Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Article | Category | Index | Outline | Portal | Project | Discussion Philosophy Noticeboard This is the central discussion area for WikiProject Philosophy. Feel free to discuss any topics relating to philosophy here. It is recommended that members watchlist this page. Template:Isaac Newton I seem to have bitten off a bit more than I can chew in creating {{Isaac Newton}}. Are there any experts on the relevant subjects that could help to sensibly organize the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC) I have cobbled together what I can for this template. It would help to have eyes on it. It would likely benefit from rearranging by an expert.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Legalism (Chinese philosophy) FYI, Legalism (Chinese philosophy) has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The article is rapidly changing, for the ongoing discussion and dispute, see the talk page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Zeno's paradoxes If anyone wants a challenge, they can address this mess of an article. Maybe there is an earlier version that is less confusing, cluttered and more clear. Liz Read! Talk! 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC) I wanted to revert the recent tag-bombing of that article, but wasn't sure how other editors felt. I've now done so. The article still needs work to clean up the sourcing, but we can do that without dozens of redundant tags. KateWishing (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you, KateWishing. I've never seen a lead section of an article so overloaded with tags. I'm sure there is work that needs to be done to tighten up the article but the tagging was clearly out-of-proportion to the article's problems. Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC) coexistence Currently, coexistence is a redirect to a communist topic. I find that rather odd, as wikt:coexistence should be significant enough for its own article, and not be a redirect. I noticed this because of a discussion at talk:Coexist (album). What do you guys think? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC) What sort of coexistence did you have in mind for an article? Fustbariclation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Concept of toil We have no article on the philosophy of work, dignity of labour? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Dilemma of determinism Dilemma of determinism has been recreated after it was previously deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilemma of determinism. The CSD G4 tag I added was removed with the claim it was improved but it still has the problems that got it deleted in the first place.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) One time IP - maybe Brews is on holiday in Warsaw :-) I've nominated it again ----Snowded TALK 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Formal nomination now up for those interested. ----Snowded TALK 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Phaedrus: Self-contradictions in article still there: Divine inspiration or Divine madness Hello, I'd appreciate your help in resolving an editor conflict at Phaedrus. I reverted the latest edit by new editor Fountains-of-Paris twice. He insists that he is correcting inconsistent wording and put the edit back a third time. He sent me a note and I replied both at my and his talk pages. The problems I see are that 1) from his comments and his reference to a complete collection of Plato's dialogues, it is clear that he has not looked at either the dialogue Phaedrus nor the secondary literature; 2) the Wikipedia article is a good one and the heading and the text were correct as they stood before being mangled; 3) he is rewriting a technical Platonic doctrine of definition by wholes and parts, in this case madness and its kinds, similar to Aristotle's genus and species. His new heading is analogous to 'Animals and cats'; 4) to over-ride my revert he needs either editor support or a legitimate reference. Thanks for whatever you're willing to do! ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I reverted and told him to go to the talk page ----Snowded TALK 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your help! BlueMist (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Current section on Themes does not agree with earlier section in Phaedrus article on Divine Madness still inconsistent Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable." This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in by a previous editor in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article: Madness and divine inspiration In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all. That is the Themes section which is inconsistent with the section which you both (Snowed and BlueMist) seem to keep reverting. The section title used by some previous editor is explicit and contradicting you edit.Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Fountains-of-Paris, In my opinion, you have it backwards. Divine madness is more correct for the Phaedrus, and divine inspiration is a more modern, less Platonic term. To quote from your quote, Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Please see my comment here. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Replied there. BlueMist (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)