User talk:Lestrade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics. Banno 21:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Forum discussion

I think the issue sufficiently interesting to get outside opinions. This forum is predominantly idealist, so Perhaps the idea will get a sympathetic hearing[[1]].

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have been editing for a few weeks, so probably you feel comfortable with it by now. But you may still find some helpful info: click here

  • Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war. We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly— the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.


  • When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.


If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Happy Editing. --Blainster 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] italicization of titles

Hi, thanks for the message. Book titles should be italicized. I think it's because links get underlined, so underlining titles would often be superfluous. Essay titles should be within quotation marks, as you know. Good work on German Idealism! --goethean ॐ 16:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schelling

Thanks for your work on the German Idealism article. I wonder if you would be interested in working on the Schelling article. It's a copy of the public domain 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica article. It's pretty awful, and totally POV. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Schopenhauer

Hi! As for your query, I formulated that assertion from several sources

  • Schopenhauer and the Problem of Metaphysics: Critical Reflections on Rudolf Malter's Interpretation

(German:Schopenhauer und das Problem der Metaphysik: Kritische Überlegungen zu Rudolf Malters Deutung) by Günter Zöller; Man and World: An International Philosophical Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-10, January 1995

  • The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer
  • Some interpretations and discussion of Schopenhauer from Friedrich Nietzsche, who made observations relevant to Schopenhauer and neo-Kantianism in some of his works, including Untimely Meditations

and some other secondary sources around the web.

In my opinion, Charles was right to add that "sometimes" qualifier, Schopenhauer wasn't that important to Neo-Kantianism, but he did have some influence.

Cheers! Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 04:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yesselman

Dear Lestrade; I have responded to your Atheism comment on Spinoza. Thank you. Yesselman 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Paul Deussen

Please suggest the image to be deleted (WP:IFD) or perhaps create stub for Carl von Gersdorff and move it here. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 17:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Dear Lestrade,

Sorry not to have responded to your recent messages -- in late Dec. my apartment suffered a severe fire and I have been spending most of the time since them dealing with the consequences, and this has interrupted all of my Wikipedia work. I hope to be back on when things have settled down more. Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schopenhauer

If you like him, be sure to also check out Balthasar Gracian. Both Schop. and Neitzsche were greatly influenced by Gracian. Lucidish 01:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibis

What are the tragic long-term effects of cannibis on the nervous system? Lucidish 23:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The user of cannabis experiences elation as a short-term effect. However, the nervous system is gradually altered. If cannabis use continues, the user experiences progressively severe melancholy, loss of memory, and inability to properly perceive objects and understand their relationships. But, everyone has the right to destroy his/her own body, if he/she pleases. Lestrade 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Is any of this documented? I looked at Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis and couldn't find that particular assertion in the physiology section. Lucidish 01:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Webpage http://www.ama.com.au/youth/code/cannibis.html reports that effects are difficulty with memory, difficulty with learning, possible delusions, possible hallucinations, mood swings. I won't debate this issue. Anyone who wants to poison themselves has every right to do so.Lestrade 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm not interested in debate, either. I want to know the facts. But the page you provided said nothing about long-term effects on the nervous system. Lucidish 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What system is responsible for memory, learning, perception, understanding, and emotions? The reproductive system?Lestrade 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
The brain. With the possible exception of emotions, which are difficult to separate from physiological responses; but since the effects seem to have to do with certain chemicals in the brain, neurotransmitters, I don't think it's an exception. Lucidish 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom

I removed your edit [2] because it doesn't appear to make any sense. If you were trying to help, thank you. --Irishpunktom\talk 01:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WFRR [?]

Thanks for noticing my lousy sentence composition. BTW, Did you notice Droopy must be a vampire, because he doesn’t have a reflection like E.V. does?  ;) The discr section on WFRR belongs in a different article if they’ve been documented by authorities. It was such a complicated film to make, but also very rich! Schweiwikist 13:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schopenhauer and Kant

Don't know if you have been following the discussion at the Kant talk page, but I am basically now arguing for edits I don't wish to undertake, and it may be time for you to chime in with what you know. My real argument is the resistance always encountered on the Kant article is unreasonable and the resistance is not substantiated by any degree of credibility (ff99ig). However, there are philosophers who feel, contrary to Guyer, that Schopenhauer knew Kant better than any of his contemporaries. I have neglected Schopenhauer, so to substantiate this I would have to undertake research I don't have the time to do.Amerindianarts 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to provide inline notation for the Schopenhauer paragraph in the "Influences" section at Immanuel Kant ? The current project is getting peer review upgrading from a 'B' article to an 'A', which requires inline citation. Amerindianarts 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only trying to help in a sincere way

Hello Lestrade. I am a bit concerned that I may have given you the completely wrong impression of being desperately trying to give a negative impression of you on the discussion on Buddhism and Atheism. You mentioned that it seemed to you a mere attempt to make "the opponent" look obtuse and lazy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and besides, if this was the intention, then it wouldn't be constructive and it would certainly not contribute to writing a good article in any direct way.

I have recently realized that Wikipedia already has an article on the term Nontheism here, where you could see that this term has indeed existed for some decades already and that it was coined to describe Buddhism in a more precise way. I did not make it up and I was not making some effort looking through the archives and the libraries for some term to make you look bad. I have known the term and I have used it for some time already and I read it for the first time in material published by one of the oldest and most prestigious non-denominational Buddhist organizations in the West, The Buddhist Society in England. My aim with my contribution in the discussion was not to make you look obtuse, but rather to offer to all, you included, an already existing term as and alternative to which we could all agree relatively easily. Wikipedia is based on the search of consensus and agreement, which is what I thought I was sincerely trying to aid.

Since you have not replied I hope it is not because you feel involved in a dynamic of opposition or of opponents for opposition's sake. I hope I was only trying to archive the highest possible quality in the article itself, and absolutedly nothing else.

Regards and keep well,

--Sandrog 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Bordallo

You can add your recent comments on Talk:Ricardo Bordallo to the article page. --TommyBoy 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thankyou for the spelling correction on my homepage. You have gotten me interested in Schopenhauer. I never got a chance to study him as our emphasis was on the analytic philosophers. He sounds very close to Vedanta as the Wikiarticle points out. I also agree with what you said above about cannibis. While I can't explain it I have seen friends lose their intellectual potential over the years. It's sad and a great loss. Chris 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC) By the way, you may be interested in a short book by David E. Wellbery on Schopenhauer's meaning for modern literature (especially Beckett and Borges).

[edit] Re:Comment on Mosque

I replied to your comment on Talk:Mosque. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't call me a Black Muslim as a means to discredit me; see Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's called Guerrilla warfare. Houses of worship, schools and hospitals have been repeatedly co-opted by insurgents while fighting occupations throughout history in order to blend in with the civilian population. So it's a bit a inflammatory of you to single out Mosques more than any other civilian building with that kind of statement. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Mosque#This Addition; it's not (just) about it being inflammatory. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penrose comments

Hi, Lestrade. Thanks for your message. I did not intend to make a value judgement on your entry. The comments I removed did not discuss the article, which made them irrelevant to Wikipedia. The comments I left were about the article, specifically about what not to include in it. The criterion is pretty clear. I'm sure you are familiar with WP:TPG Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Best wishes. --Blainster 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kant Essay

I have the Intro to Logic and the appended essay. I do not understand how you append the "Proved" which is not in any title referred to university libraries or publishers. Is this an obscure translation you stumbled across? Why can't you just title the article the same as the common essay title? If it is your intention to build an article on Kant's essay, and want it to be linked to, then do so accrding to the proper title on the Kant page. The proper place for this discussion is the Kant talk page. I don't know why you directed it to my talk page. Amerindianarts 01:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

  • I very much agree with the comment on your page - he is roundly ignored and the only faint influence he had on 20th century philosophy was through Wittgenstein, though Wittgenstein himself rid himself of that I believe later on. Perhaps you might be able to help in clearing up messy/unclear pages on Kant/Schopenhauer (I assume you have a solid education in Kant, if you claim to understand Schopenhauer). --Knucmo2 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation. I try to contribute to the Kant and Schopenhauer articles whenever I can. My most recent attempt was to add to various sections in the Critique of Pure Reason page. Also, I contributed Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy, On the Freedom of the Will, and Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime , among others.Lestrade 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] King Zog

Could I ask why you have mentioned transgenderal issues on King Zog's talk page. I presume you made some mistake because, as far as I can see, there weren't any.--Couter-revolutionary 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Michael Savage

Once again, the article talk page is not a soapbox for you to post your complaints about the gay agenda or anything else, it is for discussion of article content. Please reserve the former comments for a message board, but feel free to add anything you might have to say about improving the article. And to answer your question, I remove off topic message board-type posts from talk pages whereever I see them, regardless of the article. Gamaliel 00:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YOU..........!

"On September 17, 2006, at 13:16.." that they were merely another example of the widespread intention of homosexuals to use Wikipedia as a way of legitimizing their adolescent behavior." ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IVE ADDED THAT AND ONLY FROM THE FEELING OF A CRIME BEING DONE AGAINST THE KING IF HE HAS BEEN PORTRAIED BY A WOMAN AND WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HAS INSULTED ME UN-IMAGINABELY!!!!!!!!! The reason for my rather late discovery of your filthy acusation (i am not homophobe BUT I loathe when someone acuses me without proof (nothing against Homosexuals,just a personal feeling of a knife stuck in the back) is that I have not looked on the discusion page for a while.I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!!!!!!! New Babylon

Homosexual behavior is activity by persons who have not developed beyond the stage of adolescence. At physical and mental maturity, usually around the age of 24 years, humans are normally heterosexual.Lestrade 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I'll pass that with one word-Freddie Mercury-say he hasnt "developed beyond the stage of adolescence" and then try to walk in broad daylight.Secondly,what gave you the bloody idea I was a homosexual?This is suposed to be a neutral site and your evident Homohobia and randomly insulting people is FAR from neutral.I STIL DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!!!!!!!.New Babylon

[edit] Personal Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -Localzuk(talk) 14:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim you make about homosexuality can be construed as an attack. Comment on content, not users or their sexuality. In this case, even if you do hold that belief, it would be best to keep it to yourself as it will upset people - especially without any sources to back it up. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it is a valid subject of discussion but aiming it at a user who is complaining of the exact same behaviour already is A Bad Thing. It is uncivil and can cause abrasion. As I said, comment on content not a user. Also, if you do wish to discuss such things, provide sources for your ideas (especially for controversial comments!).-Localzuk(talk) 20:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/s/User_talk%7ELestrade_e419.html"