At http://stackexchange.com/sites, the short description under Philosophy is "Q&A for those interested in logical reasoning". I think this is somewhat misleading and diverts potential traffic away from us because people think the site is only about logic. I use that /sites portal page to browse the SE sites fairly often, and I imagine others who use it could be thrown off by our description. Can we get this description changed?

This has been brought up before, and I provided alternative short description as well: https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/171/update-the-faq-what-is-a-good-summary-for-this-site

Here are some ideas I offered:

For those interested in the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

or

For those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

  • There was some discussion on this here -- I raised the issue there since it seemed messy to say one thing in our FAQ, and something else on other spots on SE – Joseph Weissman Dec 2 '11 at 2:51
  • 2
    I want to continue to push for this, as I think even these little changes over time can increase our numbers significantly. – stoicfury Jan 27 '12 at 16:56
  • 1
    Agree @stoicfury it looks like Joseph is working to aggregate some of the prior ideas. I have provided a new shell under a recently asked version of this one .. meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3065/… – sourcepov Dec 20 '15 at 4:34
  • Yay, glad this was finally fixed. :D – stoicfury Nov 17 '17 at 7:44

Is there some reason to avoid the word "philosophy" in the short description?

I mean, "Q&A for those interested in the discipline of philosophy" sounds reasonable to me.

In fact, "Q&A for those interested in the academic discipline of philosophy" sounds even better.

(My criteria for "better" in this context is one which would lead to more questions like this and fewer like this.)

  • I like this. It avoids the problem of trying to define philosophy within the short description and is nevertheless very clear. – Joseph Weissman Apr 25 '12 at 18:16
  • I feel the way this particular short description is used around the site is more of a definition for the site, thus it seems strange to define 'philosophy' using the word itself. More importantly, I worry that the latter description in particular will dissuade some people from joining and asking questions which aren't rooted in a particular historical context but would otherwise be very valid here. Our site needs more questions and more visits per day; at this point in time I think the description which is least restrictive/most inviting would be best to that end. – stoicfury Apr 25 '12 at 18:42
  • So I could live with the first one you provided (though I still prefer my own suggestion more), but I would personally be against the second one for including "academic", simply because questions involving novel concepts or otherwise not rooted in some historical text/figures views can still be valid here. – stoicfury Apr 25 '12 at 18:45
  • This seems rather circular. – Keelan Sep 21 '16 at 15:34
up vote 12 down vote accepted

Upvote if you want to change it to:

"For those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence."

Given that we have like 4 people that browse meta with any regularity, I imagine this will cap at like 3 votes... haha.

Please feel free to add your own answer if you want another wording!

  • I worry this emphasizes doing over studying philosophy, but that said this is significantly better than the existing text – Joseph Weissman Dec 7 '11 at 19:24
  • 1
    True and true. I think "for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature..." ought to make it clear enough, and is certainly better than simply "for those interested the fundamental nature..." – stoicfury Dec 8 '11 at 5:36
  • 1
    Agreed. This is good for me – Joseph Weissman Dec 8 '11 at 21:17
  • 1
    I like this. Sorry I haven't been around for a while. It's not perfect, but all I can think of are criticisms in the vein of what it might not include (to be fair, I primarily study continental philosophy). I don't have any particularly constructive suggestions, though, and it does seem an improvement over what we have now. – Cody Gray Feb 7 '12 at 21:42
  • stackexchange.com/sites was just changed to the new look, so I think having a better description is more important than ever! @RebeccaChernoff ;) :D – stoicfury Feb 29 '12 at 16:29
  • 1
    I am fine with this; definitely a major improvement – Joseph Weissman Apr 11 '12 at 22:41
  • I still don't see what is wrong with 'For those interested in philosophy'... – M. le Fou Jan 29 '16 at 0:10
  • 1
    I used this version. It might take a bit to propagate to the site listing, however. – Jon Ericson Sep 21 '16 at 16:09

Yes, this is certainly possible. The last discussion wasn't much of a discussion. It was mentioned that the current audience might be a bit lengthy. There weren't any responses to that. Even a "might be lengthy, but it works". It's just a matter of coming up with what the audience that works best and we'll get everything updated to match this time.

  • Yes, I think "For those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence." is most encompassing while being quite short. – stoicfury Dec 5 '11 at 19:13
  • "for teachers and students of philosophy, and those interested in the history of ideas" might be another rendering – Joseph Weissman Dec 6 '11 at 4:48
  • 1
    Right, so my point was...consensus! People suggesting different things...not a consensus. Figure something out together and then I'll change it. – Rebecca Chernoff Dec 6 '11 at 4:57
  • @Joeseph: "history of ideas" seems too vague and makes it seem like this is a history website. Also, in some minor way the phrase "for teachers and students" might discourage people who aren't teachers or currently students (even though you meant it in a very liberal sense, "student of philosophy"), but that's not as big of a deal as the "history of ideas" part, imo. – stoicfury Dec 6 '11 at 19:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .