This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: accept; the page had been moved already by someone at 16:01 on 13 February 2011. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous → Ridiculous (album) — The current Ridiculous article is about an obscure album, and should be at Ridiculous (album), which currently redirects to the unmodified Ridiculous. The term “ridiculous” is a common English word, and has a general use, which is only slightly more specialized as used in psychology, advertisement, theory of humor, and comparison to the sublime, which is all currently at ridiculous (general use),. So the ridiculous article should be about general use and common specialized uses. PPdd ( talk) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should have started it in user space (I will read up on how to do this), but there is enough now for a stub. I did not intend either of these articles to be restricted to philosophy, or a single branch of philosophy, but this should be a section in both articles. While sometimes used as synonyms in general usage (or as briefly stated in some imprecise dictionaries), absurdity has more to do more with illogic and reasoning, and in a particular use in existential (but not other branches of) philosophy with the condition of life as attempting to find meaning when there is none (enough has been written about absurdism that it has its own article). " Ridiculous" has to do more with incongruity, or in one specialized use with a condition of the miserableness of one's existence, which is very different than absurdism in existentialism (although it is thematically similar to existentialism. The " ridiculous" article is intended to be much more general than just limited to use in philosophy (or one branch of philosophy), although a section about the sublime might be called philosophical in tone, though not recognized as a branch of philosophy. Since "ridiculous" occurs in many Wikipedia articles, sometimes in a use that is different than "absurdity", I do not think an obscure album should be where the link for it takes a reader... Wait a minute, I am getting a communication from the spirit realm regarding starting articles outside of user space... Ok, Sir Francis Bacon has just sent me a message from the spirit realm and let me know he wants to weigh in on both absurdity and WP:Bold starting a stub Ridiculous (general use) article... "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity.". Well, then, I must reply to him that communication from the spirit realm from the father of empirical method is an incongruity so is absoultely " ridiculous, but not ridiculous", and " ridiculous but not ridiculous" is a Moore-ean absurdity, though not illogic, and not nonsense according to Wittgenstein, which uses both " ridiculous (general use)" and absurdity humorously to make a point ala Lewis Carroll (which is only marginally categorizeable as philosophy). If you don't get what I just said, and "see nothing", then as the Cheshire cat would say, "My, you must have good eyes", meaning "You don't have good eyes". What I just wrote is an absurdity, but not necessarily ridiculous (general use). Am I making myself clear as to why I did not use userspace, why I started separate articles for absurdity and Ridiculous (general use), and why Ridiculous (general use) is much more broad than ridiculous (philosphy)? PPdd ( talk) 14:31, 12 February
Apologies, but shouldn't this article actually be at either ridicule or ridiculousness? Powers T 15:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please put any further discussion at Talk:Ridiculousness#Move?. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
Ignore Bot
|
---|
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ridiculous (general use) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 19:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: accept; the page had been moved already by someone at 16:01 on 13 February 2011. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous → Ridiculous (album) — The current Ridiculous article is about an obscure album, and should be at Ridiculous (album), which currently redirects to the unmodified Ridiculous. The term “ridiculous” is a common English word, and has a general use, which is only slightly more specialized as used in psychology, advertisement, theory of humor, and comparison to the sublime, which is all currently at ridiculous (general use),. So the ridiculous article should be about general use and common specialized uses. PPdd ( talk) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should have started it in user space (I will read up on how to do this), but there is enough now for a stub. I did not intend either of these articles to be restricted to philosophy, or a single branch of philosophy, but this should be a section in both articles. While sometimes used as synonyms in general usage (or as briefly stated in some imprecise dictionaries), absurdity has more to do more with illogic and reasoning, and in a particular use in existential (but not other branches of) philosophy with the condition of life as attempting to find meaning when there is none (enough has been written about absurdism that it has its own article). " Ridiculous" has to do more with incongruity, or in one specialized use with a condition of the miserableness of one's existence, which is very different than absurdism in existentialism (although it is thematically similar to existentialism. The " ridiculous" article is intended to be much more general than just limited to use in philosophy (or one branch of philosophy), although a section about the sublime might be called philosophical in tone, though not recognized as a branch of philosophy. Since "ridiculous" occurs in many Wikipedia articles, sometimes in a use that is different than "absurdity", I do not think an obscure album should be where the link for it takes a reader... Wait a minute, I am getting a communication from the spirit realm regarding starting articles outside of user space... Ok, Sir Francis Bacon has just sent me a message from the spirit realm and let me know he wants to weigh in on both absurdity and WP:Bold starting a stub Ridiculous (general use) article... "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity.". Well, then, I must reply to him that communication from the spirit realm from the father of empirical method is an incongruity so is absoultely " ridiculous, but not ridiculous", and " ridiculous but not ridiculous" is a Moore-ean absurdity, though not illogic, and not nonsense according to Wittgenstein, which uses both " ridiculous (general use)" and absurdity humorously to make a point ala Lewis Carroll (which is only marginally categorizeable as philosophy). If you don't get what I just said, and "see nothing", then as the Cheshire cat would say, "My, you must have good eyes", meaning "You don't have good eyes". What I just wrote is an absurdity, but not necessarily ridiculous (general use). Am I making myself clear as to why I did not use userspace, why I started separate articles for absurdity and Ridiculous (general use), and why Ridiculous (general use) is much more broad than ridiculous (philosphy)? PPdd ( talk) 14:31, 12 February
Apologies, but shouldn't this article actually be at either ridicule or ridiculousness? Powers T 15:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please put any further discussion at Talk:Ridiculousness#Move?. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
Ignore Bot
|
---|
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ridiculous (general use) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 19:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |