This article is a current
featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Existence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Existence has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Our objective. Aldoada ( talk) 16:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. In its current form, it has various problems. The lead is too short and states controversial opinions as facts. The body of the article contains maintenance tags and about half of the text is unsourced. The structure is confusing. It's not clear why there are two separate historical sections ("Historical conceptions" and "Modern approaches") rather than one. For some reason, they are separated by another section called "Predicative nature". It's not clear why the subsection "Semantics" is called "Semantics" and why it is a subsection of the section "Predicative nature".
Based on a short initial review of some reliable sources, I think it would make sense to have a separate section on the nature of existence (is it a property of individuals or not?) and another on what types of existence there are (possible vs actual vs necessary; concrete vs abstract; physical vs mental;...). Some of the current contents of the article could be reorganized to fit into these sections but many would have to be rewritten. It might also be helpful to have more information on the contrast between existence and non-existence as well as the contrast between existence and essence. The discussion of the role of existence in logic should probably be expanded. It should also mention free logic, which has a very different way of dealing with existence.
I was thinking about doing more in-depth research and preparing a draft to fix and implement the ideas pointed out here. I thought it might be a good idea to hear what others think on these issues since this is a difficult topic and preparing a draft could take quite a while. Phlsph7 ( talk) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
being and existence has a lot of differences
new article of being is needed 41.121.121.137 ( talk) 15:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Of the universe ( talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am planning to review this article.
Of the universe (
talk) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Overall, I enjoyed the article. Reading about different philosophical views on existence was thought-provoking, and I learned a lot.
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton
talk 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Existence; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
References
Ronald McDonald does not exist,
it is not the case that there is a unique happy hamburger clown), chapter titles that are being cited, (
1. Existence as a Second-Order Property and Its Relation to Quantification,
3. How Many Ways of Being Existent?,
1. Frege and Russell: Existence is not a Property of Individuals,
3. An Anti-Meinongian First-Order View), or stock phrases (
the domain of quantification,
the property of being,
existence is a first-order property,
existence is a universal property). I found one close paraphrase and reformulated it. Phlsph7 ( talk) 06:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ Phlsph7,
Congrats on another GA! Two notes with respect to historical figures:
The serious one is that Heidegger is not correctly represented. He uses the term Existenz only to refer to Dasein's "mode of being". Paraphrased in normal language (which Heidegger would reject), Being and Time presents existence as something like the base-level activity of human life. Although it is hardly a model article, I cleaned up fundamental ontology a while ago, which elaborates on this point somewhat.
According to Heidegger, everyone else mentioned in the article is wrong because they are all proceeding upon a set of assumptions that are false. The real question of being is a question about meaning; fundamental ontology is hermeneutics. He claims in this way to have "overcome" metaphysics. (In my own judgment, he just changed the topic of conversation...)
I see, however, that you have four sources for two sentences on this. Are you sure you're reading them correctly? I'm confident of my grasp of this material, but that does not mean I might not be wrong!
In sum, I think Heidegger should either be jettisoned entirely or else given a more substantial treatment, perhaps in the section on "Modes and degrees of existence".
Second, I was surprised by the absence of Spinoza! I was going to add a few sentences about Hegel, but the most natural way to do this, in the context of this article, would probably involve reference back to Spinoza's substance monism (as well as Aristotle, of course—who is already represented, of course).
I'll wait for your comments (or those of anyone else!) before making any edits.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I need help from someone with a better understanding of the article. Should this be reworded to: For instance, to deny that dinosaurs exist means that the property of being a dinosaur has not been instantiated? User1042 💬 ✒️ 15:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This is actually very well written IMO, excepting some concepts which drop in a bit quick. So not a copy edit, but here are some queries:
Stopping there. This is an easier read than I expected but it's also a bit late. I may come back to this tho. Jim Killock (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is a current
featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Existence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Existence has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Our objective. Aldoada ( talk) 16:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. In its current form, it has various problems. The lead is too short and states controversial opinions as facts. The body of the article contains maintenance tags and about half of the text is unsourced. The structure is confusing. It's not clear why there are two separate historical sections ("Historical conceptions" and "Modern approaches") rather than one. For some reason, they are separated by another section called "Predicative nature". It's not clear why the subsection "Semantics" is called "Semantics" and why it is a subsection of the section "Predicative nature".
Based on a short initial review of some reliable sources, I think it would make sense to have a separate section on the nature of existence (is it a property of individuals or not?) and another on what types of existence there are (possible vs actual vs necessary; concrete vs abstract; physical vs mental;...). Some of the current contents of the article could be reorganized to fit into these sections but many would have to be rewritten. It might also be helpful to have more information on the contrast between existence and non-existence as well as the contrast between existence and essence. The discussion of the role of existence in logic should probably be expanded. It should also mention free logic, which has a very different way of dealing with existence.
I was thinking about doing more in-depth research and preparing a draft to fix and implement the ideas pointed out here. I thought it might be a good idea to hear what others think on these issues since this is a difficult topic and preparing a draft could take quite a while. Phlsph7 ( talk) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
being and existence has a lot of differences
new article of being is needed 41.121.121.137 ( talk) 15:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Of the universe ( talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am planning to review this article.
Of the universe (
talk) 01:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Overall, I enjoyed the article. Reading about different philosophical views on existence was thought-provoking, and I learned a lot.
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton
talk 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Existence; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
References
Ronald McDonald does not exist,
it is not the case that there is a unique happy hamburger clown), chapter titles that are being cited, (
1. Existence as a Second-Order Property and Its Relation to Quantification,
3. How Many Ways of Being Existent?,
1. Frege and Russell: Existence is not a Property of Individuals,
3. An Anti-Meinongian First-Order View), or stock phrases (
the domain of quantification,
the property of being,
existence is a first-order property,
existence is a universal property). I found one close paraphrase and reformulated it. Phlsph7 ( talk) 06:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ Phlsph7,
Congrats on another GA! Two notes with respect to historical figures:
The serious one is that Heidegger is not correctly represented. He uses the term Existenz only to refer to Dasein's "mode of being". Paraphrased in normal language (which Heidegger would reject), Being and Time presents existence as something like the base-level activity of human life. Although it is hardly a model article, I cleaned up fundamental ontology a while ago, which elaborates on this point somewhat.
According to Heidegger, everyone else mentioned in the article is wrong because they are all proceeding upon a set of assumptions that are false. The real question of being is a question about meaning; fundamental ontology is hermeneutics. He claims in this way to have "overcome" metaphysics. (In my own judgment, he just changed the topic of conversation...)
I see, however, that you have four sources for two sentences on this. Are you sure you're reading them correctly? I'm confident of my grasp of this material, but that does not mean I might not be wrong!
In sum, I think Heidegger should either be jettisoned entirely or else given a more substantial treatment, perhaps in the section on "Modes and degrees of existence".
Second, I was surprised by the absence of Spinoza! I was going to add a few sentences about Hegel, but the most natural way to do this, in the context of this article, would probably involve reference back to Spinoza's substance monism (as well as Aristotle, of course—who is already represented, of course).
I'll wait for your comments (or those of anyone else!) before making any edits.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 19:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I need help from someone with a better understanding of the article. Should this be reworded to: For instance, to deny that dinosaurs exist means that the property of being a dinosaur has not been instantiated? User1042 💬 ✒️ 15:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This is actually very well written IMO, excepting some concepts which drop in a bit quick. So not a copy edit, but here are some queries:
Stopping there. This is an easier read than I expected but it's also a bit late. I may come back to this tho. Jim Killock (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)