This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cleanthes was not a rationalist. He was much more of an empiricist (in fact, Cleanthes even expounds some very Humean views).
Cleanthes doesn't lament the abandonment of rationalism, he abandons it.
Demea is upset by abandoning a priori arguments.
Demea should also have a larger section, making note of the fact that he emphasised the unknowable nature of God and that the arguments used for Him should be a priori.
Transfer of Cleanthes' false information to Demea. Although broadly true, the information is somewhat ambiguous and definitely incomplete.
The article is about Hume, and describes what he says in standard moderrn English terms; when it isn't quoting him directly, it is not constrained by 18th-century usage, nor by his terminology. Just as discussion of Hume on induction isn't constrained by the fact that he never used the word "induction", so discussion of Hume's "total rejection of the a priori arguments for god's existence" (Gaskin, Hume's Philosophy of Religion, p.109) isn't constrained by the fact that he didn't use the term "a prior". Please stop trying to remove the term, or adding ugly and pointless templates to the text. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 08:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Either this article or Teleological argument is wrong about who puts forward this proof of the existence of God. This says Cleanthes, the other says Philo. Myrvin ( talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely Cleanthes does not use deduction, he uses analogy. He says: "we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy … that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man. … By this argument … do we prove at once the existence of a Deity." Myrvin ( talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Crouch link doesn't work. Myrvin ( talk) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved. No discussion, but seems uncontroversial to use title-case for name of work that is subject of page. DMacks ( talk) 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion → Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion — The title of the work according to all of the sources at the bottom of the article and the beginning of the article itself contain the capital C. Why My Fleece? ( talk) 07:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cleanthes was not a rationalist. He was much more of an empiricist (in fact, Cleanthes even expounds some very Humean views).
Cleanthes doesn't lament the abandonment of rationalism, he abandons it.
Demea is upset by abandoning a priori arguments.
Demea should also have a larger section, making note of the fact that he emphasised the unknowable nature of God and that the arguments used for Him should be a priori.
Transfer of Cleanthes' false information to Demea. Although broadly true, the information is somewhat ambiguous and definitely incomplete.
The article is about Hume, and describes what he says in standard moderrn English terms; when it isn't quoting him directly, it is not constrained by 18th-century usage, nor by his terminology. Just as discussion of Hume on induction isn't constrained by the fact that he never used the word "induction", so discussion of Hume's "total rejection of the a priori arguments for god's existence" (Gaskin, Hume's Philosophy of Religion, p.109) isn't constrained by the fact that he didn't use the term "a prior". Please stop trying to remove the term, or adding ugly and pointless templates to the text. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 08:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Either this article or Teleological argument is wrong about who puts forward this proof of the existence of God. This says Cleanthes, the other says Philo. Myrvin ( talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely Cleanthes does not use deduction, he uses analogy. He says: "we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy … that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man. … By this argument … do we prove at once the existence of a Deity." Myrvin ( talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Crouch link doesn't work. Myrvin ( talk) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved. No discussion, but seems uncontroversial to use title-case for name of work that is subject of page. DMacks ( talk) 01:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion → Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion — The title of the work according to all of the sources at the bottom of the article and the beginning of the article itself contain the capital C. Why My Fleece? ( talk) 07:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)