Talk:Francis Hutcheson (philosopher)

Untitled

Although this article states at the bottom that "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain," it seems to me to be too close of a copy of the article at Online Encyclopedia, which states "Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part." This article be rewritten to incorporate other sources. Until then it is plagiarism.

This article *IS* almost entirely based on the 1911 Britannica. Just check out this 1911 original. I can only assume this Online Encyclopaedia of yours draws on the same source. -- Palthrow

Not sure what the point of the query is - 1911 is out of copyright, no matter what notices someone might put on such. And the "1911 notice" says where much of the content came from. SeoR (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ethics text wall

ethics section is quite text wall don't you think? someone could split it into smaller sub-sections. easier to eye-scan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.95.55 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

this article needs drastic revision

I just added a section on Hutcheson's influence in colonial America. I notice earlier editors' comments that this article appears to be copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I propose to drastically revise it, making it more like other biographical articles of famous writers. I am new here at wikipedia, and I invite others to share their thoughts on how this would best be done. As it stands, the text seems opaque and not interesting or useful to the general reader. My inclination is to drastically reduce the text and start rebuilding, giving concise summaries of the basic elements of his thought. Other Choices (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Utter intellectual nonsense

"... the real nature of the process of moral judgment. For, as established by Hume, this act consists of two parts: an act of deliberation leading to an intellectual judgment; and a reflex feeling of satisfaction at actions we consider good, and of dissatisfaction at those we consider bad."

Unless you are a Humean, this isn't established at all. There's no point in claiming as fact, against which Hutcheson's ideas are positioned as being confused or wrong, positions taken by Hume which are neither considered well-established nor are widely accepted today. Wouldn't this article be better if this nonsense were simply deleted until someone with a deeper appreciation for Hutcheson (who has been enjoying revived respect in the last decade especially) finds time to contribute here? WhitBlauvelt (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

- More nonsense - The whole section on "Ethics" should in my opinion be rewritten. It is in a manner very strange for wikipediaarticles, negatively evaluative in its presentation, and on reasons which are often misinformed. To mention just one example, it is simply not correct, as the author states, that there should be any problem in taking oneself as an object of ones own benevolence.(the author says:"...that a man may justly regard himself as a part of the rational system, and may thus be, in part, an object of his own benevolence (Ibid),--a curious abuse of terms, which really concedes the question at issue.")On the contrary it is this criticism itself which is expressive of confusion, as it seemingly confounds "benevolence" (which is simply to will what is good, and which must therefore be directed at oneself as well as at any other), with "altruism" (which is to sacrifize oneself for the sake of another.) 87.60.161.198 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Irish Philosopher?

I am reinstating the Irish philosopher category on Francis Hutcheson for the following reasons:

1. Francis Hutcheson was born in Ireland (Co. Down) and died in Ireland (Dublin)
2. Of his 29 years after graduation, he spent 12 in Ireland
3. He published his best known works in Dublin and was strongly influenced by the Molesworth circle there
4. He is listed as an Irish philosopher in eg. Thomas Duddy's A History of Irish Thought (2002) and also in older works eg A Compendium of Irish Biography 1878.

I'm not seeing any compelling reason not to include him. Canterbury359 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)