This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iamblichus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Iamblichus was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chapter on Iamblichus cosmology is confused, especially the notions of "intellect", "nous", "soul" and "psyche". Normally "psyche" translates "soul" and "nous" translates "intellect"; but in the chaper "intellect" is sometimes used for "nous". An expert is needed to correct it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.217.193.188 ( talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cosmology section is hard to clearly understand. There is a dyad of nous and psyche, but then Nous is split into three categories, but then into two which with psyche makes a triad, but then the demiurge is 'identified with' (meaning the same as or merely connected to? emerging from?) nous, and it becomes a hebdomad? Needs to be defined much more carefully. 86.147.185.116 ( talk) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Rick Scott
I removed a lot of the jibborish: it was maily Greek text that didn't translate for some reason and references to chapters in Iamblichus' book. There are still some missing pieces though, and the text is really stale and choppy. I'm going to try to fill in the spots and work on making the text flow better. If anyone thinks the references need to be returned, that can be done as well. Anyone who is interested: read the text through and see if it seems coherent. -- DanielCD 21:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I cannot figure out what "in the decline of Greek philosophy" means. Can someone figure this out? Iamblichus responsible for the decline of Greek philosophy? Doesn't seem correct.-- DanielCD 21:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have rewritten much of the cosmology section, but am uncertain about it. The interpretation of all these gods and divisions gets very complicated, and I may have made some mistakes. I was also trying to accommodate the 1911 text as much as possible. Actually, I don't think more than a few scraps of it remain. As time goes, I may try to rewrite that section.
I would definitely appreciate ANY input and certainly PEER REVIEW is always desired and welcomed.-- DanielCD 15:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I found this link (I placed it on ext links) extremely informative. I highly reccomend a thorough reading of it (and the links within it) by any interested parties. Frankly it strikes me as dramatically superior to our own article on the subject. Cheers, Sam [ Spade] 20:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I often find your comments helpful. I kinda like some of this 'obscure' stuff because it's just interesting to me and because it's not so controversial. I actually picked up the Shaw book I refer to at the bottom of the article. It's really good, kinda thick, but good. -- DanielCD 21:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The current Anatolius link is disinforming; Iamblichus died 325, and "Anatolius was Patriarch of Constantinople (449 - 458)." Must have truly been a wise man to learn from someone that was to be born a hundred years later. ;) -- Oop 01:48, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about anybody else, but I don't much care for these parentheses at the end of an article name when an alternative is at hand. How would you feel about moving this article to Iamblichus Chalcidensis? Quartier Latin1968 03:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Good article nomination for Iamblichus has failed, for the following reason:
Try not to get discouraged; this is the best article I have reviewed for GA so far. It's pretty close. Here are my notes, using the criteria as a reference: A good article has the following attributes.
1. It is well written. In this respect:
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
Thanks, Bugmuncher 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
About a year ago, an anon editor changed the line that "Iamblichus was the chief representative of Syrian Neoplatonism" to "Assyrian Neoplatonism". Whereas the former was clearly meant to describe the geographic origin of either the man in question, his variety of Neoplatonism or both, the latter eventually came to link to the article Assyrian people, which is about an ethnic identity. I'm not sure that the latter is attested, and thus is unverifiable. Any thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Iamblichus of Chalcis → Iamblichus —(Discuss)— Primary bearer of name; the other candidate has a dab header linking to him, and is far more obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iamblichus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I went and pulled Shahid's Prolegomenon. The only evidence he gives for Iamblichus being an Arab is his own surmise that Iamblichus is an Arabic name and the spurious claim that only Arabs assumed Arabic names during that time. Anthroponomastics shows Iamblichus was definitively an Aramaic patronym. We don't even know who Iamblichus' parents were. It is pure speculation to posit that he was ethnically Arab. There is no credible source for this, ancient or modern. It would indeed be great, and I for one would be thrilled, if after 1700 years some new piece of evidence came to light showing Iamblichus to have been Arab but it just isn't the case and wishing doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.54 ( talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that it there is a confusion between dæmon/daimon and demon they do not have the same meaning. Please clarify. Thank you! Cornelius Pannonius ( talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Iamblichus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Iamblichus was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chapter on Iamblichus cosmology is confused, especially the notions of "intellect", "nous", "soul" and "psyche". Normally "psyche" translates "soul" and "nous" translates "intellect"; but in the chaper "intellect" is sometimes used for "nous". An expert is needed to correct it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.217.193.188 ( talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cosmology section is hard to clearly understand. There is a dyad of nous and psyche, but then Nous is split into three categories, but then into two which with psyche makes a triad, but then the demiurge is 'identified with' (meaning the same as or merely connected to? emerging from?) nous, and it becomes a hebdomad? Needs to be defined much more carefully. 86.147.185.116 ( talk) 12:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Rick Scott
I removed a lot of the jibborish: it was maily Greek text that didn't translate for some reason and references to chapters in Iamblichus' book. There are still some missing pieces though, and the text is really stale and choppy. I'm going to try to fill in the spots and work on making the text flow better. If anyone thinks the references need to be returned, that can be done as well. Anyone who is interested: read the text through and see if it seems coherent. -- DanielCD 21:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I cannot figure out what "in the decline of Greek philosophy" means. Can someone figure this out? Iamblichus responsible for the decline of Greek philosophy? Doesn't seem correct.-- DanielCD 21:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have rewritten much of the cosmology section, but am uncertain about it. The interpretation of all these gods and divisions gets very complicated, and I may have made some mistakes. I was also trying to accommodate the 1911 text as much as possible. Actually, I don't think more than a few scraps of it remain. As time goes, I may try to rewrite that section.
I would definitely appreciate ANY input and certainly PEER REVIEW is always desired and welcomed.-- DanielCD 15:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I found this link (I placed it on ext links) extremely informative. I highly reccomend a thorough reading of it (and the links within it) by any interested parties. Frankly it strikes me as dramatically superior to our own article on the subject. Cheers, Sam [ Spade] 20:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I often find your comments helpful. I kinda like some of this 'obscure' stuff because it's just interesting to me and because it's not so controversial. I actually picked up the Shaw book I refer to at the bottom of the article. It's really good, kinda thick, but good. -- DanielCD 21:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The current Anatolius link is disinforming; Iamblichus died 325, and "Anatolius was Patriarch of Constantinople (449 - 458)." Must have truly been a wise man to learn from someone that was to be born a hundred years later. ;) -- Oop 01:48, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about anybody else, but I don't much care for these parentheses at the end of an article name when an alternative is at hand. How would you feel about moving this article to Iamblichus Chalcidensis? Quartier Latin1968 03:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Good article nomination for Iamblichus has failed, for the following reason:
Try not to get discouraged; this is the best article I have reviewed for GA so far. It's pretty close. Here are my notes, using the criteria as a reference: A good article has the following attributes.
1. It is well written. In this respect:
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
Thanks, Bugmuncher 13:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
About a year ago, an anon editor changed the line that "Iamblichus was the chief representative of Syrian Neoplatonism" to "Assyrian Neoplatonism". Whereas the former was clearly meant to describe the geographic origin of either the man in question, his variety of Neoplatonism or both, the latter eventually came to link to the article Assyrian people, which is about an ethnic identity. I'm not sure that the latter is attested, and thus is unverifiable. Any thoughts? — Gareth Hughes 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Iamblichus of Chalcis → Iamblichus —(Discuss)— Primary bearer of name; the other candidate has a dab header linking to him, and is far more obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iamblichus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I went and pulled Shahid's Prolegomenon. The only evidence he gives for Iamblichus being an Arab is his own surmise that Iamblichus is an Arabic name and the spurious claim that only Arabs assumed Arabic names during that time. Anthroponomastics shows Iamblichus was definitively an Aramaic patronym. We don't even know who Iamblichus' parents were. It is pure speculation to posit that he was ethnically Arab. There is no credible source for this, ancient or modern. It would indeed be great, and I for one would be thrilled, if after 1700 years some new piece of evidence came to light showing Iamblichus to have been Arab but it just isn't the case and wishing doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.124.54 ( talk) 19:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that it there is a confusion between dæmon/daimon and demon they do not have the same meaning. Please clarify. Thank you! Cornelius Pannonius ( talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)