![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Someone keeps reverting the sentence He was famous for his non-pluralistic approach to philosophy... eliminating the non- or anti- prefix before the word pluralistic. I have read everything Bradley published; and I can assure you with 100% accuracy that his philosophy was not pluralistic. It is very clear to anyone who has read Bradley, that he bases his philosophy on a concept similar to the Hegelian Absolute—an idea which Bradley claims is the sole basis of reality. This is clearest in his famous book Appearance and Reality. There is nothing pluralistic about this book. Aletheia ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Under the section of published works, surely the editions referred to should be the first editions. That way a reader of the wiki article can determine the exact point in the history of a subject that the author's work on that subject appeared - which will help the reader to gauge its importance and correct place in the history of the subject. For example, in the works section of this article, Bradley's Principles of Logic is dated as 1923. However, as far as I can tell, it came out at least as early as 1883. And I seem to recall that other author's, who died before 1923, had criticized that work. Plotinus ( talk) 20:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
In the "Philosophy" section, the following words appear: "…strongly influenced by Kant and the German idealists, Johann Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, and Hegel, although Bradley tended to downplay his influences." Whose influences are downplayed, Kant or Hegel? Why is "influences" plural? Lestrade ( talk) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
First, I should mention that this is a good article. What I have to say is just a tiny quibble.
Some of my changes (e.g., replacing "In recent years, however, there..." with "However, in recent years, there...") were just a personal preference in style, so it's understandable to view them as not improvements (although they are also not detrimental). However, others were indeed improvements (only tiny, but still improvements):
The third of these appears to be the contested issue for CorinneSD. I understand that, for things like spelling, it is totally acceptable for the dialect of English most relevant to the subject (in this case, UK English) to be preferred. However, double quote marks actually increase clarity (through things like being harder to confuse with apostrophes) compared to single quote marks, and thus it is recommended to use them in all cases (except for quotes inside other quotes) in MOS:QUOTEMARKS. In addition to increasing clarity, the fact that they are recommended in all cases in the MoS means that use of them increases consistency. (In fact, even in this very article, double quote marks were used before I got here for "The Absolute enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress.")
Also, just to make sure that this is actually what is being done on the most analogous articles, I checked out the list of Philosophy articles with Featured Article status, clicked on a bunch of the first ones that came up, and when they were focused on a British philosopher or their work I checked if they used single or double quote marks. Double quote marks were used by every one of the first 6 I clicked on ( Bernard Williams, Alfred Russel Wallace, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Priestley). I didn't bother looking at more. FA Philosophy articles are what this article should be modelling itself on and the Manual of Style is what it should be guided by, so when they both point in one direction it seems like that's a good direction to go in. BreakfastJr ( talk) 00:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It might be a good thing to add here. 2601:18F:F00:7010:2024:F460:622:FAF6 ( talk) 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Someone keeps reverting the sentence He was famous for his non-pluralistic approach to philosophy... eliminating the non- or anti- prefix before the word pluralistic. I have read everything Bradley published; and I can assure you with 100% accuracy that his philosophy was not pluralistic. It is very clear to anyone who has read Bradley, that he bases his philosophy on a concept similar to the Hegelian Absolute—an idea which Bradley claims is the sole basis of reality. This is clearest in his famous book Appearance and Reality. There is nothing pluralistic about this book. Aletheia ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Under the section of published works, surely the editions referred to should be the first editions. That way a reader of the wiki article can determine the exact point in the history of a subject that the author's work on that subject appeared - which will help the reader to gauge its importance and correct place in the history of the subject. For example, in the works section of this article, Bradley's Principles of Logic is dated as 1923. However, as far as I can tell, it came out at least as early as 1883. And I seem to recall that other author's, who died before 1923, had criticized that work. Plotinus ( talk) 20:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
In the "Philosophy" section, the following words appear: "…strongly influenced by Kant and the German idealists, Johann Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, and Hegel, although Bradley tended to downplay his influences." Whose influences are downplayed, Kant or Hegel? Why is "influences" plural? Lestrade ( talk) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
First, I should mention that this is a good article. What I have to say is just a tiny quibble.
Some of my changes (e.g., replacing "In recent years, however, there..." with "However, in recent years, there...") were just a personal preference in style, so it's understandable to view them as not improvements (although they are also not detrimental). However, others were indeed improvements (only tiny, but still improvements):
The third of these appears to be the contested issue for CorinneSD. I understand that, for things like spelling, it is totally acceptable for the dialect of English most relevant to the subject (in this case, UK English) to be preferred. However, double quote marks actually increase clarity (through things like being harder to confuse with apostrophes) compared to single quote marks, and thus it is recommended to use them in all cases (except for quotes inside other quotes) in MOS:QUOTEMARKS. In addition to increasing clarity, the fact that they are recommended in all cases in the MoS means that use of them increases consistency. (In fact, even in this very article, double quote marks were used before I got here for "The Absolute enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress.")
Also, just to make sure that this is actually what is being done on the most analogous articles, I checked out the list of Philosophy articles with Featured Article status, clicked on a bunch of the first ones that came up, and when they were focused on a British philosopher or their work I checked if they used single or double quote marks. Double quote marks were used by every one of the first 6 I clicked on ( Bernard Williams, Alfred Russel Wallace, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Priestley). I didn't bother looking at more. FA Philosophy articles are what this article should be modelling itself on and the Manual of Style is what it should be guided by, so when they both point in one direction it seems like that's a good direction to go in. BreakfastJr ( talk) 00:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It might be a good thing to add here. 2601:18F:F00:7010:2024:F460:622:FAF6 ( talk) 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)