→Heidegger Lead: suspicion > certainty |
|||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
Amongst Heidegger's other important arguments is his idea that the original, most "primordial" meaning of Truth is unconcealment, or the revealing or bringing of what is hidden into the open, and that the common understanding of truth as correctness, or the correspondence between language,or thought, and the world it describes is a late, derivative accretion. Heidegger's work on Technology is sometimes considered to represent an important critique of technology and precursor to Environmentalism, in its criticism of the "enframing effect it has had on Modern Civilization, which he takes to conceive of all of Nature as a "standing reserve" to be kept "on hand", purely, always, and in total for Human purposes.[18] In his later work, Heidegger sought to transform philosophy into a deliberate effort at thinking “the history of being.” Heidegger is a controversial figure, in part for what some regard as a willfully obscure writing style, his sweeping judgments of the history of philosophy, as well as his notorious his affiliation with Nazism prior to 1934, 20] which in private he called "the biggest stupidity of his life" (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[21] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Parrhesiast|Parrhesiast]] ([[User talk:Parrhesiast|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Parrhesiast|contribs]]) 03:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Amongst Heidegger's other important arguments is his idea that the original, most "primordial" meaning of Truth is unconcealment, or the revealing or bringing of what is hidden into the open, and that the common understanding of truth as correctness, or the correspondence between language,or thought, and the world it describes is a late, derivative accretion. Heidegger's work on Technology is sometimes considered to represent an important critique of technology and precursor to Environmentalism, in its criticism of the "enframing effect it has had on Modern Civilization, which he takes to conceive of all of Nature as a "standing reserve" to be kept "on hand", purely, always, and in total for Human purposes.[18] In his later work, Heidegger sought to transform philosophy into a deliberate effort at thinking “the history of being.” Heidegger is a controversial figure, in part for what some regard as a willfully obscure writing style, his sweeping judgments of the history of philosophy, as well as his notorious his affiliation with Nazism prior to 1934, 20] which in private he called "the biggest stupidity of his life" (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[21] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Parrhesiast|Parrhesiast]] ([[User talk:Parrhesiast|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Parrhesiast|contribs]]) 03:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:That's just the latest version of [[User:SuperFriendlyEditor]]'s overlong and complex suggestion, |
:That's just the latest version of [[User:SuperFriendlyEditor]]'s overlong and complex suggestion, just as "Parrhesiast" is his latest pseudonym. [[User:Rothorpe|Rothorpe]] ([[User talk:Rothorpe#top|talk]]) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:27, 7 September 2015
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Indian National Congress
Rothorpe and Rwood128, I've spent several days reading and copyediting Indian National Congress in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Two days ago I finished going through the article once. It was a lot of work. Yesterday I started going through it a second time, and I've caught a few things that needed further work. However, I just can't read it any more. I've gotten as far as Indian National Congress#1966–84. I wonder if you would mind setting some fresh eyes on the article. You can either start from the beginning or start where I left off on my second reading, around the Rajiv Ghandi section. You may catch things I missed or see where further improvements can be made. When you're finished, let me know and I'll mark "Done" on the Guild Requests page. (There were one or two places where I thought I might have to leave a note on the requester's talk page asking for further clarification, but you may be able to figure it out yourself.) Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Had an interesting time working on the article this morning. Did up to 'Modern era'. May go back and add some citation tags, sometime in the future, but weary now. Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rwood128 Thank you so much! You did a lot of work there. I think there is some mental effort required to modify Indian English so that it's a little closer to worldwide standard English. You probably know a lot more about Indian history than I do, so that helped, too. I know you probably need a break, but I've been told that I can't accept more than one article at a time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so in order to accept another article, I either have to mark the request as "Partly done" (in which case someone else might take over, or "Done". You could mark it as in progress yourself with the {{Working}} template. No one will bother you until you finish it and mark it with the {{Done}} template unless, perhaps, you let weeks go by before finishing it. I need a project, and I'd like to take on another article, but I can't until I mark this article "Partly done" or "Done", and I can't mark it "Done" if it's not really done. If you'd like to continue working on this article, at your own pace, would you mind adding the template "Working" after I put "Partly done"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. I noticed you changed "which" to "who" after "the Congress party". I'm surprised you would use "who" after a political party. In American English, we would not use "who" after a party. I think in England, since you can use the plural verb after "party", you must see the noun "[political] party" more as a collection of people rather than as an abstract thing. CorinneSD (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC) -----Yes, 'who' must have sounded better to my ear, as people are involved.
Corinne, now feeling guilty about being so negative, but I'm a little overwhelmed with various projects at the moment -- though I did enjoy working on INC. Rwood128 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rwood128 Well, thank you for all you did do in the article. Maybe Rothorpe can take over. Have a great holiday! Corinne (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rothorpe I wonder if you have had time to go through this article. I'd like to be able to add the "Done" template at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Right now it has the "Partly done" template. I stopped in the middle of my second reading of the article because I had had enough of it. If you don't want to do anything more with it, I'll just leave the "Partly done" template there. Corinne (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
(←) This has now reached the top of the Requests list; thanks Corinne, Rothorpe and Rwood128 for working on this article. I'm going to accept the request and will credit all three copy-editors in the GOCE archives. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Siberia
What do you think of this edit to Siberia? [1] I'm not sure "archetype" is the right word. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is no article to which "locus classicus" leads, only a suggestion to read the entry at Wiktionary [2]. After reading that entry, I think that neither "locus classicus" nor "archetype" is correct there. Can you or Florian Blaschke figure out a better word or phrase? It's got to mean something like "Siberia is the one place in the world that is [best-] known for shamanism." Corinne (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like it should mean "classic location", and if it does, that would be the right phrase, but Wiktionary has two meanings, neither of which seem right to me. Do you think the second definition is the right one, or does Wiktionary have it wrong? Corinne (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Then I would say "Shamanism in Siberia is a locus classicus...", not "Siberia is a locus classicus...", wouldn't you? Corinne (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Rothorpe Where are you? Corinne (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Botteville Botteville, or Dave, I'd be interested in your opinion on this. (1) Is it the right phrase, and (2) if it is the right phrase, should it follow "Siberia" or "Shamanism in Siberia"? Corinne (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I happened to look at this message and since I did I might as well answer it. If I inadevertently insult anyone I apologize in advance. As an educated English speaker (in American English) I note that the author of the two proposed phrases seems very likely not a native English speaker or else one who needs some English preparation. I'm sorry, I presume you wanted my opinion for its truth value, otherwise why bother. "Siberia" is customarily a geographic word. If there are other connotations they have to be defined by the speaker. You cannot comprehensibly pluck it out of a geographic content like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and set it down in any Oz you please without cluing the audience as to what exactly you mean. "Siberia is the paradigm of shamanism" mixes geography with religion, which is not a combustible aviation fuel. It does not fly. You can make all the speculations you please about what it might mean but why should you have to do that? Let the author address the meaning without resorting to "simplifications" no one understands. Fie on it. Out, out, oversimple phrase. In order to try to make sense of it we have to resort to all kinds of unsupported inferences about Siberia and religion. You can't sneak your Siberian prejudices past the Wikipedian gateway. The proposed substitute is even worse. Either rephrase for clarity or don't go there. Adios amigos, you asked for my opinion. I got pictures to work on.Botteville (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Botteville Thanks for your attempt at an answer, but now I'm sorry I asked you for your opinion. I asked you because I thought you knew Latin and could offer an opinion as to whether the phrase was the right phrase to use there. It is not clear to whom you were referring when you said, above, "the author of the two proposed phrases seems very likely not a native English speaker or else one who needs some English preparation". You apparently neglected to read my and User:Rothorpe's user pages. Also, you claim that you are an "educated English speaker". You may be a good speaker, but you are definitely not a good writer. I barely understood anything you were saying. I am sorry to have bothered you. You can be sure I will not bother you again. Corinne (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I knew I was going to push someone's button so I did apologize in advance. The apology still stands. As I am not actively working on this article I butt out. I should have resisted the temptation to butt in. Generally passing comments are of lesser value. But, now that it has been done, I should say that WP is not for this sort of of repartee, as it goes nowhere. If you are going to write for public consumption I think you have to realize that criticism and yes, even unjust criticism, is going to be rampant. You have to learn to ignore what is unfair or irrelevant and take to heart what seems possibly propitious, and to do so without thinking you have to lose your temper. I think you know in your heart I am right. I would like to wish you luck and joy and without any hard feelings at all take my leave of you. Write anything you please, you will not hear from me again unless by chance we work continuously on the same article. I suspect I may not be rid of you quite so easily so I will not be replying to messages until some time has gone bye. Don't bother to leave one. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I still prefer "locus classicus" to "archetype". Any further opinions? Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Auden review.
Good article reassessment for W. H. Auden
W. H. Auden has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Christopher Columbus
I was looking at the latest edits to Christopher Columbus [3]. The editor removed what s/he felt were unnecessary commas. I'm all for removing unnecessary commas, and in fact I'd go along with nearly all the removals. However, I'm wondering whether the commas are useful in the very first sentence from which a pair of commas was removed. It seems almost a parenthetical phrase. I'm not sure. What do you think? Corinne (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I had noticed that and thought, well, OK. But you're right, they are helpful and should be replaced. Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Rothorpe, are these necessary? [4] Corinne (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, but I don't want to get into an argument. Would you mind reverting? Does it make sense to point to WP:OVERLINK? Corinne (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Heart of Darkness
What do you think of this edit to Heart of Darkness? [5] Presume? Or assume? Maybe "assume" is the right verb, but I like the construction of the previous version:
- presume (wrongly)
or
- assume (wrongly)
or
- presume, wrongly,...
or
- assume, wrongly,...
I think "incorrectly assume", while perhaps correct, is so common it's boring. Corinne (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Great Patriotic War
So yeah i'm a bit new to editing, should I have put my response to your message here or where you left it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.56.185 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. As you wish. It's usually best to keep conversations in one place, but you can always alert people on their user page to a discussion elsewhere. Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
List of transcontinental countries
I'd like your opinion regarding wording of a sentence at User talk:Vsmith#List of transcontinental countries. Corinne (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Plain dress
Hello, Rothorpe - I've just started to read the article on Plain dress. It was pointed out to me on my talk page as this week's article for improvement. I'm still in the lead of the article. I see "some few Quakers", which caused me to pause. I think that combination "some few" is colloquial in some parts of the U.S., but not all, or, alternatively, is informal rather than formal English. Would you agree? I'd like to avoid "some" appearing twice in close proximity. Which do you recommend there:
- a few Quakers
- some Quakers
or something else? "A few Quakers" suggests just a few individuals (which may be the case, but then why mention it?), and "some Quakers" has at least the possibility of some groups of Quakers, but not all, which is probably the case, but then you've got "some" twice. Do you think this is a case where the source should be checked, or can we just select something? Corinne (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- By all means check the source, but I must say that the expression to me means quite a few or, though not a vast number, quite a lot. Would you agree? If so. I'd replace it with "many". If not, I'll have another think. Rothorpe (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Heidegger Lead
I agree with your comments that the Heidegger lead current is incomprehensible. I have tried to salvage some of the lead that was attempted to replace it, while cutting it down in length. Here is my suggestion for a Heidegger lead which makes some degree of sense and will help explain him to those without familiarity, which I would imagine is the point of the lead in the first place:
Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, -dɪɡər/;[6] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ]; 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher and a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition. His influence in Analytic philosophy circles increased in the latter half of the 20th century, due to efforts rehabilitate his reputation as a Continental obscurantist.[7]Heidegger is closely associated with the fields of existential phenomenology and philosophical hermeneutics, though as the SEP states "his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification."[8]
Heidegger's best known book, Being and Time, is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century, though the work was never fully completed.[9][10] In it, Heidegger sought to recover philosophical questions of "fundamental ontology," and the "primordial" question of the meaning of Being, which he regarded modernity as having forgotten, and to effect a shift from ontologies based on ontic, or scientific, determinants to the fundamental ontological elucidation of being in general. Heidegger argued that the activity of questioning defines human nature, or the human mode of being as the "being which asks the question about being”, ”the being for whom being is an issue," holding that the question of being would have to be addressed through analysis of the being who poses the question. Heidegger argued that Being consists of three basic modes: 1) the mode of being he calls Dasein, the mode "which each one of us has ourselves", namely, Human Being, whose essence Heidegger argues is Being-in-the-world; 2) the mode which things or objects take or "show up as" "proximally and for the most part", insofar as they are objects of concern to us, things we are engaged in using, and which he calls the ready-to-hand; and 3) the secondary, derivative mode in which objects appear in their mere physical presence, in which they may become "thematized" in the natural sciences, when they appear as merely present, where former objects of concern protrude in their physical presence as unready, or broken, and which Heidegger calls the present-at-hand. Given this emphasis on the mode of being objects have insofar as we have care for them and take care of them, Heidegger argues that Dasein *is* its care, and Dasein's mode of being is its concernful-being-in-the-world.[13] Heidegger placed strong emphasis on the temporal aspects of human existence in his elucidation of Dasein, stressing human thrownness into “always already” ontologically significant human practices and matters of concern not of one’s choosing; as well as human being-towards-death, the way human existence is structured by awareness of its finitude, and efforts to conceal this from ourselves. In the condition of "fallen everydayness" Dasein loses touch with the grasp of being that defines its nature as the being which operates with an understanding of what it means to be.[16]17]
Amongst Heidegger's other important arguments is his idea that the original, most "primordial" meaning of Truth is unconcealment, or the revealing or bringing of what is hidden into the open, and that the common understanding of truth as correctness, or the correspondence between language,or thought, and the world it describes is a late, derivative accretion. Heidegger's work on Technology is sometimes considered to represent an important critique of technology and precursor to Environmentalism, in its criticism of the "enframing effect it has had on Modern Civilization, which he takes to conceive of all of Nature as a "standing reserve" to be kept "on hand", purely, always, and in total for Human purposes.[18] In his later work, Heidegger sought to transform philosophy into a deliberate effort at thinking “the history of being.” Heidegger is a controversial figure, in part for what some regard as a willfully obscure writing style, his sweeping judgments of the history of philosophy, as well as his notorious his affiliation with Nazism prior to 1934, 20] which in private he called "the biggest stupidity of his life" (die größte Dummheit seines Lebens).[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrhesiast (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's just the latest version of User:SuperFriendlyEditor's overlong and complex suggestion, just as "Parrhesiast" is his latest pseudonym. Rothorpe (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)