfredo Pareto
 * Gaetano Mosca
 * Machiavelli
 * Monarchist:
 * Joseph de Maistre
 * Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
 * Curtis Yarvin
 * Democratic Elitists:
 * Leo Strauss
 * Alexis de Tocqueville
 * Herbert Spencer
 * Other:
 * Oswald Spengler
 * Theodor Adorno (*may prima facie appear strange, but just look into his early writings in particular!)


 * Hello. The template is primarily organized into the three major ideologies. There are only a few individuals that are a bit difficult to categorize, but it is a minor problem. Almost everyone you mentioned is identified by scholars as belonging to the conservative tradition. Trakking (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Continue including prophets as philosophers?
Wouldn't Jesus and Muhammed belong somewhere else? Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe an additional sub-category like "Prophets" and or "saints" on top of the relatively uninformative https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Template:World_religions would do the trick? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Add back to "Classic (historical period)"?
Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Averroes