This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Microcosm–macrocosm analogy 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would think that Lord of the Flies is a strong, obvious and well-known modern microcosm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.209 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two problems with this page which I don't have time to fix right now. 1. it links to itself 2. it says nothing about the alchemical significance of the two words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.142.52 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In paragraph 2, I think we need to explain that Socrates is always a character in Plato's writing - it might be a bit confusing for anyone unfamiliar with Plato's work. This is the sentence I don't like:
"At §368, Socrates mentions that this virtue is “spoken as a virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of the state†and that it would be easier to discern its essence if one looked at the State because it would have a larger quantity of it and then proceeding back down into the individual to see how it appears in the smaller unit.""
See what I mean?
Moonpilot 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Moonpilot
This article has an extreme Western bias. The concept of microcosm/macrocosm is at the heart of traditional Chinese philosophy, completely unrelated to its Greek parallel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.75.230 ( talk) 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Repeating patterns in everything? isn't that essentially saying the world is made up of Fractals? Sp!der ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC).
The page completely ignores that the Greek concept of mico-macrocosm is in fact an evolution of the idea already existent in its Indo-European roots. 71.190.182.22 ( talk) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Hence the below merger proposal. FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- The article is substandard and needs citations, for example in the list of cultures that "observed the golden ratio in many parts of the ordered universe both large and small" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txensen ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have written an article about macrocosm/microcosm. It is at The Free Library. This should be the standard authoritative article on the subject:
I hope this clears up some issues. WHEELER ( talk) 20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now the article is deleted to basically nothing. The notion of Microcosm and Macrocosm is so important in ancient philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and medicine. There should be some specific definition of Macrocosm and that of Microcosm, and then talk about how that is related. I just drop off an image I found about the relation between macrocosm and microcosm. The meaning of that picture can be that man live in the body of microcosm during the day time with consciousness and then give up his astral body and ego to pass into the macrocosm when he is asleep, lying in the stream of forgetfulness. "Title Macrocosm and Microcosm Author Rudolf Steiner Publisher SteinerBooks, 1986 ISBN 1621510700, 9781621510703"
you can find more material to edit this material for sure. HillmanHan ( talk) 04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that the human being and the cosmos might be analogous because both were created by God. However, the former has the soul which was created with His breath by Him, while the latter does not. Thus, we have to be careful to think that they might not be very similar in structure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruby2021 ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
|
This talk page was a disorganized clutter of comments, many of them unsigned and appearing in no particular order (neither chronological nor logical), so I've just added section headings to most of them and tried to put apparent replies in the section to which they seem to belong. I should also note that this article was rewritten from scratch on 21 January 2021, so none of these sections (except the last one above) apply to the current version of the article. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Scyrme! With regard to this, I feel I should tell you that per WP:BRD, you should have started a discussion after your bold edit was reverted, and that per WP:QUO, you should not have re-reverted away from the status quo until consensus is established. It would be nice if you would keep to these established practices in the future!
You drastically reduced the size of the lead image depicting a macro-cosmic man, writing: A diagram which is only meaningful to those who read Latin is not instructive, it's distracting, and most readers will find the article itself far more helpful. Anyone who can read it will find a full-sized version is conveniently just 1 click away; the utility is undiminished.
The reason why the image is instructive is not its Latin text, but the way it illustrates the concept of an analogy between parts of the human body and parts of the cosmos: the head (which the Stoics called with the same name as they called God, the head and God being the hegemonikon or 'leading part' of man and cosmos, respectively) up there in the sky underneath the name of God, the feet deep in the dark part of the earth, the heart circling in the same orbit as the sun, etc. It immediately gives the reader a feel of what exactly ancient and medieval philosophers meant when they called the cosmos a 'great man' (makranthropos, insan kabir). Of course the article itself is also helpful, but at least on my devices the image at size upright=2 does not distract from the text, and it makes it in fact considerably easier to understand. As I said in my edit summary, a picture says more than a thousand words here. I urge you to reconsider. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 23:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
When I rewrote this article in January 2021, I purposefully set the lead image size at 2 (like here). This is much larger than average, but I've found this to be appropriate in this case because the image illustrates at a glance a number of aspects about the analogy (i.e., its concrete and literal rather than abstract and metaphorical nature), thus dispelling a common misconception and making the basic idea much easier to understand. The image would not fulfill this function if it were much smaller, because one has to see the details to understand what it represents, and because most readers would mistake it for a Vitruvian Man-like image (which it is not) and unduly ignore it (they're not very likely to click on it to enlarge). Its size has been recently reduced to 1.2 (see here) out of a concern to conform to default image sizes on WP and out of a concern for text readability. I've tested it on a few devices, but the image seems to behave well and doesn't get in the way of the text on any device I own. Nevertheless, I set the size at 1.8 (see here) for the time being, because it may (?) cause problems on devices with other screen sizes and/or aspect ratios. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Here from 3rd Opinion. I have checked the image on my smartphone, my laptop, my pc and my wife's phone, the layout is fine, as it was in the "1.2 edition" [1]. I was not disturbed by the image. But @ Scyrme: is right that the image is not informative. Maybe because nowadays we are used to more "abstract" images. But it doesn't hurt either. For a small subgroup of readers that are striving to understand the topic of the article, it might save them some time, being at 1.8 rather than 1.2. So I lean a little bit towards the 1.8 version. Cinadon 36 07:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Scyrme: for the majority of readers, there wont be any meaningful difference, I guess. Cinadon 36 15:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: Good job everybody. This discussion could be an example of how discussions should be. Cheers. Cinadon 36 06:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Illustration of an analogy between parts of the human body and parts of the cosmos: the head and the divine heavenly light, the legs and the dark earthy mass, the heart and the sun.
Illustration of the analogy in the correspondences between the human body and the celestial spheres of a geocentric cosmos: the head to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; the abdomen to the terrestrial sphere; and the legs to the earthy mass which supports this universe. From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi historia, 1617–21.
Illustration of an analogy between the human body and a geocentric model of the cosmos: between the head and the empyrean heaven, closest to the divine light of God; between the chest and the aetherial heaven occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; between the abdomen and the sublunary elemental heaven; between the legs and the dark earthy mass which supports this universe. [2]
The analogy illustrated in the human body and the celestial spheres of a geocentric cosmos: the head is analogous to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; the abdomen to the sublunary sphere; and the legs to the dark earthy mass which supports this universe. [ref/efn: From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21.]
Okay, let's have two sets of notes; I personally find it confusing to have both letters and numbers appear as notes, but I can see the use that you argue it has.
Reversing the order of 'illustration' and analogy breaks the flow and is a bad idea; let's just have "the analogy" then.
With regard to the celestial spheres, these were thought of as thick, material orbs which by their spherical movement either carried the planets and stars around, or moved other material celestial spheres embedded in them so as to create a combined movement (see Aristotelian physics#Celestial spheres). While the diagram shows the division of the heaven in three sections, these are not celestial spheres as such: as you say, these sections contain spheres (though the Empyrean and the sublunary heaven do not, or perhaps the Empyrean contains one sphere carrying everything below it), but they are not material celestial spheres. It is not the case, for example, that the whole aetherial heaven rotates around the earth as one: only the planetary celestial spheres which are contained in that part of heaven actually turn, or perhaps at most a separate celestial sphere located at its outer rim. The circles indicate the division of the heavens according to the material of which they are made (very pure fire or light for the Empyrean, aether for the aetherial heaven, and the four elements for the sublunary part of heaven), not material orbs carrying around planets and stars, or carrying other such nested orbs. While it may be tempting to speak of these divisions as celestial spheres, it's a misnomer, and ultimately incorrect.
Though I think "empyrean" and "aetherial" are close enough to "empyreum" and "aethereum" for casual readers to make the connection with the Latin text in the diagram, I will not insist on this one. However, let's then be consistent and also speak of the cœlum elementare and explicitly mention the molis terreæ in our caption.
Like this: Illustration of the analogy between the human body and a
geocentric cosmos: the head is analogous to the
cœlum empyreum, closest to the
divine light of God; the chest to the
cœlum æthereum, occupied by the
classical planets (wherein the
heart is analogous to the
sun); the
abdomen to the
cœlum elementare; the legs to the dark earthy mass (molis terreæ) which supports this universe. [efn: From
Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21.]
I hope we can agree on this proposal, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 01:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Macranthropy page would not be burdened with WP:WEIGHT by merging these info there. Macranthropy is a more proper term than "microcosm-macrocosm analogy", so I suggest we chuck this article there rather than that article's content here. FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma: Re this edit - the compound word "microcosm" (which I believe would hypothetically be μικÏÏŒ-κοσμος?) is not attested in Greek. If we're dealing with the use of the separate "μικÏá¿· κόσμῳ" the term is attested being used by Democritus, well before Aristotle. And it's a somewhat trivial piece of information - although Plato doesn't use this particular phrase in the Timaeus, preferring to use verb forms such as κατακοσμÎω and διακοσμÎω, that work is surely is the earliest surviving complete source of the concept, as arguably "microcosm-macrocosm" is the subject of the entire work.
I didn't follow up in Kraemer at first, as it looks like Kraemer is redlisted by Citehighlighter? It's certainly showing that way for me though I don't know enough about Encyclopedia Judaica to know why. In general though, outside of specialist sources I tend to find claims that such-and-such was the first to use a greek word are usually false, which is why I always check them in LSJ, which will generally be able to invalidate them.
On the subject, i think the whole sentence here should be removed: Medieval philosophy was generally dominated by Aristotle, who despite having been the first to coin the term "microcosm", had posited a fundamental and insurmountable difference between the region below the moon (the sublunary world, consisting of the four elements) and the region above the moon (the superlunary world, consisting of a fifth element)....
as its somewhat dubious (not only the broad interpretation, but Aristotle was not dominant until the 13th century in Western Europe, ever in Byzantine philosophy, and arguably only for a couple centuries in Islamic philosophy) and a bit polemical, it isn't supported by Kraemer regardless of the reliability of that source, and probably doesn't need to be in a section on Medieval Philosophy if Aristotle isn't the first person to use the term. Plato is probably the philosopher who warrants much more coverage there and earlier as the greatest influence.
- car chasm (
talk) 03:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Microcosm–macrocosm analogy 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would think that Lord of the Flies is a strong, obvious and well-known modern microcosm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.209 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two problems with this page which I don't have time to fix right now. 1. it links to itself 2. it says nothing about the alchemical significance of the two words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.142.52 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In paragraph 2, I think we need to explain that Socrates is always a character in Plato's writing - it might be a bit confusing for anyone unfamiliar with Plato's work. This is the sentence I don't like:
"At §368, Socrates mentions that this virtue is “spoken as a virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of the state†and that it would be easier to discern its essence if one looked at the State because it would have a larger quantity of it and then proceeding back down into the individual to see how it appears in the smaller unit.""
See what I mean?
Moonpilot 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Moonpilot
This article has an extreme Western bias. The concept of microcosm/macrocosm is at the heart of traditional Chinese philosophy, completely unrelated to its Greek parallel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.75.230 ( talk) 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Repeating patterns in everything? isn't that essentially saying the world is made up of Fractals? Sp!der ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC).
The page completely ignores that the Greek concept of mico-macrocosm is in fact an evolution of the idea already existent in its Indo-European roots. 71.190.182.22 ( talk) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Hence the below merger proposal. FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- The article is substandard and needs citations, for example in the list of cultures that "observed the golden ratio in many parts of the ordered universe both large and small" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txensen ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have written an article about macrocosm/microcosm. It is at The Free Library. This should be the standard authoritative article on the subject:
I hope this clears up some issues. WHEELER ( talk) 20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now the article is deleted to basically nothing. The notion of Microcosm and Macrocosm is so important in ancient philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and medicine. There should be some specific definition of Macrocosm and that of Microcosm, and then talk about how that is related. I just drop off an image I found about the relation between macrocosm and microcosm. The meaning of that picture can be that man live in the body of microcosm during the day time with consciousness and then give up his astral body and ego to pass into the macrocosm when he is asleep, lying in the stream of forgetfulness. "Title Macrocosm and Microcosm Author Rudolf Steiner Publisher SteinerBooks, 1986 ISBN 1621510700, 9781621510703"
you can find more material to edit this material for sure. HillmanHan ( talk) 04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that the human being and the cosmos might be analogous because both were created by God. However, the former has the soul which was created with His breath by Him, while the latter does not. Thus, we have to be careful to think that they might not be very similar in structure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruby2021 ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
|
This talk page was a disorganized clutter of comments, many of them unsigned and appearing in no particular order (neither chronological nor logical), so I've just added section headings to most of them and tried to put apparent replies in the section to which they seem to belong. I should also note that this article was rewritten from scratch on 21 January 2021, so none of these sections (except the last one above) apply to the current version of the article. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Scyrme! With regard to this, I feel I should tell you that per WP:BRD, you should have started a discussion after your bold edit was reverted, and that per WP:QUO, you should not have re-reverted away from the status quo until consensus is established. It would be nice if you would keep to these established practices in the future!
You drastically reduced the size of the lead image depicting a macro-cosmic man, writing: A diagram which is only meaningful to those who read Latin is not instructive, it's distracting, and most readers will find the article itself far more helpful. Anyone who can read it will find a full-sized version is conveniently just 1 click away; the utility is undiminished.
The reason why the image is instructive is not its Latin text, but the way it illustrates the concept of an analogy between parts of the human body and parts of the cosmos: the head (which the Stoics called with the same name as they called God, the head and God being the hegemonikon or 'leading part' of man and cosmos, respectively) up there in the sky underneath the name of God, the feet deep in the dark part of the earth, the heart circling in the same orbit as the sun, etc. It immediately gives the reader a feel of what exactly ancient and medieval philosophers meant when they called the cosmos a 'great man' (makranthropos, insan kabir). Of course the article itself is also helpful, but at least on my devices the image at size upright=2 does not distract from the text, and it makes it in fact considerably easier to understand. As I said in my edit summary, a picture says more than a thousand words here. I urge you to reconsider. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 23:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
When I rewrote this article in January 2021, I purposefully set the lead image size at 2 (like here). This is much larger than average, but I've found this to be appropriate in this case because the image illustrates at a glance a number of aspects about the analogy (i.e., its concrete and literal rather than abstract and metaphorical nature), thus dispelling a common misconception and making the basic idea much easier to understand. The image would not fulfill this function if it were much smaller, because one has to see the details to understand what it represents, and because most readers would mistake it for a Vitruvian Man-like image (which it is not) and unduly ignore it (they're not very likely to click on it to enlarge). Its size has been recently reduced to 1.2 (see here) out of a concern to conform to default image sizes on WP and out of a concern for text readability. I've tested it on a few devices, but the image seems to behave well and doesn't get in the way of the text on any device I own. Nevertheless, I set the size at 1.8 (see here) for the time being, because it may (?) cause problems on devices with other screen sizes and/or aspect ratios. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Here from 3rd Opinion. I have checked the image on my smartphone, my laptop, my pc and my wife's phone, the layout is fine, as it was in the "1.2 edition" [1]. I was not disturbed by the image. But @ Scyrme: is right that the image is not informative. Maybe because nowadays we are used to more "abstract" images. But it doesn't hurt either. For a small subgroup of readers that are striving to understand the topic of the article, it might save them some time, being at 1.8 rather than 1.2. So I lean a little bit towards the 1.8 version. Cinadon 36 07:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Scyrme: for the majority of readers, there wont be any meaningful difference, I guess. Cinadon 36 15:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: Good job everybody. This discussion could be an example of how discussions should be. Cheers. Cinadon 36 06:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Illustration of an analogy between parts of the human body and parts of the cosmos: the head and the divine heavenly light, the legs and the dark earthy mass, the heart and the sun.
Illustration of the analogy in the correspondences between the human body and the celestial spheres of a geocentric cosmos: the head to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; the abdomen to the terrestrial sphere; and the legs to the earthy mass which supports this universe. From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi historia, 1617–21.
Illustration of an analogy between the human body and a geocentric model of the cosmos: between the head and the empyrean heaven, closest to the divine light of God; between the chest and the aetherial heaven occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; between the abdomen and the sublunary elemental heaven; between the legs and the dark earthy mass which supports this universe. [2]
The analogy illustrated in the human body and the celestial spheres of a geocentric cosmos: the head is analogous to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; the abdomen to the sublunary sphere; and the legs to the dark earthy mass which supports this universe. [ref/efn: From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21.]
Okay, let's have two sets of notes; I personally find it confusing to have both letters and numbers appear as notes, but I can see the use that you argue it has.
Reversing the order of 'illustration' and analogy breaks the flow and is a bad idea; let's just have "the analogy" then.
With regard to the celestial spheres, these were thought of as thick, material orbs which by their spherical movement either carried the planets and stars around, or moved other material celestial spheres embedded in them so as to create a combined movement (see Aristotelian physics#Celestial spheres). While the diagram shows the division of the heaven in three sections, these are not celestial spheres as such: as you say, these sections contain spheres (though the Empyrean and the sublunary heaven do not, or perhaps the Empyrean contains one sphere carrying everything below it), but they are not material celestial spheres. It is not the case, for example, that the whole aetherial heaven rotates around the earth as one: only the planetary celestial spheres which are contained in that part of heaven actually turn, or perhaps at most a separate celestial sphere located at its outer rim. The circles indicate the division of the heavens according to the material of which they are made (very pure fire or light for the Empyrean, aether for the aetherial heaven, and the four elements for the sublunary part of heaven), not material orbs carrying around planets and stars, or carrying other such nested orbs. While it may be tempting to speak of these divisions as celestial spheres, it's a misnomer, and ultimately incorrect.
Though I think "empyrean" and "aetherial" are close enough to "empyreum" and "aethereum" for casual readers to make the connection with the Latin text in the diagram, I will not insist on this one. However, let's then be consistent and also speak of the cœlum elementare and explicitly mention the molis terreæ in our caption.
Like this: Illustration of the analogy between the human body and a
geocentric cosmos: the head is analogous to the
cœlum empyreum, closest to the
divine light of God; the chest to the
cœlum æthereum, occupied by the
classical planets (wherein the
heart is analogous to the
sun); the
abdomen to the
cœlum elementare; the legs to the dark earthy mass (molis terreæ) which supports this universe. [efn: From
Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21.]
I hope we can agree on this proposal, ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 01:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Macranthropy page would not be burdened with WP:WEIGHT by merging these info there. Macranthropy is a more proper term than "microcosm-macrocosm analogy", so I suggest we chuck this article there rather than that article's content here. FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma: Re this edit - the compound word "microcosm" (which I believe would hypothetically be μικÏÏŒ-κοσμος?) is not attested in Greek. If we're dealing with the use of the separate "μικÏá¿· κόσμῳ" the term is attested being used by Democritus, well before Aristotle. And it's a somewhat trivial piece of information - although Plato doesn't use this particular phrase in the Timaeus, preferring to use verb forms such as κατακοσμÎω and διακοσμÎω, that work is surely is the earliest surviving complete source of the concept, as arguably "microcosm-macrocosm" is the subject of the entire work.
I didn't follow up in Kraemer at first, as it looks like Kraemer is redlisted by Citehighlighter? It's certainly showing that way for me though I don't know enough about Encyclopedia Judaica to know why. In general though, outside of specialist sources I tend to find claims that such-and-such was the first to use a greek word are usually false, which is why I always check them in LSJ, which will generally be able to invalidate them.
On the subject, i think the whole sentence here should be removed: Medieval philosophy was generally dominated by Aristotle, who despite having been the first to coin the term "microcosm", had posited a fundamental and insurmountable difference between the region below the moon (the sublunary world, consisting of the four elements) and the region above the moon (the superlunary world, consisting of a fifth element)....
as its somewhat dubious (not only the broad interpretation, but Aristotle was not dominant until the 13th century in Western Europe, ever in Byzantine philosophy, and arguably only for a couple centuries in Islamic philosophy) and a bit polemical, it isn't supported by Kraemer regardless of the reliability of that source, and probably doesn't need to be in a section on Medieval Philosophy if Aristotle isn't the first person to use the term. Plato is probably the philosopher who warrants much more coverage there and earlier as the greatest influence.
- car chasm (
talk) 03:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)