Talk:Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Socrates
Portal:Philosophy
 Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Archived discussions

[edit] Wiki

Sadly, "reality" doesn't exist in the Wiktionary ... for the Wikipedia (as it was so 'sine qua non' important that those two (reference... working) couldn't just work in a single project).

(Sadly, I still doesn't really know if: reality, how it - or "she"(?) - is. (I know English doesn't know genders ... and it's sure here it isn't also like as for the Navy ships?) --de:Alien4 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libeling Thomas Szasz in "Psychoactive Substances and 'Reality'" section

This dreck article is par for the Wikipedia course. It says, ". Thomas Szasz called his LSD trip near the end of his life "one of the best experiences" he'd lived through..." The problem with this is twofold. Szasz isn't dead, so nobody knows when the "end of his life" will occur; and he never made this comment about using LSD. Wikipedians are satisfied that such a scandalous libel is labeled "citation needed," rather than to demand that entries be factual or be removed. I've changed "citation needed" to "disputed," but I haven't removed it because it is a good illustration of the fiction passed off as "reality" by Wikipedia, and someone would probably just change it back anyway. Nicmart 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not being very helpful. Controversial material which is not referenced to a reliable source should be removed. Especially if it relates to a living person. Fred Bauder 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
My purpose is not to be "helpful" to Wikipedia or its users, but to show why it deserves to have no credibility. In Wikipedia, living people can be declared dead and quotes falsely attributed to them.
You have now removed the Szasz nonsense, but left this: " Jean-Paul Sartre is said to have experimented with Mescaline, with catastrophic results." In Wikiworld it is fine to include unsourced assertions ("Jean-Paul Sartre is said"...) about dead people. It happens all the time. Nicmart 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That is mentioned in http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/sartre.shtml without a specific source being given although I don't know what it has to do with the article. And at http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Jean-Paul%20Sartre in Everything2 at the comment by JerboaKolinowski some thoughtful commentary there, but again no specific source is cited. That comment seems to relate to reality. Also at http://www.slate.com/id/2088648/ in Slate. No source, but "pursued by a lobster".... See also http://www.ac-strasbourg.fr/pedago/lettres/lecture/Sartrebio.htm I think the story has a source as it is generally repeated. Fred Bauder 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, a source cited in http://www.pd.org/~chea/Perforations/perf20/michaux.html "Simone de Beauvoir reports in "The Prime of Life", pp. 169-170, that Jean-Paul Sartre (master of French phenomenological philosophy and subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize) had a medically supervised mescaline injection in 1935 along with an intern. Sartre reported seeing lobsters, orangutans, and houses gnashing their jaws - and the intern reported virtually romping through a meadow full of nymphs." That is footnote 3, a source for "mescaline engendered thought". Fred Bauder 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Nausea_(book)#Psychedelic_connection Fred Bauder 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed, "Many philosophers who wrote intensely on reality and perception experimented with psychedelic drugs. Jean-Paul Sartre is said to have experimented with Mescaline, with catastrophic results.[citation needed]". There is no source whatever for the first sentence and I know only of the case of Aldous Huxley, Castananda's reports, being fiction, do not count. I think it more likely that philosophers who experiment with psychedelics are rather rare. I have, to my own satisfaction, established that Satre had an isolated mescaline experience, but one experience does not support the proposition being advanced, that "Many philosophers who wrote intensely on reality and perception experimented with psychedelic drugs" Fred Bauder 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phenomenal relaities->worldviews

I have changed "phenomenal realities" to "worldviews" in the "fact section.

The use of the word "reality" for an individual perspective can lead to confusion, as well explained in the "Reality, worldviews, and theories of reality" section. It also conflicts with the definition given in the introduction.1Z 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert Report

For those who don't know, this page is protect because it was mentioned on The Colbert Report last week. Also I want to bring it to the attention of the admins that disambiguation pages need to be checked as well. --Voidvector 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but what pages are you talking about? John Reaves (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality (disambiguation), seems they are still fully locked. --Voidvector 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I really have no idea why the talk page was locked. shaaaame on wikipedia. Skhatri2005 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

--68.184.85.150 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)== Why not section on reality as a commodity? ==

Perhaps the fact that so many people are interested in vandalising the main article illustrates the fact that there is some validity to reality as a comodity? Could a section of the main article be developed that uses relevant examples throughout history. Egyptian politics to the making of the Bible to modern media: examples abound that could be verified and cited.

Greenmrt 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on postmodern/post-structuralist "consensus reality" says the same as Colbert using more complicated words. 91.4.71.234 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On his show Colbert belittled the Wikipedia while suggesting this little bit of vandalism. Although it was done as a joke, humorously adding his comment would be counterproductive. Describing the event on The Colbert Report or even Stephen Colbert would be more appropriate. Cuvtixo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a section on it if you could establish how it is notable. This isn't a case of using an existing word, this is Colbert making a specific claim that hasn't been picked up by anyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals on Colbert's claim, then make a note of it. Otherwise, it is original research. --Voidvector 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the person editing references to Microsoft on wikipedia for money that prompted Colbert to make this statement probably got off easier than the people who edit this page. --12.206.4.89 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that M$ got off easier than WP. 1Z 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I love Microsoft. I love Stephen Colbert. Reality has become a commodity. Microsoft owns that commodity. Therefore, if Microsoft tells me it is awesome then it is. Because as stated earlier, Microsoft decides what is real, and what isn't.

The entire article of reality is based almost entirely on people's philosophies. The "Reality as a Commodity" joke on Stephen Colbert is, in essence, another philosophy regarding modern day reality. Why not add it to the section dealing with philosophies of reality? Immortal321 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been picked up by anyone else. We're not here to document every single person's attitude towards reality. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

there is a section on "what reality might not be" why not make a section on what it might be. you can quote theories, including colbert's theory that reality is a commodity.

I would suggest people take a look at WP:NEO. Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and not everything that is said is encyclopedic. If, 10 ten years from now, the phrase has become a philosophical movement, with published sources to back it up, then it would be ok under wikipedia policy to add it. Otherwise, no, and such attempts to compromise the article are considered vandalism. And please don't forge to sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~) Thanks, Danski14 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don;t think anyone has totally put this into perspective for those who don't know... Stephen Colbert told people to put "reality is a commodity" on this page it has nothing to do with how people actually feel about the subject. He did the same thing with the elephants page (did you know they;ve tripled in population?). It's frickin hilarious... but it ain;t encyclopedic.--68.184.85.150 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's simple: Wikipedia Is not a soapbox that anyone can edit willy-nilly. For that, go to uncyclopedia. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia with policies (see WP:5 for an overview of them). It is a serious project to help "make the internet not suck" and organize and share human knowledge. Danski14 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I like Colbert a lot, but when he encourages vandalism (or even participates directly in it)(even when it is satirical), he becomes a vandal himself, and lowers himself to the realm of those who spray graffiti on walls. I think he lost a lot of good viewers because of his actions. But I digress.. this is not a discussion ground for Colbert's character. Danski14 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I view Colbert's actions as more of a challenge to wikipedia. Not necesarily outright vandalism.--Dr who1975 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm fully protecting this page

Guys, I'm temporarily giving this page full protection. The amount of vandalism going on here is horrendous, even after the page was given semiprotection. I hope that it will cause these vandals to give up. There hasn't been a good faith edit in months. - Richard Cavell 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • What the frig is going on, why are unlogged IP's editing this page if it is fully protected? Kntrabssi 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Protection expired yesterday. I suggest at least semi-protect for a while. Also Reality (disambiguation). [1] Danski14(talk) 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • At the very least, semiprotection. This article and the Elephant article have become giant targets of vandalism since Colbert's show. Kntrabssi 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReality_3a1b.html"