Talk:How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Untitled

I'm unhappy about this article. So? How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?

I think that for a question that is so old, there should be an answer already.--Midasminus 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone every figure out? Can a list of opinions be listed and it left upto the reader to decide? I realise this is bullshit, but if it was a serious question, a serious answer should be put down.24.90.121.49 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Answer is 42 -- 15 August 2007

Dorothy Sayers provides a serious answer (infinity) which is now included in the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The "how many angels?" question is a strange title for this article. Shouldn't the title be How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?? AJD 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pin? Needle? Anyway, the title shouldn't imply that the article is trying to give the answer. Charles Matthews 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pin. There are 70 times as many Google hits for "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as for "How many angels can dance on the point of a needle". And having the full question as the title doesn't imply that the article would be trying to give the answer, any more than the article Where's the beef? is trying to give the answer to that question. It's just that the name of the article should be the clear name by which the topic is best known, and that's "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", not "The 'how many angels?' question". AJD 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you move it and fix the double redirects. Charles Matthews 20:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. AJD 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, I always understood that the question had a deeper meaning: were angels material, in which case a finite number could dance on the pin, or were they strictly spiritual in nature, in which case the answer was infinite. If you buy into the general theology, it was a valid and important theological point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.16 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

not ontological, and that's not what ontological means

"an example of an ontological argument - one which cannot be proven, as it has no basis in scientific fact." 'ontological' means 'having to do with being', not 'one which cannot be proven'. The argument about angels and pins is not ontological in the proper meaning of the word, nor is it 'one which cannot be proven as it has no basis in scientific fact' as it can be reasonably discussed if you have definitions of angels and pins that are relevant. Incidentally, that is quite a tendentious statement - 'cannot be proven as it has no basis in scientific fact'. Is math scientific? if so, even imaginary numbers? Is all of philosophy other than pure materialism 'unprovable'? I suggest this article be reviewed by whoever the philosophy experts are at Wikipedia. Richardson mcphillips1 04:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not surprising that Aquinas was involved here because as an Arab scholar here was familiar with Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's (failed) attempt to resolve it. Aquinas was also interested in the related idea of an "infinite" God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.254.167 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Answer

This is one of my favorite questions because the answer is so simple and so apparent. The answer is "None." The reason is that the "Pin" does not exist, as earthly things are temporary and "heavenly" things are eternal. The angels exist, the pin does not. "None." Master Redyva 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary doesn't mean non-existent though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is "none," because while pins indisputably exist, angels do not. If you were to argue that pins did not exist either, then all answers would be vacuously true. 129.22.209.113 (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel I must correct you: it is sufficient for only angels not to exist to make the statement vacuously true for any number of (non-existent) angels, including 0, -2.5, 3+4i, and all infinities. AlexFekken (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The alternative answer is: an infinity. Since Angels are like ether, gas in modern parlance, they surround the pin. RigasLijie (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC). Sorry Just saw it was included in the article. In fact there is a joke on this question I like very much: three different opinions existed at that time. One, two or an infinty of angels could stand on a needle, was the debate at the Sorbonne about this question. An academic tribunal was set-up to settle the controversy. The first person came and said that no angel can stand on a needle. So the judges decide to put a needle in the middle f the tribunal and wait. After having waited some time the first professor was pleased to say he was right. Then, an Angel appeared and sat on the needle. The second opinion was that only two angels could stand on a needle. So the judges waited and a second angel came. Then the professor who suported this opinion was very proud of him, and then a third angel came. He flew and flew and finally stood on the needle. And then the judges waited a long additionnal time to see any more angels. But none came. So all were wrong. RigasLijie (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual answer is "all of them". Dancing on the head of a pin is a prerequisite for being considered an angel. The unknown factor is "at the same time" because time is irrelevant in the context of eternity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by "Steeley" 2601:600:8700:9C4:25FB:488D:796D:C43F (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Good Omens

The "correct answer" to the question, according to the novel is one. Should this be apart of the article? If so, should it be listed as or under "Uses in popular culture?" Master Redyva 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

<<The premise being that the question is really nothing to do with the scale of pins nor the spacio-dimensional qualities of angels, rather upon certain basic yet pivotal facts, the principal being that only one angel ever learned to dance.

Further noting:

a) That while angels are inclined to listen appreciatively to the Music of the Spheres, they rarely feel the need to get down and boogie to it.

b) that the one angel that learned to dance learned to Gavotte, which sadly went out of fashion in France about the same time that beheading went in.

Hence assuming the Angel of the East Gate could find a suitably diminutive partner to Gavotte with, the answer to the question "how many angels may dance upon the point (not the fat end) of a needle" is one.

(or words to that effect)>> Anonymous Guest 16:52, 23 Sept 2008 (GMT)

Confusing

"The question how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? has been used many times as a trite dismissal of medieval angelology in particular, of scholasticism in general, and of particular figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas." How is this done? Why do peopel use this argument? This article just confused me and provided little useful information, although the history of the question is probably worth discussing. 82.4.87.177 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is a strawman or parody argument of medieval theological argument, which often focused on inane and pointless questions. The idea is that these theologians argued about questions as stupid as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" In reality, that question was probably concocted later. The article makes this pretty clear and it gives several references for the actual origin being later than the attributed origin. 129.22.209.113 (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a question with a historical context

The article provides some hints that this question has a history but, as a reader, the history is what I came here to find and I didn't find it. I am not a "history of philosophy" expert but I know that the question reaches into Leibniz's Dynamism_(metaphysics) in its reaction against Mechanism_(philosophy). Bmarmie (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Relation to mathematics?

I was under the impression the question was related to OR ended up being related to discussions about the nature of infinity, and the difference between countable and uncountable infinities. Alas, I have no sources at present time, but the article does feel somewhat woefully incomplete. --68.255.106.32 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that's the position I learned in philosophy class (countable vs uncountable infinity) but i also have no sources. Gorbag42 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

See also

@StAnselm:, Springer does connect both topics. Also National Journal, Volume 28, Page 25, "Imposing copyright law as it exists to the distribution of copies over the Net... To the non-Internet-sawy, this debate may sound like the argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.", and Rutgers computer & technology law journal - Volume 20, p.110 "... of not only how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but what dance it is they are doing and who owns the copyright." Diego (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it should go in one or both of these articles - not merely in a see also link, since the connection needs to be demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The connection would be undue weight at the copyright article. This doesn't mean that the link should be removed - the connection can be demonstrated with the link itself, there's no requirement in the style guidelines that the target article covers it. We don't mention the "How many angels..." question at Argumentation theory, Balloon debate nor Discourse articles either. Diego (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem Sleuth

There is a reference to this in the webcomic Problem Sleuth as well.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312141740/http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html to http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Constantinople

This is a purely scholastic challenge and belongs to the Latin church philosophy of medieval universities (Scholasticism). It has nothing to do with Constantinople and the philosophy of the Greek church. I would remove that statement or extend it to reflect this. N Jordan (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"English divine"?

"the English divine, William Sclater"

What is an English divine? Not referenced in the article on Sclater. Not obvious in Google.

Pretty common expression in English (not American) writing. A "divine" is a minister. IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)