This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The stages of pluralism in civilize nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.94.48.206 ( talk • contribs)
The article could maybe present a bit of information on the philosophy of radical pluralism, which is a bit different from typical pluralism in that it is radical. ADM ( talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the pre-Socrates, but I'm confident in saying that Parmenides' philosophy is not characterized by "ever-changing flux" as the article suggests. Rather it is one of unchanging constancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.91.28 ( talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If one is going to accept both contradiction and truth ("several conflicting but still true descriptions of the world") why bother continuing? Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 08:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Pluralism appears to have several meanings in philosophy. This article covers 2 distinct meanings which have no reason to be covered on the same article. There is already an article covering epistemological pluralism, in which the Epistemology section should be merged. The metaphysical section should be split into a new article. I am not sure how that article should be named, Ontological pluralism or Metaphysical pluralism. -- Chealer ( talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The tag to merge Epistemology has had no discussion. There is now a tag to say that the section does not even meet standards. If there is a problem with the section then it should either be rectified or removed. Merging the section to another article is just moving the problem.
A new version of the article ontological pluralism has been written and comments are requested on its talk page at User:Brews_ohare/ontological_pluralism#RfC:_New_version_of_Ontological_pluralism.. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
At the moment the subject is treated as a subsection Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism that refers to Classical elements as the 'main article' on the subject. In fact, classical elements is an account of " ancient beliefs inspired by natural observation of the phases of matter; with the classical elements: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas and fire is equivalent to plasma." That discussion in fact has nothing to do with ontological pluralism in today's philosophy. This is also the subject of the first and longest of two paragraphs in Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism.
There is a second paragraph discussing one aspect of Wittgenstein's thought on the subject of language games. This discussion is very tangential to the topic and it s bearing is not made clear.
There is nothing here reflecting modern work on the topic such as that referred to in Matti Eklund (2009). Carnap and Ontological Pluralism, Huw Price (1992). Metaphysical Pluralism, Joshua Spencer (2012). Ways of Being, and on and on.
Considering the poor treatment of this topic on WP, it is time something was changed, and this draft article is a step in that direction. Some comment would be helpful. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added a new introductory paragraph to the section 'ontological pluralism' that widens the scope of this term beyond an archaic reference to Aristotle's elements to reflect a more modern interpretation of this topic. Two sources have been supplied. The entire subsection needs to undertake a wider discussion that reflects a wider modern view of the topic. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
No modern realist believes for a moment that numbers and theorems "exist" in the same way that stones and stars exist. Of course mathematical concepts are mental constructs and products of human culture.
I think I am seeing this as an article on Philosophy Atfyfe and I hope Brew's is as well as he is under a permanent topic ban on Physics related articles, broadly construed. I'm more than happy for modern elements to be there provided (i) so called classical elements are not made an afterthought and (ii) the modern elements are based on third party sources not Brew's selection of those modern sources he is reading. To create an overall structure we need an authoritative source. The Oxford companion to Philosophy has the subject Monism and pluralism, and it is a paragraph long on that difference. It does not extend into a wider discussion. ---- Snowded TALK 05:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is how that could be done:
Classical elements
Modes of being
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
No modern realist believes for a moment that numbers and theorems "exist" in the same way that stones and stars exist. Of course mathematical concepts are mental constructs and products of human culture.
Any comments? Brews ohare ( talk) 13:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The present section ontological pluralism contains an unsourced introduction to Wittgenstein:
I believe this exposition is completely unrelated to classical elements and so requires a separate subheader. Also, the general idea of an ontological distinction between the reality described in a novel, and 'reality' itself falls under the rubric of 'modes of being' and should be lumped into a section on that topic along with a much more extensive discussion of 'modes of being'. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
With the new structure of ontological pluralism, I have introduced the material about Wittgenstein in the subsection Ontological pluralism#Modes of being. I've largely rewritten the previous text quoted above and included three quotations from the Philosophical Investigations. The first of these quotations uses Wittgenstein's own presentation of the idea of drawing boundaries around meanings for special purposes. The second presents Wittgenstein's very lucid comparison of the connection between these overlapping meanings that do not allow a clean division unless a convention is adopted that excludes some aspect of meaning. The third quotation points out that the theories of science constitute one way of drawing such boundaries and defining conventions that restrict the meaning of terms.
These points could be made in the WP text and Wittgenstein simply cited as support. However, I believe the quotes take advantage of Wittgenstein's unmatchable eloquence, and also have the merit of being his own words, so the possibility of misreading him is avoided. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In several reverts including one with the comment Excessive quotation and also linking to carnap stuff , Snowded has removed the explanation of Wittgenstein's contribution, several pertinent quotations, and additional material relevant to ontological pluralism as discussed by Carnap and by Quine. He has made no attempt to discuss the reasoning provided in this thread. Further discussion is needed, both as to why explanation of Wittgenstein's efforts has been emasculated, and as to why the discussion by Price, and Eklund about Quine and Carnap and Wittgenstein have been deleted. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If this material appears to be too lengthy for a subsection in Pluralism (philosophy), then the redirect from ontological pluralism can be made into a full article, as I have attempted earlier, and as is already the case for epistemological pluralism. That would allow for a fuller development of Price, Eklund and other modern philosophers. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Brews, please be guided by Snowded... Sorry I haven't had much time lately, I started a new job.— Machine Elf 1735 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind that the Cambridge companion has for this subject the entry "see monism and pluralism". That entry then has one paragraph and a short one which describes the differences. That is a 2005 edition so recent. Of the issues of pluralism, relativism etc. extend over many philosophical issues, but the place for that is on the articles concerned. Here we should be referencing them. Having half of a section devoted to Wittgenstein who only illustrates some of those issues was excessive. ---- Snowded TALK 08:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You really like drawing conclusions from the text which aren't there Brews don't you Brews? Not to mention jumping to false conclusions. The point being made is entirely to do with the Cambridge book and what it says. Haldane is defining Mauritain's views and that is all we can draw from it. The fact that other people may use similar language is of course inevitable if they address similar issues. Ontology and pluralism are common words and their combination increasingly common. The simple fact remains that the Cambridge Companion does not deem it worthy of an article and merely uses the words once in describing the views of a prominent Thomist. Otherwise I had thought you have calmed down a bit on the personal attacks yesterday, but it looks like that is not the case and I will have to put the effort in of documenting the various examples ---- Snowded TALK 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The section Pluralism (philosophy)#Classical elements presently is a subsection under ontological pluralism. However, nothing in this subsection, nor in the main article classical elements, documents that this topic falls under this heading. If there is in fact such a connection to ontological pluralism it should be documented. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The introductory line to the section ontological pluralism is "Historically Ontological pluralism has been directly related with the belief in classical elements" Is there any documentation that the topic of (e.g.) earth, air, water, and fire was called 'ontological pluralism' by some historian? Brews ohare ( talk) 04:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for interrupting your work! In Logic and Ontological Pluralism, Turner said:
This quote is consistent with the literature on metaphysics as the structure of reality, and ontology as the study of existence within each metaphysical system.
A mathematical metaphysics defines certain classes of numbers as existents. The rules (metaphysics) of chess defines the board, knights, and rooks. These ontological existents do not specifically exist in other metaphysical systems, such as for football or quantum physics. This is metaphysical pluralism. A metaphysics will have its ontology and epistemology, and perhaps ethics, aesthetics, and so on.
Ontological pluralism is something else. It is an effort within a metaphysical system, conceived as absolute and without peers, to engulf various desired foreign ontological objects, such as change, mind, life, numbers, universals, and much more.
Most of the literature, and also reader interest is this last category, of offering and defeating attempts at expanding the range of existents in standard modern philosophy.
We need to be extremely careful about the use of the terms real, existent, being, thing, object, relation, and so on. BlueMist ( talk) 04:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In this edit MachineElf made a number of changes that have not been explained on this Talk page. The definitions of the Free Dictionary have been replaced with unsourced and much narrower definitions. Both definitions are possible, and whether the narrower choice is preferable, or the broader, or both, deserves some elucidation? Brews ohare ( talk) 15:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The present statement
is probably wrong, or at least obscure. Monism and pluralism both can coexist with the idea of one 'reality', but differ as to how that 'reality' is to be understood. Pluralism can be expressed as the "belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life" [1] and monism as the contrary belief. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
MachineElf also wishes to place all citation info so it appears in the text of the article in the edit window, instead of in the section on 'Notes'. He cites WP:CITEVAR as a policy that militates against the use of {{reflist|refs=}}, but that is not the purpose of that policy. The use of {{reflist|refs=}} is part of the {{reflist }} documentation, and is exactly the same in its use of citation details, other than their location. In the edit window it places these details out of the main text and into the section where the reflist template occurs, which simplifies reading of the text when editing. The policy WP:CITEVAR applies to introduction of radically different citation methods, like the Harvard approach, not to simple variants of {{reflist }}. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Brews, please don't edit war. Please self-revert and refer to WP:CITEVAR if you'd like to try and garner consensus for your change. As you're aware, I'm opposed because it's harder to spot your WP:RS violations if they're below the fold.— Machine Elf 1735 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The stages of pluralism in civilize nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.94.48.206 ( talk • contribs)
The article could maybe present a bit of information on the philosophy of radical pluralism, which is a bit different from typical pluralism in that it is radical. ADM ( talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the pre-Socrates, but I'm confident in saying that Parmenides' philosophy is not characterized by "ever-changing flux" as the article suggests. Rather it is one of unchanging constancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.91.28 ( talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If one is going to accept both contradiction and truth ("several conflicting but still true descriptions of the world") why bother continuing? Richardbrucebaxter ( talk) 08:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Pluralism appears to have several meanings in philosophy. This article covers 2 distinct meanings which have no reason to be covered on the same article. There is already an article covering epistemological pluralism, in which the Epistemology section should be merged. The metaphysical section should be split into a new article. I am not sure how that article should be named, Ontological pluralism or Metaphysical pluralism. -- Chealer ( talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The tag to merge Epistemology has had no discussion. There is now a tag to say that the section does not even meet standards. If there is a problem with the section then it should either be rectified or removed. Merging the section to another article is just moving the problem.
A new version of the article ontological pluralism has been written and comments are requested on its talk page at User:Brews_ohare/ontological_pluralism#RfC:_New_version_of_Ontological_pluralism.. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
At the moment the subject is treated as a subsection Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism that refers to Classical elements as the 'main article' on the subject. In fact, classical elements is an account of " ancient beliefs inspired by natural observation of the phases of matter; with the classical elements: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas and fire is equivalent to plasma." That discussion in fact has nothing to do with ontological pluralism in today's philosophy. This is also the subject of the first and longest of two paragraphs in Ontological_pluralism#Ontological_pluralism.
There is a second paragraph discussing one aspect of Wittgenstein's thought on the subject of language games. This discussion is very tangential to the topic and it s bearing is not made clear.
There is nothing here reflecting modern work on the topic such as that referred to in Matti Eklund (2009). Carnap and Ontological Pluralism, Huw Price (1992). Metaphysical Pluralism, Joshua Spencer (2012). Ways of Being, and on and on.
Considering the poor treatment of this topic on WP, it is time something was changed, and this draft article is a step in that direction. Some comment would be helpful. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added a new introductory paragraph to the section 'ontological pluralism' that widens the scope of this term beyond an archaic reference to Aristotle's elements to reflect a more modern interpretation of this topic. Two sources have been supplied. The entire subsection needs to undertake a wider discussion that reflects a wider modern view of the topic. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
No modern realist believes for a moment that numbers and theorems "exist" in the same way that stones and stars exist. Of course mathematical concepts are mental constructs and products of human culture.
I think I am seeing this as an article on Philosophy Atfyfe and I hope Brew's is as well as he is under a permanent topic ban on Physics related articles, broadly construed. I'm more than happy for modern elements to be there provided (i) so called classical elements are not made an afterthought and (ii) the modern elements are based on third party sources not Brew's selection of those modern sources he is reading. To create an overall structure we need an authoritative source. The Oxford companion to Philosophy has the subject Monism and pluralism, and it is a paragraph long on that difference. It does not extend into a wider discussion. ---- Snowded TALK 05:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is how that could be done:
Classical elements
Modes of being
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
No modern realist believes for a moment that numbers and theorems "exist" in the same way that stones and stars exist. Of course mathematical concepts are mental constructs and products of human culture.
Any comments? Brews ohare ( talk) 13:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The present section ontological pluralism contains an unsourced introduction to Wittgenstein:
I believe this exposition is completely unrelated to classical elements and so requires a separate subheader. Also, the general idea of an ontological distinction between the reality described in a novel, and 'reality' itself falls under the rubric of 'modes of being' and should be lumped into a section on that topic along with a much more extensive discussion of 'modes of being'. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
With the new structure of ontological pluralism, I have introduced the material about Wittgenstein in the subsection Ontological pluralism#Modes of being. I've largely rewritten the previous text quoted above and included three quotations from the Philosophical Investigations. The first of these quotations uses Wittgenstein's own presentation of the idea of drawing boundaries around meanings for special purposes. The second presents Wittgenstein's very lucid comparison of the connection between these overlapping meanings that do not allow a clean division unless a convention is adopted that excludes some aspect of meaning. The third quotation points out that the theories of science constitute one way of drawing such boundaries and defining conventions that restrict the meaning of terms.
These points could be made in the WP text and Wittgenstein simply cited as support. However, I believe the quotes take advantage of Wittgenstein's unmatchable eloquence, and also have the merit of being his own words, so the possibility of misreading him is avoided. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In several reverts including one with the comment Excessive quotation and also linking to carnap stuff , Snowded has removed the explanation of Wittgenstein's contribution, several pertinent quotations, and additional material relevant to ontological pluralism as discussed by Carnap and by Quine. He has made no attempt to discuss the reasoning provided in this thread. Further discussion is needed, both as to why explanation of Wittgenstein's efforts has been emasculated, and as to why the discussion by Price, and Eklund about Quine and Carnap and Wittgenstein have been deleted. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If this material appears to be too lengthy for a subsection in Pluralism (philosophy), then the redirect from ontological pluralism can be made into a full article, as I have attempted earlier, and as is already the case for epistemological pluralism. That would allow for a fuller development of Price, Eklund and other modern philosophers. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Brews, please be guided by Snowded... Sorry I haven't had much time lately, I started a new job.— Machine Elf 1735 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind that the Cambridge companion has for this subject the entry "see monism and pluralism". That entry then has one paragraph and a short one which describes the differences. That is a 2005 edition so recent. Of the issues of pluralism, relativism etc. extend over many philosophical issues, but the place for that is on the articles concerned. Here we should be referencing them. Having half of a section devoted to Wittgenstein who only illustrates some of those issues was excessive. ---- Snowded TALK 08:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You really like drawing conclusions from the text which aren't there Brews don't you Brews? Not to mention jumping to false conclusions. The point being made is entirely to do with the Cambridge book and what it says. Haldane is defining Mauritain's views and that is all we can draw from it. The fact that other people may use similar language is of course inevitable if they address similar issues. Ontology and pluralism are common words and their combination increasingly common. The simple fact remains that the Cambridge Companion does not deem it worthy of an article and merely uses the words once in describing the views of a prominent Thomist. Otherwise I had thought you have calmed down a bit on the personal attacks yesterday, but it looks like that is not the case and I will have to put the effort in of documenting the various examples ---- Snowded TALK 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The section Pluralism (philosophy)#Classical elements presently is a subsection under ontological pluralism. However, nothing in this subsection, nor in the main article classical elements, documents that this topic falls under this heading. If there is in fact such a connection to ontological pluralism it should be documented. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The introductory line to the section ontological pluralism is "Historically Ontological pluralism has been directly related with the belief in classical elements" Is there any documentation that the topic of (e.g.) earth, air, water, and fire was called 'ontological pluralism' by some historian? Brews ohare ( talk) 04:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for interrupting your work! In Logic and Ontological Pluralism, Turner said:
This quote is consistent with the literature on metaphysics as the structure of reality, and ontology as the study of existence within each metaphysical system.
A mathematical metaphysics defines certain classes of numbers as existents. The rules (metaphysics) of chess defines the board, knights, and rooks. These ontological existents do not specifically exist in other metaphysical systems, such as for football or quantum physics. This is metaphysical pluralism. A metaphysics will have its ontology and epistemology, and perhaps ethics, aesthetics, and so on.
Ontological pluralism is something else. It is an effort within a metaphysical system, conceived as absolute and without peers, to engulf various desired foreign ontological objects, such as change, mind, life, numbers, universals, and much more.
Most of the literature, and also reader interest is this last category, of offering and defeating attempts at expanding the range of existents in standard modern philosophy.
We need to be extremely careful about the use of the terms real, existent, being, thing, object, relation, and so on. BlueMist ( talk) 04:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In this edit MachineElf made a number of changes that have not been explained on this Talk page. The definitions of the Free Dictionary have been replaced with unsourced and much narrower definitions. Both definitions are possible, and whether the narrower choice is preferable, or the broader, or both, deserves some elucidation? Brews ohare ( talk) 15:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The present statement
is probably wrong, or at least obscure. Monism and pluralism both can coexist with the idea of one 'reality', but differ as to how that 'reality' is to be understood. Pluralism can be expressed as the "belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life" [1] and monism as the contrary belief. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
MachineElf also wishes to place all citation info so it appears in the text of the article in the edit window, instead of in the section on 'Notes'. He cites WP:CITEVAR as a policy that militates against the use of {{reflist|refs=}}, but that is not the purpose of that policy. The use of {{reflist|refs=}} is part of the {{reflist }} documentation, and is exactly the same in its use of citation details, other than their location. In the edit window it places these details out of the main text and into the section where the reflist template occurs, which simplifies reading of the text when editing. The policy WP:CITEVAR applies to introduction of radically different citation methods, like the Harvard approach, not to simple variants of {{reflist }}. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Brews, please don't edit war. Please self-revert and refer to WP:CITEVAR if you'd like to try and garner consensus for your change. As you're aware, I'm opposed because it's harder to spot your WP:RS violations if they're below the fold.— Machine Elf 1735 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)