Hi, concerning this edit and the edit summary, apparently adding this link is this user's sole activity here. See 80.44.118.193 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Do you think this needs attention? - DVdm ( talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because
Since you were not aware of the history of the contributors, I can understand your objections. It would be helpful if you undid your own edit. Thanks, BlueMist ( talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
(mirror)
articles written by topic experts?
articles written by topic experts?
articles written by topic experts?
Hi Mercer.philosophy,
Most, but not all of your changes to the Analogy of the Divided Line considerably degrade the contents. In particular, 1) English Wikipedia uses English titles, i.e. Timaeus, not the Greek title. 2) Your changing of 'Plato' to 'Socrates' is very wrong in the context of the article. The name of the puppet character is quite irrelevant when it comes to Plato's epistemology of the Republic.
Will you please reverse all your latest changes, with the exception of the Upper-lower case for the titles, which is great. BlueMist ( talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you for your compliments on our efforts. Yes, this is English Wikipedia and the title 'Timaeus' should, I agree, be in English. Revision has been made.
We feel the assertion that Socrates is a 'puppet character' to be too strong. Socrates was the master of Plato and Plato has written his dialogues as if it were Socrates who was the philosopher. We thought that since there is no solid evidence to the contrary, we should be charitable to Plato and assume that he strove to be as true to Socrates' teachings as was possible. Thus, while we of course must affirm that Plato is the author of the dialogues themselves, we think Socrates should be cited as the father of the philosophies at hand.
Reply You speak about the 'greatest philosopher.' From your writings we can assume that by this you mean 'Plato'. We ask by what justification Plato is given this title? If he was so great then shouldn't we think his master all the greater?
And yes, it is regretted that we are not as learned on such subjects as we should be but you seem to imply that all scholars of note are agreed that the Analogy of the Divided Line is the work exclusively of Plato with no mentionable influence from Socrates. Again, how can this be as Socrates was Plato's master and Plato writes as if recounting what Socrates said?
Yet we agree with you that no one should speak as if one side or the other is known absolutely, and to do so was not our intention.
This being the case it is still true that Socrates is the main 'character' and that he is presented as the one speaking the Analogy. Furthermore, Plato's authorship has already been noted in the introduction to the article. Therefore, doesn't it seem more correct to speak of Socrates as employing the Analogy? For example, if we were working on an article about the life of Jesus in the gospel of Mark, we would not say that 'Mark told parables to the masses' or that 'Mark told his disciples that he would be crucified.' In the same way, Socrates is the character speaking the Analogy and so he is the subject, not Plato. Mercer.philosophy ( talk) 01:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
We wrote:
The Analogy of the Divided Line is presented by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic Book VI (509D–513E). It is written as a dialogue between Glaucon (Plato's elder brother) and Socrates, narrated by the latter. Plato has Socrates explain through the literary device of a divided line his fundamental metaphysical ideas as four separate but logically connected models of the world. The four models are arranged into a first pair for the visible world, and a second pair for the purely intelligible world. The models are described in succession as corresponding to increasing levels of reality from common illusion, to belief, to reasoning, and then to philosophical understanding.
You also seem to have reversed the table. There may have been improvements to be made but a complete removal seems a little harsh. The stated reason for these reversals was that the above quotation contains unsupported personal expression. Could you specify where the fault is to be found?
-- Mercer.philosophy ( talk) 02:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I contest the removal of the informative and innocuous link to the Uebersax article:
1. On what basis do you call it "unphilosophical?" It cites all the major papers, and pursues a well-known and extremely important theme (the distinction between dianoia and noesis). It follows in large part Annas and Murdoch. Evidently what you mean is that it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Divided Line.
2. The interpretation of the Divided Line is controversial. It is not your place to limit points of view, as long as they are reasonable, plausible, logically presented, and adequately referenced.
3. What are your qualifications to call it unphilosophical? Are you a professional philosopher?
4. Most importantly: Where is rule that says that philosophers alone own Plato, and that the only valid way to read Plato is philosophically? Wouldn't Plato have considered himself a psychologist (scientist of the mind or soul) as well as a philosopher? Would you please tell me the name of a single professional philosopher who would say that psychology is not a proper perspective to take on Plato? (I know dozens of professional philosophers who would assert the contrary.)
5. In any case, the citation does nothing but give users more information. It supplies the entire text (including 7.533d-534b, which the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention), and a solid, professional-caliber bibliography. Any academic researcher interested in this topic would find this bibliography most helpful indeed -- especially given the hyperlinks.
I am putting the link back in, and charge you with the burden of proof to demonstrate to the community of users that it shouldn't be in there!
If you wish for this to go to the next level, by all means let us both waste our time taking it there! However if we do this, you should be prepared to find that nobody agrees with you, and that you make yourself look very small by such actions.
Practical321 ( talk) 23:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called BlueMist. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name BlueMist~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable."
This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:
In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", [Note 1] Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.
Since I believe that many of Wikipedia's philosophy related articles need improvement, I don't take reversing other editors' contributions lightly. There have to be multiple reasons, but mainly whether the contribution vandalizes the article, makes the article philosophically at odds with accepted professionally published sources, or less readable for casual visitors.
While I am delighted to encounter another person who takes as much pleasure from Plato's works as I do, I'm forced to oppose your edits on all of the above grounds. Of course, if you can find a peer reviewed professional article to support your addition, just as you have stated, then I will back off without further conditions. That cannot be your previous reference to Cooper's Introduction to the Phaedrus which is open in front of me. He says nothing about madness, (Phaedrus 244a ff).
Naturally, these are all based on my personal judgment. However, according to Wikipedia rules for resolving editing conflicts between editors {WP:DR}, you may not insist on changing the article over the other editor's objections, as you are doing. You need to have a consensus of other interested editors first. You don't have that.
Also, please have a look at {WP:NOR} "No original research" for guidelines.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. |
BlueMist ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, BlueMist, I have a question about the article on Plato's Theory of Forms. I have been poking around the Wikiproject Philosophy pages and have seen several times how you have raised standards and fended off idiosyncratic edits. Though I will soon have been adding occasional Wikipedia articles for two years, I still feel a relative newbie. I've tended to work on obscure, neglected topics that I occasionally notice in my specialty. May I ask your advice about my proposals for revamping a more central article? The ToF article has been rated start-class apparently for some time and I'm tempted to adopt and improve it. I feel 1) that the topic is important, influential, and exciting, but the article does not convey that, 2) that the introductory paragraphs could offer a simpler, gentler entry to the subject, 3) that the main arguments for the Forms are not adequately surveyed, 4) that the shape of recent, academic debates is hardly touched upon, 5) that the theory's role in later history, art, and literature is under-served, etc. I have not published anything directly on the ToF and have no particular agenda but have taught it in many courses and think I could make a stab at improving these issues (while still retaining much of the material already on the page). But how should I start? Should I put these thoughts on the article's talk page or somewhere on Wikiproject philosophy? Is there some community I should discuss this with? Do you have suggestions or views about improving the article? I suppose I am asking you to mentor me through this ... If you encourage me, I'll think about it during the holidays and then make piecemeal additions early next year. What do you think? Thanks for any help, JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 09:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all that! Will do. If you get a chance, plz take a look at ToF talk page for proposals. Any suggestions are welcome, JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I confess I so wholeheartedly agree with what you say I was left a bit puzzled about why you said it. I was mulling it over during lunch yesterday and think I see what your concern is. Wikipedia has several programs encouraging academics to get more involved and perhaps discussing this issue will help clarify how they can contribute to Wikipedia.
We both agree that Wikipedia like other encyclopedias should reflect consensus, established views that are readily verifiable by reference to reliable published sources and should not include any original research on the part of the article writer. For me, ‘original research’ is what the NOR policy says: no original analysis or synthesis or conclusions that are not already in the reliable, published sources. This means that merely reporting (quoting or summarizing) is not original research (I wish it were! My day job would be much easier!).
However, I guess that for you and me there is a ‘scope’ difference. Since I’m familiar with a much larger range of literature than show up in online encyclopedia articles and therefore may quote from sources that seem ‘obscure,’ it may seem that I am doing ‘research’ merely by quoting these sources. But they are not obscure to academics! We hold whole conferences on these subjects. I suppose I’ve enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia precisely on what I think of as ‘obscure, neglected’ subjects because there are gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage of the published literature that would be apparent to any scholar.
I’d be interested in your reaction to a concrete example. As part of my ‘original research’ I am working hard on developing a new or deeper interpretation of how Jean de Serres (1540 – 1594) and other Protestant reformers transformed our view of Plato. de Serres was an internationally famous and important French historian and an advisor to Henry IV, but English Wikipedia had nothing on him. So alongside my original research, I translated the French Wikipedia stub on him. Now as I read through his major publications (most of which are online), it’s easy for me to expand the article by adding a descriptive paragraph on each. Those will not include any new analysis or synthesis or opinions or interpretation. They will be lists of facts of the form ‘His book is about x. For example, he says y.’ (How else to write an encyclopedia article on the biography of a scholar?) I will also in parallel aim at developing an ‘original’ interpretation but that goes on the other side of the firewall in the paper/book I will publish with my name on it. Now my question is whether you think this is ok? I see the encyclopedia article as something that’s easy for me to do ‘en passant’ but a model of how academics can contribute to Wikipedia. I am adding material beyond what is available in online encyclopedias and am quoting from primary sources, but I believe my Wikipedia article contains no ‘original research’ in the sense of the NOR. If I’ve misunderstood something, let’s straighten this out. I do apologize for going on but I’m a newbie and value your views … JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Since de Serres' History, and Latin translation and commentaries in the Stephanus edition of Plato are notable, I don't see a problem there. There is a scarcity of English language references which needs to be addressed, in whatever manner available. You inspired me to take a spy satellite's view tour of papers on Galileo's anti-dogmatist and Bellarmine's Platonism. BlueMist ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added a link to Jean de Serres in Plato#Textual_sources_and_history. BlueMist ( talk) 03:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Blue Mist,
I'm not responding here to your edit, which in itself is OK; the citation does need to be improved (I said as much) and it's reasonable to ask who, although that would probably go further down in the body rather than in the lead.
But the edit summary has me scratching my head. You wrote This is just wrong; dogmatism is not the only opinion in mathematics. What do you mean by that?? Even if you identify realism with dogmatism (that would need explanation, but that's for another day), the text that you challenged does not say that anything is the "only" opinion. It says just about the opposite, that there are a multitude of opinions. I don't follow you here. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Trovatore,
70.53.24.43 said:
I believe that point (1) is entirely correct. Mathematics is neutral on the ontological or veridical status of axioms. Truth of axioms, from the point of view of mathematics, is totally irrelevant.
Point (2) urges the rejection of the absolute truth of dogmatism in mathematics. While absolute dogmatism in religion and morality is highly desirable for pragmatic reasons, it is untenable either logically or empirically in mathematics or the sciences. Both our conceptions and the empirical world are contingent upon their 1) physical environment, 2) observation or sense-perception, and 3) universal change over time. For an example, just look at the history of Euclid's Parallel Axiom.
As far as your citation,
Eric D. Hetherington, (Review of Metaphysics) "Maddy, Penelope, Naturalism in Mathematics (1997) examines what justifies the axioms of set theory? ... Part 2, "Realism," reviews three versions of mathematical realism [including Maddy's previous position, set-theoretic realism] and gives reasons for abandoning these views. Part 3, "Naturalism," furnishes a look at Maddy's new philosophy of mathematics, Mathematical Naturalism."
Jeffrey Roland, Maddy and Mathematics (2007) "Naturalism ... explains the reliability of scientific practice. Maddy's account, on the other hand, appears to be unable to similarly explain the reliability of mathematical practice without violating one of its central tenets."
Need I say more?
BlueMist ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly my point !
It is OK to present all points of view, with or even without citations, according to Wikipedia's unbreakable Wikipedia:NPOV policy:
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. |
But it is not OK for you to push your biases on Wikipedia at the expense of other people's biases, especially not if you cannot even support your own views. BlueMist ( talk) 09:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Your enlightened argument about the "nonexistence of nonexistence" is perfectly valid in about the same way that "nonsense does not make sense, therefore it must be an invalid concept". Well done. The encyclopedic world can be proud of such open-minded contributions. Think again, if chance allows you to. Btw: this article might help. -- Kku 10:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the self-disorder article, which is very necessary. I have a rudimentary understanding of the subject, but not enough to make a complete article. Every little bit helps. Thank you! -- Beneficii ( talk) 10:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Galilean 'invariance' is fundamentally incoherent without an understanding of Galilean 'relativity'.
Galilean relativity is exemplified by a sleeping man who is both not moving in his bed and is, at the same time, moving around the Earth and moving around the Sun at different velocities. If this single example is true, then Galilean relativity which says that all things are both moving AND not moving at the same time is necessarily implied. This is a fundamental philosophical insight that underlies all modern science.
Galilean invariance is a related inner Galilean/Newtonian principle of physics. It says that the laws of physics are invariant in each of the above three and all other Galilean/Newtonian inertial frames. However, without an infinite number of potential points of view, or origins for potential frames of reference, this scientific invariance would be meaningless.
~~ BlueMist ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit off topic for the Philosopher article so I'm just going to post it here. Russell's critique of Aristotelian logic is the least controversial aspect of History. I don't know where you got the idea that it is controversial that not all logic is reducible to Aristotelian predicate logic, that's been true since Frege and uncontroversial for the last 50 years at least. The controversy is mostly over its triumphalism of analytic philosophy at the end and its seeming dismissiveness of Kant and most of the people that followed him. That is uncontroversially unreasonable.-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Ollyoxenfree:
How can you say "That is uncontroversially unreasonable" ?
Russell's 19th century background was deep in the Kantian tradition. Whatever he said, whether you and I, and the majority of professionals agree, was well reasoned. The difference is in the biases that each of us brings to that judgment. As you know, 'everyone agrees that x' is just a fallacy. What counts are the differences in presumptions that lead to differences in conclusions.
As Russell said,
Looking at A History of Western Philosophy, concluding paragraph of Chapter XXII "Aristotle's Logic" (1945, page 202 / 1961, page 225) :
Do you think that Russell wrote this strong condemnation of authoritarian practices without a thorough rationale? There are many problems with philosophy today. Aristotelian philosophy as such, as Aristotle conceived it, is not really one of those problems. The primary problem is dogged academic dogmatism.
If you survey (as I have) the literature, online philosophy course syllabi and notes, and professors who teach a standardized curriculum, you will see that only Aristotelian philosophy and its modern Analytic incarnation get a fair treatment. What's even worse is that we are taught metaphysics and logic in one standard shade.
Analytic philosophy has reached a dead end. It has nowhere to go. Who are the historically great philosophers of the past 50 years? Where have even the Carnaps, Quines, and Kripkes gone?
Disclaimer: I am not, and have never been personally affected by any of the above. All I ask for is academic freedom for academics, academic integrity, and professional acknowledgment that there is a dogmatism problem that needs to be addressed and resolved, especially with regard to modern science. I would like to see some progress in our lifetimes.
~~
BlueMist (
talk) 23:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).
Hi, concerning this edit and the edit summary, apparently adding this link is this user's sole activity here. See 80.44.118.193 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Do you think this needs attention? - DVdm ( talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maunus, I removed the encyclopedia references from Indigenous Peoples because
Since you were not aware of the history of the contributors, I can understand your objections. It would be helpful if you undid your own edit. Thanks, BlueMist ( talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
(mirror)
articles written by topic experts?
articles written by topic experts?
articles written by topic experts?
Hi Mercer.philosophy,
Most, but not all of your changes to the Analogy of the Divided Line considerably degrade the contents. In particular, 1) English Wikipedia uses English titles, i.e. Timaeus, not the Greek title. 2) Your changing of 'Plato' to 'Socrates' is very wrong in the context of the article. The name of the puppet character is quite irrelevant when it comes to Plato's epistemology of the Republic.
Will you please reverse all your latest changes, with the exception of the Upper-lower case for the titles, which is great. BlueMist ( talk) 23:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you for your compliments on our efforts. Yes, this is English Wikipedia and the title 'Timaeus' should, I agree, be in English. Revision has been made.
We feel the assertion that Socrates is a 'puppet character' to be too strong. Socrates was the master of Plato and Plato has written his dialogues as if it were Socrates who was the philosopher. We thought that since there is no solid evidence to the contrary, we should be charitable to Plato and assume that he strove to be as true to Socrates' teachings as was possible. Thus, while we of course must affirm that Plato is the author of the dialogues themselves, we think Socrates should be cited as the father of the philosophies at hand.
Reply You speak about the 'greatest philosopher.' From your writings we can assume that by this you mean 'Plato'. We ask by what justification Plato is given this title? If he was so great then shouldn't we think his master all the greater?
And yes, it is regretted that we are not as learned on such subjects as we should be but you seem to imply that all scholars of note are agreed that the Analogy of the Divided Line is the work exclusively of Plato with no mentionable influence from Socrates. Again, how can this be as Socrates was Plato's master and Plato writes as if recounting what Socrates said?
Yet we agree with you that no one should speak as if one side or the other is known absolutely, and to do so was not our intention.
This being the case it is still true that Socrates is the main 'character' and that he is presented as the one speaking the Analogy. Furthermore, Plato's authorship has already been noted in the introduction to the article. Therefore, doesn't it seem more correct to speak of Socrates as employing the Analogy? For example, if we were working on an article about the life of Jesus in the gospel of Mark, we would not say that 'Mark told parables to the masses' or that 'Mark told his disciples that he would be crucified.' In the same way, Socrates is the character speaking the Analogy and so he is the subject, not Plato. Mercer.philosophy ( talk) 01:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
We wrote:
The Analogy of the Divided Line is presented by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic Book VI (509D–513E). It is written as a dialogue between Glaucon (Plato's elder brother) and Socrates, narrated by the latter. Plato has Socrates explain through the literary device of a divided line his fundamental metaphysical ideas as four separate but logically connected models of the world. The four models are arranged into a first pair for the visible world, and a second pair for the purely intelligible world. The models are described in succession as corresponding to increasing levels of reality from common illusion, to belief, to reasoning, and then to philosophical understanding.
You also seem to have reversed the table. There may have been improvements to be made but a complete removal seems a little harsh. The stated reason for these reversals was that the above quotation contains unsupported personal expression. Could you specify where the fault is to be found?
-- Mercer.philosophy ( talk) 02:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I contest the removal of the informative and innocuous link to the Uebersax article:
1. On what basis do you call it "unphilosophical?" It cites all the major papers, and pursues a well-known and extremely important theme (the distinction between dianoia and noesis). It follows in large part Annas and Murdoch. Evidently what you mean is that it doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Divided Line.
2. The interpretation of the Divided Line is controversial. It is not your place to limit points of view, as long as they are reasonable, plausible, logically presented, and adequately referenced.
3. What are your qualifications to call it unphilosophical? Are you a professional philosopher?
4. Most importantly: Where is rule that says that philosophers alone own Plato, and that the only valid way to read Plato is philosophically? Wouldn't Plato have considered himself a psychologist (scientist of the mind or soul) as well as a philosopher? Would you please tell me the name of a single professional philosopher who would say that psychology is not a proper perspective to take on Plato? (I know dozens of professional philosophers who would assert the contrary.)
5. In any case, the citation does nothing but give users more information. It supplies the entire text (including 7.533d-534b, which the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention), and a solid, professional-caliber bibliography. Any academic researcher interested in this topic would find this bibliography most helpful indeed -- especially given the hyperlinks.
I am putting the link back in, and charge you with the burden of proof to demonstrate to the community of users that it shouldn't be in there!
If you wish for this to go to the next level, by all means let us both waste our time taking it there! However if we do this, you should be prepared to find that nobody agrees with you, and that you make yourself look very small by such actions.
Practical321 ( talk) 23:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called BlueMist. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name BlueMist~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable."
This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:
In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", [Note 1] Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.
Since I believe that many of Wikipedia's philosophy related articles need improvement, I don't take reversing other editors' contributions lightly. There have to be multiple reasons, but mainly whether the contribution vandalizes the article, makes the article philosophically at odds with accepted professionally published sources, or less readable for casual visitors.
While I am delighted to encounter another person who takes as much pleasure from Plato's works as I do, I'm forced to oppose your edits on all of the above grounds. Of course, if you can find a peer reviewed professional article to support your addition, just as you have stated, then I will back off without further conditions. That cannot be your previous reference to Cooper's Introduction to the Phaedrus which is open in front of me. He says nothing about madness, (Phaedrus 244a ff).
Naturally, these are all based on my personal judgment. However, according to Wikipedia rules for resolving editing conflicts between editors {WP:DR}, you may not insist on changing the article over the other editor's objections, as you are doing. You need to have a consensus of other interested editors first. You don't have that.
Also, please have a look at {WP:NOR} "No original research" for guidelines.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. |
BlueMist ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, BlueMist, I have a question about the article on Plato's Theory of Forms. I have been poking around the Wikiproject Philosophy pages and have seen several times how you have raised standards and fended off idiosyncratic edits. Though I will soon have been adding occasional Wikipedia articles for two years, I still feel a relative newbie. I've tended to work on obscure, neglected topics that I occasionally notice in my specialty. May I ask your advice about my proposals for revamping a more central article? The ToF article has been rated start-class apparently for some time and I'm tempted to adopt and improve it. I feel 1) that the topic is important, influential, and exciting, but the article does not convey that, 2) that the introductory paragraphs could offer a simpler, gentler entry to the subject, 3) that the main arguments for the Forms are not adequately surveyed, 4) that the shape of recent, academic debates is hardly touched upon, 5) that the theory's role in later history, art, and literature is under-served, etc. I have not published anything directly on the ToF and have no particular agenda but have taught it in many courses and think I could make a stab at improving these issues (while still retaining much of the material already on the page). But how should I start? Should I put these thoughts on the article's talk page or somewhere on Wikiproject philosophy? Is there some community I should discuss this with? Do you have suggestions or views about improving the article? I suppose I am asking you to mentor me through this ... If you encourage me, I'll think about it during the holidays and then make piecemeal additions early next year. What do you think? Thanks for any help, JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 09:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all that! Will do. If you get a chance, plz take a look at ToF talk page for proposals. Any suggestions are welcome, JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I confess I so wholeheartedly agree with what you say I was left a bit puzzled about why you said it. I was mulling it over during lunch yesterday and think I see what your concern is. Wikipedia has several programs encouraging academics to get more involved and perhaps discussing this issue will help clarify how they can contribute to Wikipedia.
We both agree that Wikipedia like other encyclopedias should reflect consensus, established views that are readily verifiable by reference to reliable published sources and should not include any original research on the part of the article writer. For me, ‘original research’ is what the NOR policy says: no original analysis or synthesis or conclusions that are not already in the reliable, published sources. This means that merely reporting (quoting or summarizing) is not original research (I wish it were! My day job would be much easier!).
However, I guess that for you and me there is a ‘scope’ difference. Since I’m familiar with a much larger range of literature than show up in online encyclopedia articles and therefore may quote from sources that seem ‘obscure,’ it may seem that I am doing ‘research’ merely by quoting these sources. But they are not obscure to academics! We hold whole conferences on these subjects. I suppose I’ve enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia precisely on what I think of as ‘obscure, neglected’ subjects because there are gaps in Wikipedia’s coverage of the published literature that would be apparent to any scholar.
I’d be interested in your reaction to a concrete example. As part of my ‘original research’ I am working hard on developing a new or deeper interpretation of how Jean de Serres (1540 – 1594) and other Protestant reformers transformed our view of Plato. de Serres was an internationally famous and important French historian and an advisor to Henry IV, but English Wikipedia had nothing on him. So alongside my original research, I translated the French Wikipedia stub on him. Now as I read through his major publications (most of which are online), it’s easy for me to expand the article by adding a descriptive paragraph on each. Those will not include any new analysis or synthesis or opinions or interpretation. They will be lists of facts of the form ‘His book is about x. For example, he says y.’ (How else to write an encyclopedia article on the biography of a scholar?) I will also in parallel aim at developing an ‘original’ interpretation but that goes on the other side of the firewall in the paper/book I will publish with my name on it. Now my question is whether you think this is ok? I see the encyclopedia article as something that’s easy for me to do ‘en passant’ but a model of how academics can contribute to Wikipedia. I am adding material beyond what is available in online encyclopedias and am quoting from primary sources, but I believe my Wikipedia article contains no ‘original research’ in the sense of the NOR. If I’ve misunderstood something, let’s straighten this out. I do apologize for going on but I’m a newbie and value your views … JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Since de Serres' History, and Latin translation and commentaries in the Stephanus edition of Plato are notable, I don't see a problem there. There is a scarcity of English language references which needs to be addressed, in whatever manner available. You inspired me to take a spy satellite's view tour of papers on Galileo's anti-dogmatist and Bellarmine's Platonism. BlueMist ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added a link to Jean de Serres in Plato#Textual_sources_and_history. BlueMist ( talk) 03:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Blue Mist,
I'm not responding here to your edit, which in itself is OK; the citation does need to be improved (I said as much) and it's reasonable to ask who, although that would probably go further down in the body rather than in the lead.
But the edit summary has me scratching my head. You wrote This is just wrong; dogmatism is not the only opinion in mathematics. What do you mean by that?? Even if you identify realism with dogmatism (that would need explanation, but that's for another day), the text that you challenged does not say that anything is the "only" opinion. It says just about the opposite, that there are a multitude of opinions. I don't follow you here. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Trovatore,
70.53.24.43 said:
I believe that point (1) is entirely correct. Mathematics is neutral on the ontological or veridical status of axioms. Truth of axioms, from the point of view of mathematics, is totally irrelevant.
Point (2) urges the rejection of the absolute truth of dogmatism in mathematics. While absolute dogmatism in religion and morality is highly desirable for pragmatic reasons, it is untenable either logically or empirically in mathematics or the sciences. Both our conceptions and the empirical world are contingent upon their 1) physical environment, 2) observation or sense-perception, and 3) universal change over time. For an example, just look at the history of Euclid's Parallel Axiom.
As far as your citation,
Eric D. Hetherington, (Review of Metaphysics) "Maddy, Penelope, Naturalism in Mathematics (1997) examines what justifies the axioms of set theory? ... Part 2, "Realism," reviews three versions of mathematical realism [including Maddy's previous position, set-theoretic realism] and gives reasons for abandoning these views. Part 3, "Naturalism," furnishes a look at Maddy's new philosophy of mathematics, Mathematical Naturalism."
Jeffrey Roland, Maddy and Mathematics (2007) "Naturalism ... explains the reliability of scientific practice. Maddy's account, on the other hand, appears to be unable to similarly explain the reliability of mathematical practice without violating one of its central tenets."
Need I say more?
BlueMist ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly my point !
It is OK to present all points of view, with or even without citations, according to Wikipedia's unbreakable Wikipedia:NPOV policy:
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. |
But it is not OK for you to push your biases on Wikipedia at the expense of other people's biases, especially not if you cannot even support your own views. BlueMist ( talk) 09:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Your enlightened argument about the "nonexistence of nonexistence" is perfectly valid in about the same way that "nonsense does not make sense, therefore it must be an invalid concept". Well done. The encyclopedic world can be proud of such open-minded contributions. Think again, if chance allows you to. Btw: this article might help. -- Kku 10:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the self-disorder article, which is very necessary. I have a rudimentary understanding of the subject, but not enough to make a complete article. Every little bit helps. Thank you! -- Beneficii ( talk) 10:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Galilean 'invariance' is fundamentally incoherent without an understanding of Galilean 'relativity'.
Galilean relativity is exemplified by a sleeping man who is both not moving in his bed and is, at the same time, moving around the Earth and moving around the Sun at different velocities. If this single example is true, then Galilean relativity which says that all things are both moving AND not moving at the same time is necessarily implied. This is a fundamental philosophical insight that underlies all modern science.
Galilean invariance is a related inner Galilean/Newtonian principle of physics. It says that the laws of physics are invariant in each of the above three and all other Galilean/Newtonian inertial frames. However, without an infinite number of potential points of view, or origins for potential frames of reference, this scientific invariance would be meaningless.
~~ BlueMist ( talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit off topic for the Philosopher article so I'm just going to post it here. Russell's critique of Aristotelian logic is the least controversial aspect of History. I don't know where you got the idea that it is controversial that not all logic is reducible to Aristotelian predicate logic, that's been true since Frege and uncontroversial for the last 50 years at least. The controversy is mostly over its triumphalism of analytic philosophy at the end and its seeming dismissiveness of Kant and most of the people that followed him. That is uncontroversially unreasonable.-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Ollyoxenfree:
How can you say "That is uncontroversially unreasonable" ?
Russell's 19th century background was deep in the Kantian tradition. Whatever he said, whether you and I, and the majority of professionals agree, was well reasoned. The difference is in the biases that each of us brings to that judgment. As you know, 'everyone agrees that x' is just a fallacy. What counts are the differences in presumptions that lead to differences in conclusions.
As Russell said,
Looking at A History of Western Philosophy, concluding paragraph of Chapter XXII "Aristotle's Logic" (1945, page 202 / 1961, page 225) :
Do you think that Russell wrote this strong condemnation of authoritarian practices without a thorough rationale? There are many problems with philosophy today. Aristotelian philosophy as such, as Aristotle conceived it, is not really one of those problems. The primary problem is dogged academic dogmatism.
If you survey (as I have) the literature, online philosophy course syllabi and notes, and professors who teach a standardized curriculum, you will see that only Aristotelian philosophy and its modern Analytic incarnation get a fair treatment. What's even worse is that we are taught metaphysics and logic in one standard shade.
Analytic philosophy has reached a dead end. It has nowhere to go. Who are the historically great philosophers of the past 50 years? Where have even the Carnaps, Quines, and Kripkes gone?
Disclaimer: I am not, and have never been personally affected by any of the above. All I ask for is academic freedom for academics, academic integrity, and professional acknowledgment that there is a dogmatism problem that needs to be addressed and resolved, especially with regard to modern science. I would like to see some progress in our lifetimes.
~~
BlueMist (
talk) 23:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}}
template (see the
help page).