Talk:Eduard von Hartmann
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eduard von Hartmann 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 |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unintended humor
editThe article approaches the comic when it claims that "The conception of the Unconscious, by which Von Hartmann describes his ultimate metaphysical principle, is not at bottom as paradoxical as it sounds, being merely a new and mysterious designation for the Absolute of German metaphysicians." This sentence implies that the Absolute is not myserious but is familiar to everyday life. In truth, the Absolute is one of the most mysterious concepts ever contrived. No specific example from experience can be given of this, one of the most abstract and empty of all concepts. Lestrade (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
- Not necessarily, the way to the Absolute from a system of logic may be of many paths, some more contrived and confusing than others, but one might simply define the Absolute as that without qualities; that which is divisible into everything; the essence common to all substance. The simplest of formal considerations. How that is itself considered may be more or less of debate, but it seems intuited the same in most philosophies. The mystery to its nature is how it relates to our conception of it, and not it itself. Nagelfar (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"[I]t seems intuited the same in most philosophies." No, the Absolute is not intuited at all. It is not related to any perception. There are no sensible qualities that can be experienced. The Absolute is a mere word that does not signify a concept that is derived from a positive, experienced perception. Its very meaning is "the unrelated." It can therefore be defined the same in most philosophies. It can be defined because the word itself comes from the Latin for "loosened from" or "unrelated."Lestrade (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
- More comedy: as though being "without qualities…divisible into everything…the essence common to all substance" is clearly evident and not mysterious. Like "Absolute," these are meaningless words that designate imaginary concepts. Lestrade (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
Nothing about support for genocide of other nations
editThe article is missing support by Hartmann for exterminating other nations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Give us a quote and a citation.Lestrade (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Lestrade
Requested move 8 October 2021
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann → Eduard von Hartmann – The subject of the article is more widely known by the name Eduard von Hartmann, rather than his full name e.g. [1][2][3][4] Throughthemind (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Throughthemind (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. This philosopher's WP:COMMONNAME is indeed Eduard von Hartmann.-- Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Closing comment: At first sight the target history contained an early sub-stub whose text might been incorporated into the current article, which would mean the history would have needed to be preserved for copyleft purposes, but none of that text appears in the current article. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)