User talk:Lucidish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Philosophy task list
  • German Idealism and almost all the articles related to it need to be either rewritten or expanded, because a wikipedia user called Lestrade has, among other things, taken it upon himself to imbue each page with bias in favour of Schopenhauer, who he attempts to present as having the last say in everything. This is a terrible thing to do, because German Idealism is such an important period in philosophy, whose influence is still strongly felt today.
  • Protected Values first section confuses right action and values and needs a copy edit, moving and wikifying
  • Ludwig Wittgenstein is having its FA status reviewed due to a couple of concerns. Help save Ludwig! See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ludwig Wittgenstein for requirements for retaining FA status.
  • Quality (philosophy) needs a more clear explanation.
  • Socratic dialogues could do with some tidying and clarification. See the talk page for one suggested change.
  • Problem of universals: The introductory definition is (perhaps) fixed. But, the article is poor. Check out the German version.
  • Teleology: the article is shallow and inconsistent.
  • Existentialism: the quality of this article varies wildly and is in desperate need of expert attention.
  • Star of Sophia Vote for or nominate someone you think is deserving!
  • Analytic_philosophy This is a very major topic, but still has several sections which are stubs, and several topics which are not covered.
  • Inverse (logic) This article makes me wish that there were a fail grade on the quality scale. Someone should rewrite it.
Vote | Larry's Text | stubs | edit this list | discuss these tasks | Category:Philosophy | Portal:Philosophy | RFC | Deletion | Requested articles | Noticeboard | Discussion


Contents

[edit] philosophy of social science

if you could provide some citations to your addition to that page, it would be great. I'm tempted to cite much of it from toulmin, but some of it seems unlike his work. --Buridan 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a final comment on nonverbal language

Lucidish, "verbal" refers to the use of words. Language is based on words, as well as the commonly accepted components of phonology, syntax and semantics. Sign language and written language are verbal languages because they are based on words, even though signing takes the place of pronunciation in sign language. Nonverbal language is a contradiction in terms. The important idea here is that not all communication is language, and not all symbols are language, but your material on the social psychology page confuses this point. The most problematic issue, however, is that you seem to be very willing to vigorously defend points that you apparently know little about. I really don't want to argue about this any more, but I wanted to make one last attempt to explain myself. Thanks for reading. Jcbutler 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] russell page

For what it's worth, I thought your article on Russell was very good, particularly in that it brings to light a part of his work that it is fashionable to disparage. You and I rarely see eye to eye, as you know. But praise where praise is due. Dbuckner 08:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preview

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Geniac 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical response to Russell

Hi - if you can give me references for the Goldman paper which mentions Russell, or for other stuff you need, I might be able to help. Should be able to get abstracts for you, at least. Cheers, Sam Clark 18:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - turns out that although I have electronic access to Philosophical Studies, it only goes back to 1998, so I went to the library to have a look at the hardcopy. Nothing helpful, I'm afraid. The Goldman paper is a contribution to the 1950s political science debate about operationalizing the concept of power (Robert Dahl vs. C Wright Mills, neatly summarised by Steven Lukes in Power). Russell's Power is mentioned as one of a list of 'a few of the most prominent works in the field' in footnote 1, but nowhere else that I can see. The Braybrooke piece is part of what appears to have been a lengthy technical argument about probability, opportunity costs, David Hume, etc., but not about Russell. My impression is beginning to be that the critical reception was largely silence. Sorry. Cheers, Sam Clark 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of global philosophers

In case you hadn't noticed, Timeline of global philosophers has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image in user namespace

Hello!

You have used a fair use image in your user namespace (Image:George_Carlin.jpg in User:Lucidish/prime). 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 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sign edition

Lucidish, your edition of the entry is not all betterment. Kindly try again. If infelicitous, better leave the original version. Look at some your editions: 'A sign is a signifier...; a definition usually implies a general class and some differentia. Another confusion '... both stands for and points to some concept or entity that is signified'; a concept is a kind of entity, a cognitive entity. A bit awkward wording: 'The modes of signification are determined by the kinds of entities acting as signs and the kinds of signified things they indicate.' Better leave as it was: 'the kinds of things they indicate'.

Sincerely, User: Azamat Abdoullaev 24 December 2006

[edit] Philosophy

Lets discuss things, on the Talk page of Article, before you revert! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice you have a background in Philosophy. So have I. Let's work together!
--Ludvikus 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wisdom

What's your problem with the image of Wisdom personified? --Ludvikus 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad your not offended by the sight of the image of the lady.
But why this stiffness on your part? Can we not be a bit light in our discussion?
But also, the image is that of Wisdom - on the Philosophy Talk page.
And the issue under discussion is the 2nd half of the term, viz.: Sophia = Wisdom!
So the image of Wisdom personified is not that inappropriate!!!
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Your condescention, unintended though it migh ne,is not helpful:

What Wiki says on it - Intros, that is - is the following:
  The lead should be capable of standing alone
  as a concise overview of the article,
  establishing context,
  explaining why the subject is interesting or notable,
  and describing its notable controversies, if there are any.
  It should be between one and four paragraphs long,
  should be carefully sourced as appropriate,
  and should be written in a clear and accessible style
  so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article.
What part of the above do you think I need enlightenment on? --Ludvikus 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

Ben, I agree mostly with the comments you made about the introduction. I only agreed to come to some sort of compromise with JJL, who at least seems reasonable about debating the matter. The other one seems to me the biggest threat to that page ever. I have asked Mel to intervene. Dbuckner 12:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So it's a matter of politics, right?

I suspect JJL dropped out because he got fed up!
Do you really think it's a matter of winning people over, Dbucker?
Are you the Dbucker who maintains that I'm a fanatic?
Is that what you learned from Socrates - attack you adversaries, and woo your supporters?
And is it you who maintains that philosophy is about being RATIONAL?
Arn't you demonstrating quite the opposite - the role of the irrational - at the very least in winning your argument??? --Ludvikus 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI Ben

Happy 1066 and all that. Dbuckner 09:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1066

Him! William the Conqueror a.k.a. William the Bastard --Ludvikus 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power

Howdy -- I got your message, sorry I didn't write back sooner. I found the article on Russel's Power book quite interesting to the point of potentially motivating me to read it (most of my thinking on power comes from Foucault, who takes a very different approach to it, but Russell's seems like an interesting approach as well, one with a lot less currency at the moment in my little branch of academia). I don't know much about Duhem but your Duhem footnote looks fine to me. And I enjoyed the pyramid of tables. What are you up to these days? Shouldn't you be close to graduation or something? I can't quite keep it all straight. --Fastfission 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You should give [[Discipli--Foundby 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)ne and Punish]] a try; later Foucault is much better to start with than early Foucault, and D&P is much more eloquent on the nature of power than M&C, in my opinion. I'm not sure if Foucault and Russell would have much of a beef, except that Foucault would probably want to broaden the discussion of the nature of power in ways that Russell's work doesn't deal with. Of the four main points listed as Russell's concern in the Power article, Foucault would only really care about point #2 — the rest he would probably dismiss as irrelevant (he believes that the idea of "human nature" is itself a plastic, historicized concept—at least, he says as much in my reading of The Order of Things—and he wouldn't be interested in creating psychological profiles for power). Foucault is really about how people and states exercise power, both as a philosophical and historical interest. --Fastfission 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input

On the Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy article, or, more specifically, its deletion page.

Thank you for your time.271828182 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your extensive contributions to the Afd. One small victory.... 271828182 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power: A New Social Analysis

Hello, have you read the book Power: A New Social Analysis? Please reply on my talk page. --Foundby 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you still have a copy of that book? Please reply thnx. --Foundby 17:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I really want to read this book. I went to Google Books but they just showed me few pages of it. The problem with me is I dont have money, other than for food and rent, becuase I am studying at a Technical Institute. Would be so kind as to scan the book and send it to me via email. Please. I beg you. --Foundby 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Philosophy language.jpg

Hi. You uploaded this image in the Summer of 2005 with the only info "{{CopyrightedFreeUse-Lucidish}}" Someone added that the image was created by you, and I have now changed the template to a real one. Because many new users are unfamiliar with copyrights and permissions, could you please check the image description page to make sure that it is still correct? Thanks Fred-Chess 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pieing

Your opinion at the talk page for Pieing may provide some balance. --Timeshifter 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving

The problem was that the target page already existed with non-empty history. If the page never contained anything but a redirect to the original name, the page can be moved over the redirect. Otherwise, only an administrator can perform the move; you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves, or simply mark the target page for speedy deletion using a tag like {{db|[[XYZ]] should be moved here}} if the move would be truly uncontroversial. For details, see Help:Moving a page. - Mike Rosoft 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You could have moved Analytic and Continental Philosophy back to Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy yourself, simply by using the "move" link at the top of the page. As I said, an article can be moved to a title occupied only by a redirect to the original title, as long as the target page has no other revisions.

    Since the article is curently undergoing a deletion discussion/vote, and consensus seems to be to delete it, I have moved it to the original title an restored the deletion notice. In general, a page being considered for deletion should not be moved to a different title, unless there is a consensus to do so or unless it would be an obvious and uncontroversial solution to the problem. Regards, Mike Rosoft 01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I am sorry; in fact you couldn't have moved the article to its original location, because you only realized the mistake after making edits to Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. - Mike Rosoft 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the history of the discussion/vote page, the user didn't actually remove the votes; he just attempted to, and another user stopped him before it could be completed. In any case, it wasn't an appropriate course of action; there's no arbitrary point of time after which the votes/opinions don't count, as long as the discussion is not closed. - Mike Rosoft 15:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

I'd like to thank you - not for supporting Rand, which was obviously unpleasant for you - but for the integrity, the honesty and the eloquence present in your stance. I wish more people understood that the time to stand up for a principle, like the ACLU so often does, is when it is most unpleasant. Steve 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

For the kind support. I'm really glad to see that Peter King has joined. He's a good guy. Also, he understands far more about the East / West thing than I. Dbuckner 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please support

HI Ben. Could you please support the plan of a stable revert which we all defend, as per this message on the talk page. Many thanks. One thing at a time. Photos and Gfrhee at Tanara or whatever. Dbuckner 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analytic and Continental

Well if you want to save some content and just rename, as you suggested, have your say this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Analytic.2FAnglophone_and_Continental_Philosophy

--Lucas 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine, I just wanted to stop the edit war this morning between Lucaas and Ludvikus. That seems to have settled things down a bit. I like the cut of jib of the new man. However time will tell. Thanks for all your support, at the disco. Dbuckner 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RfC on User Steve Wolfer

First, I'll apologize for an intrusion that I know won't be very welcome.

Simoes along with Buridan have initiated a Request for Comment on me. The request asks that I be admonished to "refrain from editing philosophy-related lists". I know that Rand is someone you truly dislike, but I'm hoping that you might make some kind of comment on my behalf if you believe that I've tried to follow WP policy and tried to be civil. I will have to go out to that page and defend myself like a kid sent to the principals office. How awful. Steve 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good vs evil

Excellent. Dbuckner 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second order discussion

Ben, I would like to discuss the second order thing in more detail - I have to rush now. Would it be easier on our talk pages? Or on a dedicated sub-page. I simply can't cope with the talk page now. Dbuckner 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Ben

I apologize to you again, for all the pain you sufferred becasuse of me. And I cannot find you on that very busy Philo. Page.

And like I said, it was war before, and I just had extremely limited resources.
Why don't you drop me your most recent views on my personal talk page. I will answer you.
And if I do not right away, it will be only because I too sometimes sleep and eat.
  • Best regards, and I sincerely hope you forgive me. --Ludvikus 04:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The situation last year did get somewhat heated at times, and I apologise for any of the heat, or my usual rudeness. But it was never like this. Furthermore, I only reverted once, to my memory. Thanks for your support. I mean to come back some time on the Blackburn thing. Meanwhile, do you have any quotes you could paste onto my talk page? And you also mentioned a term for this view (naturalism or something). Could you remind me. Dbuckner 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of basic philosophy topics

I've used some of your suggestions as the basis for refining the list (I couldn't find links for all of them). Please take a look. Your further comments are most welcome. Do you like the new fundamental questions section? Are the questions adequately presented? Are any important questions missing? What are your thoughts on further organization of the ism and concepts sections? (Combining of the two sections, order of presentation of the topics and/or organizing them categorically, etc.) I look forward to seeing any further comments you might have, on the list's talk page.   The Transhumanist   

[edit] Some questions about philosophical questions...

What do you know about philosophical questions? For example, does the philosophy field have a systematic way of cataloging and presenting them? Or a logical order in which they need to be answered, to support the effort of answering further questions? Is there a taxonomy of philosophical questions available somewhere?

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist    14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

No problem. ObserverA 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My name

Prefer 'Edward'. thanks - see talk page. Dbuckner 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to intro

I have to rush now, but I'd like you to be happy with any changes. I know you would like the Blackburn thing included. And indeed I think it should be, but I'm not sure the introduction is the right place. I had in mind a section on disagreements in philosophy. The main disagreement that runs through the whole history of philosophy is whether it really has a specific subject matter, or whether it is just a method of doing things. So more needs to be said. On the Russell quote that you got from the history of Pi (?), I've located that as from Lecture II of the Philosophy of Logical Atomism. That also needs to be put in context. In that section he is arguing for the importance of philosophical analysis. I'll put something on the quotation page this weekend. Must dash. Dbuckner 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of philosophical questions

We've given the article a pretty good start with respect to listing questions, but the page is seriously lacking answers. It needs someone well-read in philosophy to help provide the various answers to each question. The list could sure use your input. The Transhumanist   12:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, old boy

I understand you're going through something of a nihilistic period. I am only too familiar with the sort of sensations/emotions/thoughts/propositional attitudes you are talking about. I'm in such a state myself at present: useless speck of bacteria with no hope of ever accomplishing anything meaningful or making' any meaning for myself out of this meaningless universe. All of my suffering and the consequent resentment and loathing brought me to reject the notiion of the existence of god. I turned my anger toward god and then realized how logically preposterous it was to be angry with an incomprensible, omnipotent being. But the anger was asbolitely empirically justified, whereas the prosopitions that god exist was much more dubious. So I rejected the latter and kept my anger. Then I turned the anger toward nature and the physical universe. This was also preposterous. So, I decided that the whole thing is fundamnetally absurd. Closer to existentialism than to nihilism, really. I have never abandoned my continental/existentialist position on the truly deep issues, notwithstanding the study of analytic philophy, science and an deep immersion in the general optimism of most of scientific (or scientisitic?) thought.

Ok, I'm get carried away with myself. But, then, I don't get much chance to discuss these sorts of things with my relatives and the local population. (Are there some sorts of forums for this sort of thing?) So what are your plans anyway, after you finish your formal studies? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't want to write anymore, eh?? I think it might be too early to give up on that possibility. So what are your plans anyway?

[edit] Thank you

For that very nice contribution to the nonsense page. Quite the best one, I thought! edward (buckner) 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Strange request

I don't know that a synesthete would necessarily be able to "see the wind" or something quite that unusual, but in many cases synesthetes do report that their experiences, although they are not under their control, can be used to help them identify, remember and classify events in the world that might otherwise be more difficult to non-synesthetes. The generally interpretation of this is that a synesthete has an automatic, redundant signal, that they can use in making such perceptual decisions. Let's take a pretty clear case of someone who has tone-color synesthesia. Even in the absence of formal musical training, we all can discrimate pitches and timbres. However, for someone who has tone-color synesthesia, the different pitches elicit different colors, and perhaps even slightly different shades depending on the instrument. Now, in the absence of musical training, this would just be the different colors elicited by music, perhaps without rhyme or reason (both for synesthetes and non-synesthetes without musical training). However, for you and I, if we were to also have musical training, we might be able to discriminate pitches by ear. For a synesthete, they would be able to use their ear, *and* their colors to help them discriminate between different pitches. It's even possible that a synesthete might, therefore have an advantage at such discriminations. However, nothing in the current science makes us think that synesthetes are sensitive to things that the rest of us absolutely cannot sense... Of course, this brings up a variety of things that we *can* sense that many of us don't talk about much. I remember when I was a kid, I could tell when my neighbor's TV was on, even from the front porch when I couldn't hear the TV itself. It turns out that I was probably hearing the extremely high pitched sounds that such TVs emitted, and that I was more sensitive to when I was young. Modern TVs don't emit this sound (it's been eliminated), and I am less sensitive to these noises than I was when I was young. There's nothing mystical in my youthful abilities, but it would seem like ESP to a closed-minded adult researcher. Perhaps synesthetes similarly retain some sensitivity to other stimuli that most of us become insensitive to. Why do you ask? Edhubbard 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neoplatonism and Gnosticism up for deletion again

The article the First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism is up for deletion again. Please help. LoveMonkey 12:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) You sir a gentleman and I suspect a true philosopher at heart. All I have to asked is that what Plotinus actually said about the Gnostics actually be posted in his article. Because that was denied I created this other article. Now it is up for deletion. This information will not be as common to people now as I believe it should be. LoveMonkey 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the AFD. Now it's back to the edit warring on Plotinus. As well as now on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism again. Could you look at it and maybe give some advice on the Plotinus talkpage. Thanks LoveMonkey 16:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

 I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Kohlberg illustration

But could you please post a higher-res version? So I can put it on my T-shirt? Thank you.Vendrov 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Keen! Thank you very much.Vendrov 09:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Basiabulat whiteSM.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Basiabulat whiteSM.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed comment

The editor in question was engaging in inappropriate canvassing and also unacceptably describing good faith edits with which he disagreed as vandalism. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu,old boy

I've gotten myself involved in the social neworking nonsense now. It's a long story. Anyway, I posted a "blog", as they are called on there, criticizing certain aspects of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai lama. Suddenly I find myself getting hammered by the Dawkins anti-theist cultists on one side and some theosophiscal gibberish-mongers on the other. My original purpose was to expose the hyprocricy of a certain young lady who claimed to be a skeptical naturalist type, but promoted Buddhism and the DL on her front page. If you ever get bored, come on over <a href="http://www.myspace.com/franco6719"> there </a> and post a comment on a comment or something.

Yes, I was a little hard on the bastard, but I'm am damned contrarian and I got sick and tired of Christian and Muslism-----no, JUST Christian bashing really---and thought I would provoke some thought about another religion with some weird and non-scientific stuff going. This was the true intent. Now I'm getting called a relgious bigot by the Sam Harris folks, and an ignoramus about Buddhism by the theosophical chap. What NONSENSE.

--Francesco Franco (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paper

Don't know much about the subject but would be happy to take a look at it. Send me a copy at fastfission@gmail.com. --Fastfission (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)