This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq is a follower of the quietist school of thought, despite his indirect but decisive role in most major Iraqi political decisions. Then it is not quietism, is it? A "quietist," but with a covert, behind-the-scenes role in political decisions! A question remains: is this an honest misunderstanding of the meaning of Quietism, or is it a conscious manipulation of the meaning, in order to win a label that confers some perceived value or credibility? -- Wetman 20:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did a lot of searching, and could not find any reliable claim that she actually "maintained that she could not sin, for sin was self, and she had rid herself of self". This quotation, which I found all over the Web, is a parroting of an undocumented statement from The Columbia Encyclopedia ( http://www.bartleby.com/65/qu/quietism.html). Chitu 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Only just created this page a few hours ago - I'm amazed that people are trying to kill it off straight away.
In any case, the page is definitely not 'patent nonsense' as alleged. Anybody with an informed view of philosophy could confirm that there are a number of philosophers (active: McDowell/historical: Wittgenstein) who take the view that philosophy should offer no substantive theses (i.e. positive doctrines such as 'the world is physical'/'souls exist' etc.) but should seek instead to explain away apparent philosophical problems by showing that they are just misunderstandings. Austin's Sense and Sensibilia is a prime example of a work of philosophy that shows philosophical problems are the result of abusing ordinary language. I accept that the page is not yet fully referenced (though note links to Wittgenstein, Austin and McDowell) but it is not nonsense. See the article on John McDowell for a reference to quietism (in the first section on Work). - Bosphor 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Now added references and more examples. - Bosphor 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This really needs expanding, but also some serious editing. How can the genesis of Quietism have been 100 years after Schopenhauer wrote about it? [Brevel_monkey] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Brevel monkey (
talk •
contribs) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Schopenhauer wrote about religious quietism. He described the practice of minimizing willing and craving in order to seek salvation and goodness. For Schopenhauer, denial of willing resulted in goodness and painlessness. This was similar to the original tenets of Buddhism. This article on philosophical quietism as a solution to language problems is totally different from the quietism that Schopenhauier described. Lestrade ( talk) 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade
First, the term "quietism" is probably used in passing to describe a lot of thinkers. So just because someone gets called a quietist once, that doesn't mean they should be mentioned in this entry.
Second, this article is about a specific set of views that arose in western, analytic philosophy in the last 100-years that is widely known by the name "quietism". Obviously, that is not what editors mean when they add "Zen" or "Tao" or the "Grand Ayatollah Sistani" to this entry. If any of those really deserve an entry about their form of quietism, then we need some form of disambiguation (e.g. as we've done for Quietism (Christian philosophy)). They are not quietist in the sense this entry is about quietism.
- Atfyfe ( talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The linked articles in Danish, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Polish and Portuguese, at least, all actually correspond to the Quietism (Christian philosophy) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.129.48 ( talk) 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq is a follower of the quietist school of thought, despite his indirect but decisive role in most major Iraqi political decisions. Then it is not quietism, is it? A "quietist," but with a covert, behind-the-scenes role in political decisions! A question remains: is this an honest misunderstanding of the meaning of Quietism, or is it a conscious manipulation of the meaning, in order to win a label that confers some perceived value or credibility? -- Wetman 20:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did a lot of searching, and could not find any reliable claim that she actually "maintained that she could not sin, for sin was self, and she had rid herself of self". This quotation, which I found all over the Web, is a parroting of an undocumented statement from The Columbia Encyclopedia ( http://www.bartleby.com/65/qu/quietism.html). Chitu 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Only just created this page a few hours ago - I'm amazed that people are trying to kill it off straight away.
In any case, the page is definitely not 'patent nonsense' as alleged. Anybody with an informed view of philosophy could confirm that there are a number of philosophers (active: McDowell/historical: Wittgenstein) who take the view that philosophy should offer no substantive theses (i.e. positive doctrines such as 'the world is physical'/'souls exist' etc.) but should seek instead to explain away apparent philosophical problems by showing that they are just misunderstandings. Austin's Sense and Sensibilia is a prime example of a work of philosophy that shows philosophical problems are the result of abusing ordinary language. I accept that the page is not yet fully referenced (though note links to Wittgenstein, Austin and McDowell) but it is not nonsense. See the article on John McDowell for a reference to quietism (in the first section on Work). - Bosphor 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Now added references and more examples. - Bosphor 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This really needs expanding, but also some serious editing. How can the genesis of Quietism have been 100 years after Schopenhauer wrote about it? [Brevel_monkey] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Brevel monkey (
talk •
contribs) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Schopenhauer wrote about religious quietism. He described the practice of minimizing willing and craving in order to seek salvation and goodness. For Schopenhauer, denial of willing resulted in goodness and painlessness. This was similar to the original tenets of Buddhism. This article on philosophical quietism as a solution to language problems is totally different from the quietism that Schopenhauier described. Lestrade ( talk) 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade
First, the term "quietism" is probably used in passing to describe a lot of thinkers. So just because someone gets called a quietist once, that doesn't mean they should be mentioned in this entry.
Second, this article is about a specific set of views that arose in western, analytic philosophy in the last 100-years that is widely known by the name "quietism". Obviously, that is not what editors mean when they add "Zen" or "Tao" or the "Grand Ayatollah Sistani" to this entry. If any of those really deserve an entry about their form of quietism, then we need some form of disambiguation (e.g. as we've done for Quietism (Christian philosophy)). They are not quietist in the sense this entry is about quietism.
- Atfyfe ( talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The linked articles in Danish, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Polish and Portuguese, at least, all actually correspond to the Quietism (Christian philosophy) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.129.48 ( talk) 04:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)