Daily page views
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I agree that phronesis, as defined as practical wisdom, is desirable. (But so what!) I'm not a Greek scholar, but it also strikes me that these definitions are "personal" - and if we are going to define a term from long ago, we need to do better. I'd like to see the Greek word, and what various scholars have said about how it is used in Categories, or in Nichmachean Ethics.
The whole article would be improved by contrasting historical definitions (and I'd like to see scholarly references), and contemporary (something like the definitions offered).
There are several sites, and academics, who have an interest in the term and who might contribute. (Paul Gibbons)
It seems to me that the bulk of this article is a personal reading, and not enough information in the context of Nichomachean ethics. I stumblers on this article writing a paper that is partially about phronesis, so I'm planning to expand on it when I have the time. On that note, I don't understand the link at the bottom of the page to the psych professor...is this his reading? did he write the article? was the article based on somethign he read? if the link to that professor is to be considered pertinent in any way, he needs to be referenced somewhere in the article.
Shaggorama 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes phronesis is very important in our society today. I find people tend to the state of viciousness as opposed to
virtuousness. It is however a very subtle line between the two states of behaviour. People can become so viscious
at a glance. If by not smiling or disobeying their command do they run into a raging situation. Never practicing sound judgement; only becoming violent and wicked. It's craziness; people just fly off the handle and begin to brawl about a woman, a five dollar bill, a seat on the subway or about nothing at all. You always have to take war action; truly we
are born in a completely insane society.
Carl Kravis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 ( talk) 10:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather unusual to me that the Phaedo, a dialogue by Plato, which preceded this work and focused primarily on the subject is not mentioned. It is my opinion that without the Phaedo Aristotle would not have had quite the solid foundation to make his assertions from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.113.162.41 ( talk) 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a recent change to the lead, but my revert has now be reverted. My edit comment was "rolling back a few versions; the new wording is very awkward and I would say wrong". The IP editor has posted on my talk page, "I don't entirely follow either of your explanations for your edit as explained in the short edit summary, so if you are still keen to revert it, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation on the talk page." Here are the old and new proposed versions:
My reasons for doubting that this is an improvement:
1. Changes to first sentence...
2. 2 new sentences inserted, before the mention of Aristotle's specific definitions.
The way I read it, this new edit has chosen the word "wisdom" in a way which does not match Greek philosophy, to mean something like cleverness or ability (maybe a classically trained person would actually say "virtue"). If so then the sentence ends up meaning "phronesis is virtue in matters of virtue". Aristotle and other Greek philosophers were carefully trying to distinguish all these things. Philosophy generally is all about trying to make more careful distinctions than every day language?
If I had to try to correct what I think the second sentence was trying to say I would try something like this:
Feedback requested.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Phronesis. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop malware redirect 2601:647:6514:700:AB7F:AD51:CB7B:53AD ( talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Daily page views
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I agree that phronesis, as defined as practical wisdom, is desirable. (But so what!) I'm not a Greek scholar, but it also strikes me that these definitions are "personal" - and if we are going to define a term from long ago, we need to do better. I'd like to see the Greek word, and what various scholars have said about how it is used in Categories, or in Nichmachean Ethics.
The whole article would be improved by contrasting historical definitions (and I'd like to see scholarly references), and contemporary (something like the definitions offered).
There are several sites, and academics, who have an interest in the term and who might contribute. (Paul Gibbons)
It seems to me that the bulk of this article is a personal reading, and not enough information in the context of Nichomachean ethics. I stumblers on this article writing a paper that is partially about phronesis, so I'm planning to expand on it when I have the time. On that note, I don't understand the link at the bottom of the page to the psych professor...is this his reading? did he write the article? was the article based on somethign he read? if the link to that professor is to be considered pertinent in any way, he needs to be referenced somewhere in the article.
Shaggorama 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes phronesis is very important in our society today. I find people tend to the state of viciousness as opposed to
virtuousness. It is however a very subtle line between the two states of behaviour. People can become so viscious
at a glance. If by not smiling or disobeying their command do they run into a raging situation. Never practicing sound judgement; only becoming violent and wicked. It's craziness; people just fly off the handle and begin to brawl about a woman, a five dollar bill, a seat on the subway or about nothing at all. You always have to take war action; truly we
are born in a completely insane society.
Carl Kravis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 ( talk) 10:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather unusual to me that the Phaedo, a dialogue by Plato, which preceded this work and focused primarily on the subject is not mentioned. It is my opinion that without the Phaedo Aristotle would not have had quite the solid foundation to make his assertions from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.113.162.41 ( talk) 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a recent change to the lead, but my revert has now be reverted. My edit comment was "rolling back a few versions; the new wording is very awkward and I would say wrong". The IP editor has posted on my talk page, "I don't entirely follow either of your explanations for your edit as explained in the short edit summary, so if you are still keen to revert it, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation on the talk page." Here are the old and new proposed versions:
My reasons for doubting that this is an improvement:
1. Changes to first sentence...
2. 2 new sentences inserted, before the mention of Aristotle's specific definitions.
The way I read it, this new edit has chosen the word "wisdom" in a way which does not match Greek philosophy, to mean something like cleverness or ability (maybe a classically trained person would actually say "virtue"). If so then the sentence ends up meaning "phronesis is virtue in matters of virtue". Aristotle and other Greek philosophers were carefully trying to distinguish all these things. Philosophy generally is all about trying to make more careful distinctions than every day language?
If I had to try to correct what I think the second sentence was trying to say I would try something like this:
Feedback requested.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Phronesis. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop malware redirect 2601:647:6514:700:AB7F:AD51:CB7B:53AD ( talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)