Talk:Reasons and Persons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-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.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-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.) |
|
[edit] Not encyclopaedic
As it stands this isn't really an encyclopaedia article. It lacks elements such as
- what do other philosophers think of the ideas in the book
- how was the book recieved
- who, apart from philosophers, cares about what he says? what influence has he had?
- how well has the book sold?
- how has the book been reviewed? by who
- and so on.
also, some references (to reviews / works which discuss it / other related works) would be good.
could someone please develop it? Azikala 18:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- Most of the text in the article on the author really belongs here, not there.
- The Britannica article on "Ethics" refers to this work no less than four times. Apparently it impressed the philosopher author of the article.
- I intend to try to read the book, before undertaking any editing.--TJ 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No cats
Please add categories.--Mais oui! 12:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No content
The difference between this article and the one on Derek Parfit is night and day. Whereas the Parfit article gives an in-depth and insightful analysis of Parfit's ideas, this article is a dry-as-dust enumeration at a shallow and unsightful level of points arising in Parfit's book. This article in no way complements or adds to the other and serves no useful purpose to those seeking to understand Parfit's views. The two articles should be merged, most easily done simply by deleting this article. Anyone with information to add to the Parfit article should do so there. Whether the Parfit article needs renaming is a good question, I don't have an opinion either way given that Parfit and his book amount to the same subject at the present time. Vaughan Pratt 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- An article being badly written is of little consequence - it is the notability that is important. As long as there is little question of notability, it is merely a matter of improving the writing. Richard001 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
