This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"It makes a critical distinction between mythology as a more or less benign way of bringing law ordered thought on society, nature and their powers to the masses and theology." This obviously needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.168.81 ( talk) 03:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"... These are surely a minority, and no doubt another reason why d'Holbach's philosophy is not often discussed today is that its main points are already widely but tacitly accepted, at least among scientists." is a rather presumptive statement for an encyclopedic article, isn't it? -Would saying "these are a minority" would have been any better?
This article really needs to be broken into subheadings but I really can't follow a word it's saying! Perhaps it's a case of the emperor's new clothes. SuzanneKn 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't just declare content to be nonsense, please state your objections in principle to the material in question, its basis in the given citations, etc. Otherwise it will be necessary to take this to arbitration. Lycurgus ( talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This should be cited. I don't doubt that it can be but I also suspect a translation error. In any case it's the conflation of "free will" with "unlimited autonomy" that is the rhetorical fault/fallacy here. If the former is equated with the latter then the determination of material factors that shape behavior will be seen as infringing on and, in the titular absurdity for this thread, completely eliminating the autonomy a thinking subject has in making choices. The recognition of which choices are real and which are not does the opposite of decreasing ones ability to make such choices. Lycurgus ( talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
as per WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, with respect to a WP article about a book:
an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis.
For this reason, i deleted the exhaustive list of contents from the main article which had been provided without any editorial commentary. There is no encyclopedic value in retaining the exhaustive list of contents of this book in the main article. Soham321 ( talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"It makes a critical distinction between mythology as a more or less benign way of bringing law ordered thought on society, nature and their powers to the masses and theology." This obviously needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.168.81 ( talk) 03:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"... These are surely a minority, and no doubt another reason why d'Holbach's philosophy is not often discussed today is that its main points are already widely but tacitly accepted, at least among scientists." is a rather presumptive statement for an encyclopedic article, isn't it? -Would saying "these are a minority" would have been any better?
This article really needs to be broken into subheadings but I really can't follow a word it's saying! Perhaps it's a case of the emperor's new clothes. SuzanneKn 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't just declare content to be nonsense, please state your objections in principle to the material in question, its basis in the given citations, etc. Otherwise it will be necessary to take this to arbitration. Lycurgus ( talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This should be cited. I don't doubt that it can be but I also suspect a translation error. In any case it's the conflation of "free will" with "unlimited autonomy" that is the rhetorical fault/fallacy here. If the former is equated with the latter then the determination of material factors that shape behavior will be seen as infringing on and, in the titular absurdity for this thread, completely eliminating the autonomy a thinking subject has in making choices. The recognition of which choices are real and which are not does the opposite of decreasing ones ability to make such choices. Lycurgus ( talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
as per WP:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, with respect to a WP article about a book:
an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis.
For this reason, i deleted the exhaustive list of contents from the main article which had been provided without any editorial commentary. There is no encyclopedic value in retaining the exhaustive list of contents of this book in the main article. Soham321 ( talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)