Talk:Principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Page Creation
When I created this page, I was surprised that this page did not exist yet. Then it occurred to me that dictionary entries do not belong in Wikipedia. However, if a Wikipedia entry on a word does not exist, there should be a way to find corresponding entries in sister projects. Maybe this could be automated.
[edit] Belongs in Wikipedia
Thanks for creating the page. "Principle" in philosophy is somewhat more far-reaching than a mere logical or rational or verbal principle. It is used in metaphysics a lot. Missing from the article is the origin of the principle and its use to mean a real object or event. By the time all that is in there, the scope is beyond a dictionary entry.Dave 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can someone (a human) tell me (explain) why it is (the reason) that this article (webpage) is written this way (in this/these style(s))? (question mark indicative of inquisition)
Simba 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC): Aren't we supposed to assume good faith? Do we really need to assume that whoever reads this page is a complete moron and needs everything explained to them in parenthesis every step of the way? Also, how in the world is "(human) interpretation" justified? Until we find evidence of another species on this planet or somewhere else with human-level intelligence and communication abilities, I think it's perfectly acceptable to assume we're talking about humans when discussing fields of philosophy and the mental realm in general. At the moment I'm busy, but when I get some free time, I'm going to try a complete re-write of this article (starting with finding reliable external sources). As it is, the article is written in hypercorrection and is nigh-unreadable.
[edit] Non-principle Principle
Don't forget this term's other meaning of um.. something to do with interest and initial balances/investments. 75.17.12.230 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) -
You mean principal - that is a different word.