DRL’s New Indexing System

As of July 2025, the DRL is using a new category system to index entries.

The system is based on our research into marginalisation in existing indexing systems (Fokt 2020) and our proposal for a new system to index philosophy in a fair and inclusive key (Fokt, Pharr and Torregrossa 2023). Thanks to our volunteers’ tireless work and the generous funding from the American Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrews, this proposal has now become a reality. We hope that you will find it useful and that it might inspire similar changes elsewhere.

The core idea of the new system is that the browsing experience includes works from all philosophical traditions and perspectives by default. Users can then make a conscious choice to exclude some content to match their needs by using filters. To achieve this, we have implemented two sets of solutions.

Structural changes

The main change concerns redesigning the index in a way that does not centre any particular topic areas, traditions, or historical periods. To achieve this, we have decided to:

Revise the category tree to focus on thematic Topics only; all topics are listed alphabetically to avoid the order implying relative importance;
Replace historical categories with a Times Filter; thus, browsing Normative Ethics will yield both contemporary and historical entries on the subject, and users wishing to explore 18th century ethics can simply type in 1700-1800 in the filter;
Replace person-specific categories with a Figures Filter; thus, users wishing to explore Confucian Ethics can select ‘Confucius’ in the filter while browsing Normative Ethics;
Replace ‘Philosophical Traditions’ and all tradition-specific categories such as ‘Chinese Ethics’ or ‘Feminist Epistemology’ with a Traditions Filter; thus, browsing Normative Ethics will yield works written in the East Asian, European, Phenomenological, Analytic, and other traditions, and users can use the filter to select the traditions they are interested in;
Introduce a new Languages Filter to allow users to more easily find works originally written in a particular language.

Content changes

The second set of solutions concerns content: the specific topics, figures, or traditions we have decided to select. This is an intrinsically challenging task, as it requires balancing accuracy and fairness with usability. Creating a finite, user-friendly list of any of the above requires making value judgements and deciding what and whom to include or exclude. We have made choices we thought were best for the DRL, keeping in mind that other resources with a different focus might prefer to make them differently. In what follows, we explain our approach and invite you to an ongoing discussion which can help us further revise and improve our system.

Topics

We have selected ten top-level topic categories. We aimed to avoid groupings of convenience, such as Metaphysics and Epistemology which includes Philosophy of Religion or Language, and tried to identify thematically distinct areas. After extensive consultations, we have arrived at a list of ten categories. We worry that our list may still centre topics of interest in the broadly Western cultural contexts, but we decided to adopt it as our aim is to inspire diversification and decolonisation amongst those who mostly work in that context.

As the DRL database is relatively small, we have decided to stop at one sub-category level. We would recommend that any larger databases wishing to adopt our system add further sub-levels as required, observing the ‘equal division for equal complexity’ rule we proposed in our research (Fokt, Pharr and Torregrossa 2023).

Suggestions for contributors:

Select all topics which apply to the given text
Add any more specific topics as Keywords

Times

At this point, the filter simply allows users to enter specific date ranges to find content related to the searched times. These can relate to the date of publication of a given work, but also to the time periods discussed in the work. Wherever there is no clarity as to the exact dates when a given work was composed or a given philosopher lived, we adopt the widest relevant brackets.

For example, a 2005 paper on the Neo-Confucian interpretation of the Analects would be found in the DRL index within date ranges: 479 – 150 BCE (broad dates when the Analects were composed), 1050 – 1400 CE (the flourishing of the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucian School), and 2005 CE (date of publication).

Suggestions for contributors:

You can enter all relevant dates and date ranges in the ‘Publication year and relevant dates’ field of the contribution form.
When a text is republished, offer the modern and the original publication dates.
When in doubt, offer the wider date range brackets to ensure users find the resource more easily.
Enter BCE dates as negative numbers, e.g. -479 – -150.

Figures

It is hard to decide who has made a significant enough a contribution to philosophy to be recognised as a ‘Figure’. For now, we have decided to err on the side of inclusivity and only adopted a necessary rather than a sufficient condition: each figure must be someone who has already passed away. This is to ensure that their importance is judged on the basis of their entire oeuvre, and serves as a proxy for a test of time.

Entries are assigned a Figure if they have been written by that figure, or that figure is discussed in the work. Each entry can have multiple figures assigned to it.

Suggestions for contributors:

Assign as many Figures as is relevant based on the above description.
Ensure correct spelling of each Figure’s name.

Traditions

We now have two sets of Traditions for categorizing all entries: Geographical and Methodological. By default, when searching or browsing the categories or keywords, users will see entries from all traditions, and can make a conscious choice to filter some of them out.

Geographical Traditions aim to capture the schools of thought which evolved in different parts of the world. We have elected to include 14 regions where philosophy developed to some extent independently. We acknowledge that this selection can be questioned, but we believe that it represents a good trade-off: it is fine-grained enough without making the list so long as to make it unusable in practice.

As elsewhere, when in doubt we include more rather than less, allowing users to find a text wherever they look. For example, some authors have multiple geographies associated with them, e.g. North African Hellenized or Latinized philosophers such as Augustine would thus be assigned both the North African and Mediterranean traditions. A text about Augustine by Sarah Catherine Byers also be assigned North African, Mediterranean and North American. Were she to write a comparative text discussing Augustine’s and Śaṅkara’s views on divine knowledge, it would be classified under North African, Mediterranean, North American and South Asian.

Methodological Traditions aim to capture schools of thought not tied to a location but to a methodology. We included 12, once again aiming for a good trade-off between breadth and usability. We understand that some methodologies remain broad and loosely defined, but we hope that they remain informative. Meanwhile, methodologies such as Critical should be understood broadly – not as referring specifically to the Frankfurt Critical School, but to methodologies that are critical in some way (depending on the underlying -ism) of a tradition (e.g. Feminism, Marxism, and so on).

Again, when in doubt we include more rather than less. So, for instance, if an author is being critical, on the basis of feminist considerations, of a Gricean framework for analysing some aspect of language, then the entry will be classified as Critical and Analytic. If the same text were to contrast Grice with Christine de Pizan, it would be classified as Critical, Analytic and Historical. Meanwhile, a text on experiment and observation by a historical figure such as Mary Astell, would be classified as Historical and Experimental, seeing as she will be engaged in explaining and improving historical experimental/observational methods, as well as using a method that is historical itself (whatever it may be).

Suggestions for contributors:

Assign all relevant traditions when more than one applies.

Languages

We acknowledge that the language of philosophising can have an impact on its content, and thus we now also classify entries by the languages that philosophers have used to discuss their work and others’ work. This list is not limited to any specific number, instead including all languages pertaining to existing entries. As before, the languages assigned to the entry can signify the language of original publication, or any languages explicitly discussed in the text (e.g. ‘Plato on Eikos and Doxa’ would be assigned both Ancient Greek and English).

Suggestions for contributors:

Assign each entry the language of the original.
If a text discusses a specific language, assign that language as well.
Always include the language of the entry itself (e.g. for an English translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s Le Deuxième Sexe, include French and English)

Going forward

This is our first take at re-categorising philosophy in a fair and inclusive key. We see our work as a proof of concept rather than the end of the road, and we welcome constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. But we hope that our work might serve as an inspiration to rethink the way we structure and conceptualise philosophy. We do not claim that our system is perfect – but we do hope that it offers an improvement and a fresh perspective.

Still, this remains work in progress. If at any point you run into a problem, have a concern, or find a new case that is simply not amenable to the new system or is not covered in these guidelines, please don’t hesitate to contact us.