User talk:Sdorrance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


Welcome!

Hello, Sdorrance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jacqui★ 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aletheia pages

At some point in the past a confused anonymous editor conflated "Althea" and "Aletheia", two unrelated entities from Greek mythology. I tried to restore what I believed to be the right situation, but then User:Lucaas undid all my changes in a not particularly careful way, creating a bit of a mess. I corrected some of that, but as I had recently been in what seemed like the beginning of a revert war with this same editor before, at Modern geocentrism, I did not want to go about it in an aggressive way. Apparently User:Lucaas thinks "Aletheia" should be only about Heidegger's use of the word, and should not even refer to any other use of the term. Personally, I think that Heidegger's use is obscure, and that "Aletheia" should be, or should redirect to, a disambiguation page, like Aletheia (disambiguation). I don't know a mechanism for resolving this issue; I don't think the page attracts enough attention to have a meaningful discussion on its talk page. --LambiamTalk 23:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for finding all of those sources; actually, I've posted a lot of those before, but some people just don't accept them as valid. LaszloWalrus 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

some are not valid, the rest is a very very tiny part of a large literature that either says nothing, or dismisses the merit of rand's work. so you see, it does not matter that you put forth a bunch of citations, unless there is conclusive evidence. if rand is in a reputable universal source on the topic, such as several published encyclopedia of philosophy. the only encyclopedia that i found that clearly identifies her as a philosopher is encarta, and we know that encarta's editorial practices in this matter are suspect. britannica calls her a writer with a philosophy, columbia calls her a writer, etc. etc. most say 'writer' you can find probably 15-20 books that deal with her philosophy, one or two written by people who are open and clear proponents of her promotion as a philosopher, but given the huge amount of information in philosophy published each year... a few books and a few articles does not in any way show she was a philosopher, all that shows is that some philosophers have addressed her work, much like some philosophers have addressed orwell's work, jack kerouac's work, and other things. the question is whether she is a philosopher and whether she did philosophy, the first is unresolvable because there is no agreement in the world at large, any positive evidence has to be weighed in kind against the negative evidence, but also by the immense number of philosophers that simply ignore the work, which is an argument against her inclusion in itself. did she write some books that are philosophical, yes, are they highly cited, no, are they disputably philosophy, yes. if there is a standard they will be disputable. if there is no standard, then there will be no dispute. on most of the pages, i have proposed standards that very clearly dismiss rand, because as I have argued elsewhere, the positive evidence is crushed under the weight of the negative evidence of 'people just are not writing about her as they do other philosophers as demonstrated in the citation indices'--Buridan 14:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorical imperative vs. duty

Dear Sdorrance,

I just took a look at your grammatical and technical cleanup of deontological ethics. For the most part, it's a huge improvement. I'm glad you could help. One edit I disagree with is your assertion that "a course of action that should always be carried out is a duty..." I think this begs an important philosophical question. Should duties always be carried out, or are there exceptional circumstances that justify the non-performance of duty?

I think that part of Kant's contribution to philosophy was the way he distinguished between contingent duties, ie duties that only need to be carried out under certain empirical circumstances, and categorical duties or categorical imperatives, ie duties that always need to be carried out, because they are based on a priori reasoning about the general nature of things, and thus apply no matter what the circumstances are.

I think the way you've phrased the definition of duty makes it difficult or impossible to explain this train of thought to the reader, and I think that this train of thought is a key stage in the historical evolution of deontological ethics.

Would you consider re-writing this particular sentence, or allowing me to do so?

Invisible Flying Mangoes 18:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, and for the suggestion! I think you are absolutely right, and I breezed right by an important distinction. I dont really have the time today to fix the mistake, but please correct it yourself. Perhaps both you and I could go through the rest of the article and collaborate like this? - Sam 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
in fact, after reading over it quickly, maybe just changing the sentence to say "ought", instead of "should always", and then make the necessary distinction... - Sam 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I'm new to Wikipedia and I forgot to check your talk page...I like what you're saying, and we'll definitely go over the page and fix it the way you say. Invisible Flying Mangoes 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distributive justice

Hi. I've just had a quick look at this, and it's certainly an improvement. I wonder, though, if it would be better to break out the section of Justice on this topic to this article? The one substantive thing I'd disagree with in what you've said is that you make theories of DJ holist (i.e. concerned with overall pattern of distribution at a particular time) by definition. Nozick's theory is a counter-example. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userspace vs. article space

Hey. I noticed that you just created something that looked like it was supposed to be a subpage of yours in article space at Sdorrance/box. I've moved it into your user space (User:Sdorrance/box) and marked the resulting redirect for deletion. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

The Barnstar of High Culture
Thank you for your great contributions to Kyoto school. I placed it on the WikiProject Philosophy Things-to-do list, and less than a month later I see that you have significantly improved and expanded the article. Thank you for all your contributions, and keep up the good work! Nishkid64 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heidegger terminology

Hi Sam, sorry but I just saw your comment on my home page after I had added to the terminology page. Anyhow I added in mainly quotes from B&T and did not do much else. Anyway they may need further updates. It was to Worldhood and Care I added, what was the other areas you were looking at? --Lucas

Yes, I think there may also be a number of terms missing from the page, perhaps: historicity, enframing, presencing, cybernetic, appropriation, 'proximate and for the most part', ownness, solicitude, talk, apophantic, logos, fore-structure, authenticity, anxiety, destruktion, throwness, resolve, falling, temporality, mood. Though of course there would then be some overlaps in the definitions. --Lucas

[edit] Singer's Campanion to Ethics

Hey Sam, sorry for replying only with delay, but I was held up by various things. Now, as for the matter:

  • I think we need to attribute that view unless it is undisputed. AFAIK Singer is a very controversial man. If it wasn't him that authored the respective article, then someone else did and we need to attribute it to him.
  • I would like to see what Thomas actually said before we relate the evaluation of Singer & Co.

Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image in user namespace

Hello! You have used a fair use image in your user namespace (User:Sdorrance/box). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." I have removed it on these grounds. Sincerely, --Oden 17:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Nice template. Are you going to give it a bit size name in template space? TonyTheTiger 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of 5 or 10 lines of code it would be nice to just add {{Template:Bus&Econ}}. If you want to try to figure it out it is not that difficult. I could do it for you if you like. Look at the Template:Philosophy page. Make an analogous page starting with Template to indicate template space instead of userspace followed by a colon and the name you want people to use to transclude the template. TonyTheTiger 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Once you get it figured out you want to place it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics#Templates so it will become popularly used. I sign off at the top of the hour but will look for your work tomorrow or Monday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
I was checking in to see your progress before I went to bed. I see you got it coded pretty well and it has a "Bite Size" name. Congratulations. I will be plastering it all over my creations in the next few days. I am trying to clean up a lot of my work so I can run for admin. I will probably self nominate myself Monday or Tuesday. If you use redirects you can make more formal template names that point to it in template space if you don't want such a Bite Size name. TonyTheTiger 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Here is an example of Template redirects Prohoops redirect and Template:Professional Basketball Leagues. When I am programming I can type {{Prohoops}} instead of the full name. I think WP banners should indicate their affiliation in the name. Here are some names {{Basketball-WikiProject}} {{Baseball-WikiProject}} {{DisambigProject}} {{WPBiography}} {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. You probably can just hit the move button at the top of your template page and it will create the redirects for you. Then you can go back to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics page and change the code so that the text reads with a more official name, but you can type the shorter name when programming. Names like {{WPBusiness&Economics}} or {{Business&EconomicsWikiProject}} would make good formal names. TonyTheTiger 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I just moved it myself to {{WikiProject Business & Economics}}. TonyTheTiger 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/d/o/User_talk%7ESdorrance_94d6.html"