![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Thats a POV. I tend to agree with Poe when he wrote The Imp of the Perverse. I think the evidence supports the contention that humans have a greater predisposition to sado-masochism and self-abuse than to hedonism. Sam Spade 01:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sado-masochism and self-abuse ARE hedonism. Whatever floats your boat. WAS 4.250 02:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Robin William's character in the movie,'Moscow on the Hudson', explains to his friend one night: "When I was in Russia, I did not love my life... but I loved my misery. Do you know why?.... because it was MY misery.... I could hold it, I could caress it. I loved my misery." [1] WAS 4.250 15:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Human ethologists talk about hedonic and agonistic social structures, in which the environment strongly influences which genetically predisposed social structure predominates. From this perspective, the full range of behavioral potential is innate, but the type of behavior that actually manifests is an iteraction between nature and nurture. It's been over thirty years since I've studied this area, so I don't have any current references to offer, but maybe putting the "innate need for happiness" within a section on ethological perspectives might be a more balanced way to present these often apparently contradictory behaviors. — RDF talk 17:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I am thinking of submitting the article for featured article status. Thoughts? Sam Spade 17:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The intro to this section ( Culture) implies this subsection should be broader than "simply" religion and philosophy: "Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs." Nowhere does that intro mention "religion and philosophy." I hope this subsection doesn't get reduced to only the lead sections from those two articles.
I looked at some other lead sections, but didn't see anything I thought could be directly lifted for here. The closest I found was in the Cosmology article, in which distinctions are made between physical, religious, methaphysical and esoteric cosmologies. These four perspecitves seem to more closely reflect the full range of how humans address the core questions of religion and metaphysics, e.g., "Why are we here? How did we get here? and What happens to us when we check out?" I believe the Disciplines section of that artice could be reworked a bit to expand the discussion about " Spirituality and beliefs" (a possible broader heading?) beyond an unnecessarily restrictive viewpoint. — RDF talk 02:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I made a user talk page to show a possible replacement for Human: Culture – Religion and philosophy. Please take a look at User talk:RDF/Human-Culture-Spirituality and beliefs and let me know what you think. — RDF talk 17:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
In the spirit of
being bold, I have replaced the section on Religion and Philosophy with RDF's version, which I I consider superior. What do editors think?
≈ jossi ≈ 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ 01:11, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Dang, that kinda sucks. It would be nice if we found some replacement images of similar or better quality... Sam Spade 23:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A much larger, more detailed image of the plaque on Pioneer 10 is available at a non-NASA site. Frankly, a photo of this quality of an object of historical significance (or a copy thereof) is a better image than a crude SVG reproduction. The page on which it appears has a Creative Commons tag on it, suggesting the image would be available for Wikipedia. Even better, the image on the Pioneer plaque article links to this excellent NASA drawing. Replacing the real thing with an SVG imitation is offensive from a scholarly perspective. (SVG is fine for original drawings.) -- KSmrq T 14:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to find an image to replace the diagram of "Freud's concept of the mind", but I have not succeeded as yet. Maybe will be best to delete for now. Still to do: find appropriate images for Religion (will not be easy...) and for the Artefacts, technology and science sections. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Does any one has the ability/knowhow to rewrite "Mind" and "Psyche" so it is less reliant on psychoanalysis theory? That was requested on the Peer Review, and it is needed to complete the review before wec an submit to FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I extensively edited that section. Sam Spade 20:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Are we writing that section? Anyone brave enough to attempt it? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
!re we ready for FAC? User:Jossifresco just asked me that. I can see room for improvement, but that will always be the case. What does everyone else think? Sam Spade 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody still feel these sections need expanded? Sam Spade 13:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I think thats a very human sentiment. ;) Sam Spade 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone find another image for Philosophies of mind? I used to have Adi Sankara, and would argue he looks way better... but he was removed.
[[File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|right|Adi Shankara]]
Sam Spade 10:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should use that particular image of Sankara, but I would like something more attarctive. How about people put images here they like, and we'll try them out in the article. Also, I agree that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, and John Locke all deserve mention. I placed a sentance there about them, but ment it more as a stub to work from than anything sufficient. Sam Spade 17:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the images the wiki has handy, and Kant and Aristotle seemed best to me. I put in Kant because I liked the image best, but I don't know enough about him to make a good addition re: his philosophy of mind. Sam Spade 17:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is a link I found regarding Kant's philosophy of mind. Sam Spade 17:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Here are two paintings by Raphael I find interesting...what are they thinking? :-) — RDF talk 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Would that or a larger detail work? — RDF talk 17:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
— RDF talk 18:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have some major edits in mind which I feel should be discussed. One problem w this article is the redundancy of certain sections. I propose some mergers. For example, I propose:
I also see some other possibilities, like merging sexuality and emotion, and also merging Unique human characteristics into Self-reflection and humanism, or perhaps eliminate it entirely (it doesn't seem a very strong section), but I feel less interested in these last two than the others.
Sam Spade 17:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
ok, I'm done, have a look, and feel free to make any adjustments you think are needed. Practically no content was lost, but we might want to hunt for weaker or unneccesary bits to trim. As a side note, I am very happy w the pic of wheeler I put in, I think it helps the article, showing a clear example of an adult male, but I also think its fun to have a wikipedian in the article. Sam Spade 23:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Thats a POV. I tend to agree with Poe when he wrote The Imp of the Perverse. I think the evidence supports the contention that humans have a greater predisposition to sado-masochism and self-abuse than to hedonism. Sam Spade 01:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sado-masochism and self-abuse ARE hedonism. Whatever floats your boat. WAS 4.250 02:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Robin William's character in the movie,'Moscow on the Hudson', explains to his friend one night: "When I was in Russia, I did not love my life... but I loved my misery. Do you know why?.... because it was MY misery.... I could hold it, I could caress it. I loved my misery." [1] WAS 4.250 15:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Human ethologists talk about hedonic and agonistic social structures, in which the environment strongly influences which genetically predisposed social structure predominates. From this perspective, the full range of behavioral potential is innate, but the type of behavior that actually manifests is an iteraction between nature and nurture. It's been over thirty years since I've studied this area, so I don't have any current references to offer, but maybe putting the "innate need for happiness" within a section on ethological perspectives might be a more balanced way to present these often apparently contradictory behaviors. — RDF talk 17:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I am thinking of submitting the article for featured article status. Thoughts? Sam Spade 17:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The intro to this section ( Culture) implies this subsection should be broader than "simply" religion and philosophy: "Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs." Nowhere does that intro mention "religion and philosophy." I hope this subsection doesn't get reduced to only the lead sections from those two articles.
I looked at some other lead sections, but didn't see anything I thought could be directly lifted for here. The closest I found was in the Cosmology article, in which distinctions are made between physical, religious, methaphysical and esoteric cosmologies. These four perspecitves seem to more closely reflect the full range of how humans address the core questions of religion and metaphysics, e.g., "Why are we here? How did we get here? and What happens to us when we check out?" I believe the Disciplines section of that artice could be reworked a bit to expand the discussion about " Spirituality and beliefs" (a possible broader heading?) beyond an unnecessarily restrictive viewpoint. — RDF talk 02:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I made a user talk page to show a possible replacement for Human: Culture – Religion and philosophy. Please take a look at User talk:RDF/Human-Culture-Spirituality and beliefs and let me know what you think. — RDF talk 17:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
In the spirit of
being bold, I have replaced the section on Religion and Philosophy with RDF's version, which I I consider superior. What do editors think?
≈ jossi ≈ 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ 01:11, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Dang, that kinda sucks. It would be nice if we found some replacement images of similar or better quality... Sam Spade 23:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A much larger, more detailed image of the plaque on Pioneer 10 is available at a non-NASA site. Frankly, a photo of this quality of an object of historical significance (or a copy thereof) is a better image than a crude SVG reproduction. The page on which it appears has a Creative Commons tag on it, suggesting the image would be available for Wikipedia. Even better, the image on the Pioneer plaque article links to this excellent NASA drawing. Replacing the real thing with an SVG imitation is offensive from a scholarly perspective. (SVG is fine for original drawings.) -- KSmrq T 14:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to find an image to replace the diagram of "Freud's concept of the mind", but I have not succeeded as yet. Maybe will be best to delete for now. Still to do: find appropriate images for Religion (will not be easy...) and for the Artefacts, technology and science sections. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Does any one has the ability/knowhow to rewrite "Mind" and "Psyche" so it is less reliant on psychoanalysis theory? That was requested on the Peer Review, and it is needed to complete the review before wec an submit to FAC. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I extensively edited that section. Sam Spade 20:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Are we writing that section? Anyone brave enough to attempt it? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
!re we ready for FAC? User:Jossifresco just asked me that. I can see room for improvement, but that will always be the case. What does everyone else think? Sam Spade 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody still feel these sections need expanded? Sam Spade 13:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I think thats a very human sentiment. ;) Sam Spade 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone find another image for Philosophies of mind? I used to have Adi Sankara, and would argue he looks way better... but he was removed.
[[File:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|right|Adi Shankara]]
Sam Spade 10:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should use that particular image of Sankara, but I would like something more attarctive. How about people put images here they like, and we'll try them out in the article. Also, I agree that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, and John Locke all deserve mention. I placed a sentance there about them, but ment it more as a stub to work from than anything sufficient. Sam Spade 17:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the images the wiki has handy, and Kant and Aristotle seemed best to me. I put in Kant because I liked the image best, but I don't know enough about him to make a good addition re: his philosophy of mind. Sam Spade 17:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is a link I found regarding Kant's philosophy of mind. Sam Spade 17:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Here are two paintings by Raphael I find interesting...what are they thinking? :-) — RDF talk 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Would that or a larger detail work? — RDF talk 17:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
— RDF talk 18:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have some major edits in mind which I feel should be discussed. One problem w this article is the redundancy of certain sections. I propose some mergers. For example, I propose:
I also see some other possibilities, like merging sexuality and emotion, and also merging Unique human characteristics into Self-reflection and humanism, or perhaps eliminate it entirely (it doesn't seem a very strong section), but I feel less interested in these last two than the others.
Sam Spade 17:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
ok, I'm done, have a look, and feel free to make any adjustments you think are needed. Practically no content was lost, but we might want to hunt for weaker or unneccesary bits to trim. As a side note, I am very happy w the pic of wheeler I put in, I think it helps the article, showing a clear example of an adult male, but I also think its fun to have a wikipedian in the article. Sam Spade 23:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)