I thought about a markup language for philosophy about two year ago. (Though I'm not a professional philosopher, I hang out and chat with them.) Eventually this evolved into the idea for TypedThreadedDiscussion, which I still think is a good idea, but I'm a little bit side-tracked because I became so obsessed by the unstructured, concrete first nature of Wiki (OnWiki)

It seems to me that the most useful thing that Philosophical markup should do is capture the structure and dynamics of argument. (ArgueAgainstMe)

My philosophical markup had a very basic ontology of "point". But then a richer typology of links ("argument against", "supporting evidence", "exegesis", "contradictory assertion") etc. to other "points". The idea being to allow people to quickly browse and navigate through the evolution of positions through argument.

  • Apparently there's a book (VisualizingArgumentation) on this very subject by SimonBuckinghamShum

I've always been interested in that idea, and have been dreaming of parsing the whole of philosophical work (well, the main stuff) into a marked, linked and searchable form. I've tended to merge that with the quest for a debate tool (since the history of philosophy is debate between different ideas) - see Meatball:DebateTool for some stuff on that topic (I am now realising that sort of thing would probably have been moe appropriate on this wiki (unless you know of a better one ?). I'll be hanging around here ...


Welcome Emile. I'll go and read your stuff. It's great to have you here, and this is definitely a place where we discuss structuring information and argument. Feel free to dive into debates around this wiki. :-) (And maybe you want to play with the TypedThreadedDiscussion test (linked from TypedThreadedDiscussion) as a Meatball:DebateTool . – PhilJones

Of course, if you're looking for typed linkages from one 'point' to another 'point' ... well, erm .... RDF would do that fantastically ;) ... (OK... RDF is my new hammer!) – OliSharpe

Response on RdfHammer :-) – PhilJones