Talk:Logos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Logos; Word, The

It says in th section about Christianity "In Christianity, it is often suggested that the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus the Logos"

Shouldn't this be changed to, "In Christianity, the Gospel of John calls Jesus the Logos in the prologue." or something along those lines. This is because it isn't suggested that he was referred to as that. The Gospel of John was written in Greek and the word used was Logos. - Amazon10x 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to no response, I have edited the page and removed "it is often suggested that" from the opening sentence - Amazon10x 02:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Heraclitus

Assertions about Heraclitus require clear and precise citation to competent secondary sources. Is logos the same as Fire, or matter, or War? All these can be held; to assert any of them in Wikipedia's voice, as consensus, needs overwhelming evidence from competent secondary sources.

The quotation from Heraclitus also requires explicit sourcing; the numbering of Heraclitus's fragments differs from editor to editor, and any translation is in part interpretation (this translation also includes explicit interpretation). Whose? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Socratics

It is moderately bizarre to describe Socrates as living in the 300s, when he died in 399, We have very few of his actual words, and I don't recall logos as one of them.

More seriously, the meaning of logos as "inward thought, opinion, ground for belief, common sense" was not invented by the Socratics, It's standard Greek, attested from Herodotus and Sophocles; see LSJ.

I would like to see sources for the random comments that end this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the long section on translations and such are important or relevant to the topic. It is clear that it is biased (quoting the New World Translation, which only one sect of Christianity uses.) Whether or not Jesus is God, is not the issue. I think it should be mentioned that Jesus is referred to as logos but the rest of that discussion needs to go. Post your thoughts on the deity of Christ on a more relevant topic.Matwenzel 02:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

About logos

I was heard about logos in my politics lesson at Fudan University in Shanghai. My teather appreciated it very much. at here, as a Chinese, I want to tell the difference between Logos and Tao(道)。 In some aspects, they are quite familiar.Logos express by words, but tao usually can not been expressed. I have to feel it and understand it by your self. PZ

the Logos does not express by words. expression by words in some cases is considered to be a part of the logos. but in general it is very much in tune with the concept of Tao as principle order of the universe.Some thing 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tao relates to the Platonic doctrine of Monad and Logos (or Dyad). This doctrine is not discussed in this article. The monad has other names including "the idea of the Good" and "One." There is a "negative theology" of the monad that is syncretic with the first Chapter of Lao Tzu. My view is that the monad can be identified with the Tao while the logos (as the principle of generation out of nothing) can be identified with the Tai Ji. Happy to discuss Bernie Lewin 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Logos in Platonism

It seems to me that the primary impact of the concept of Logos on the western tradition was through Platonism. It is through Platonism that we see the logos of Heraclitus and the Pythagoreans, reacting to Platonism that we get the Logos of Aristotle, and derived from Platonism that we get the Stoic Logos and the Christian Logos. Therefore it seems that this article is missing its heart. If anyone agrees and would like to collaborate in writing a Pythagorean-Plato-Platonism section then I would be interested Bernie Lewin 04:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation in two places

I have just disambiguated several wikilinks in this article to point to an appropriate unambiguous article (e.g., a piped link to German language instead of just a link to German, which is a dab page). There were two links I had trouble dealing with, and I'd like to ask that someone who's more familiar with this article's subject matter try to do something about them.

1. In the section "Jung's analytical psychology," there was a link to eros. That page is a dab page, but none of the targets seemed suitable for this reference, so I removed the wikilink. If one of the targets at eros is actually appropriate here, or if an appropriate page can be created (and listed at eros), please change accordingly.

2. In the "See also" section, there is a link to Sophia. I couldn't tell which, if any, of the dab targets on that page is appropriate here; in this case, I didn't remove the link because it would seem stupid to have an unlinked item in the "See also" section. Please proceed as for eros above.

Thanks, Tkynerd 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, let me add that the assertion that logos being both "God" and "in God" is mutually exclusive is naive in that it misses the discussion in John 17, "I in thee,and and thou in me, etc." which is the basis for the ancient Christian understanding of "circumincession" which underlies the very basis of Christian experience, and that the writer should have considered the logos Christology of the Early Church and the fact that the very difficulty of such passages is evidence in itself of their veracity /originality with the text.

Thx all, [rdeaster@wbs.edu] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.100.145 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Logos, tao, and dharma

Removed from Word when I turned it into a disambiguation page:

 Logos also has parallels to the eastern concepts of Tao and dharma.

Can anyone find a place to put this? The assertion doesn't come with any other information to support it (though I don't doubt it), and definitely doesn't belong in word. --Ardonik 21:38, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see how the Greek logos parallels the Tao or dharma, except loosely. If I understand the concepts well enough, Tao is usually associated with flowing with the world, which could have much closer ties to other Greek words than logos. Dharma is generally considered to have to do with cosmic order, which would make it much closer to the Greek kosmos, which is the direct origin of our "cosmos," and can be literally translated as being some combination of "order" and "universe." The only way logos could be understood in such a sense is in the New Testament Greek texts, and Christian dogma differs quite a bit from the more agnostic, ambiguous cosmic views of the Dharmic traditions. In short, I don't see any reason not to permanently remove the sentence in question. Ratiuglink (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice the comment you answered is three and a half years old? The sentence is long since gone from the article, though it does still mention that tao is used as the Chinese translation of logos. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement of this article is POV biased and unsupported by etymology of Logos

In the second sentence of the first paragraph, it says, "It derives from the verb λέγω lego: to say. This is the primary meaning of the word. Secondary meanings such as logic, thought etc. derive from the fact that if one is capable of λέγειν (infinitive) i.e. speech, then intelligence and thought are assumed."

However, from what I know, and from the etymological record the root of the word means not "speech" but "collect" (See [3]) The use of the particular intention of philosophers who appropriated the word, even it's written history, can not ultimately be taken to be definitive. It seems to me that the above statement is too biased in favor of the philosophical uses of the word, and ignores the word's "folk" meaning.

Now, of course, I have my own theories regarding the etymology of logos, but I will not bother to argue them here as it is not my intent to replace my theory with one that now, unsupported, presently biases this article. Rather I suggest a pragmatic solution to the controversy, which is as follows. Clearly, the meaning of logos is different in different contexts. Therefore, it would be more NPOV to refrain from making controversial statments about the "true" meaning of ancient words, the meaning of which surely preceded recorded history and instead stick to the known facts, which are (1) the etymological record, and (2) the context of its use in recorded history. In this article we have the latter but not the former. --Betamod (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. with supplement, 1996), the sentence you mention was actually fairly accurate (I expanded the translation of "λέγω" so that it now reads: "to count, tell, say, or speak"; see below for why). "λόγος" doesn't come from the sense of "λέγω" that means to collect. If you look under Liddell & Scott's entry for "λόγος", the first thing you'll see is this: "verbal noun of λέγω (B), with senses corresponding to λέγω (B) II and III...." (You can see this on Perseus's website here; but for some reason Perseus doesn't let you see the "λέγω (B)" entry in A Greek-English Lexicon; it only has the "Middle Liddell" entries, i.e. those from Liddell & Scott's An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. So you can't tell from Perseus what A Greek-English Lexicon means by "λέγω (B)".) If you look under "λέγω (B)" in A Greek-English Lexicon (1996), you will see the meanings pick up and gather; but that's sense I of "λέγω (B)". According to Liddell & Scott, the various senses of "λόγος" corresponds to "λέγω (B) II and III". And when you look under sense II of "λέγω (B)", you'll see the definition count, tell. And sense III has say, speak. I personally accept Liddell & Scott's account of the derivation of "λόγος" over what the American Heritage Dictionary says about it at the Bartleby page. Isokrates (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that Pollux at Harvard's Archimedes Project has both the Greek-English Lexicon entry for "λόγος" here and its entry for "λέγω (B)" here. (The links I provided are for the "transliterated" version of the entries, but the Archimedes Project site allows you view them in various Greek fonts if you wish.) Isokrates (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed

I have removed the following paragraphs as they were marked "dubious" and "citation needed" for several months.

• By the 300s BC, the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos described the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato, first developed the concept of logic as depicting the rules of human rationality.
• Logos as it is also presently understood today in Theosophical terms and by the Rosicrucians (in their conception of the cosmos) which further influenced how this word was understood later on (in 20th century psychology, for instance).

If anyone can find sources to back up these paragraphs, feel free to re-add them. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hi -logycians! There is a discussion going on at the WikiProject Science Talk Page that could do with some advice. Editors in Wikiproject Science are trying to figure out whether there is any acceptable way to standardize the etymologies we give in wikipedia articles for the names of sciences ending in -logy. Any suggestions you had would be most appreciated. Calypygian (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

In the claim that "the word was God" is incorrectly translated, a citation is necessary. Additionally, if examples are going to be provided of a more "correct" translation, at least a few should be from commonly accepted Biblical translations - as a Christian who is familiar with a wide variety of English Biblical translations, I had never heard of any of the translations provided here as examples. If you want to make the point as to which version is in common use, I suggest using a passage from the New King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, or a similar widely accepted text. Using obscure translations doesn't demonstrate either that there was an error or that the "corrected" version is in common use. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Small side note - NWT Version of the bible is used by over 6 Million persons worldwide in over 69 languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#Editions_and_languages) =- 43 09:53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.82.39 (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In context of global Bible readers, I think 6 million counts as obscure. In general, this whole argument is rather specious, as it notes that the minority "scholars" who make the argument are those scholars whose religion requires the argument. If a citation were found, then a short paragraph might be appropriate. Otherwise it should be removed. Its relevancy to the use of the word Logos does not justify this huge section. 68.39.154.196 (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Logos as the Angel of Wisdom

Philo calls the Logos the Chief of the Angels.

JOhn 1 can be translated in the beginning was the angel and the angel was beside the Eloha (one true God) and the Angel was an Elohim (one of the Eloha's children /angels/). Logos does not refer to Yahshuah (Jesus). The logos tabernacled in Yahshua and spoke through him.

  En          archê       ên      ho    logos,     
  In        beginning     was    the   Wisdom Angel, Shokeyn, the logos 

kai     ho    logos       ên      
and    the    angel      was    

 pros        ton    theon,      kai           theos      ên      ho      logos.
 beside        the     Eloah      and         an elohim     was    the     angel. 

Robertroberg (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Logos in Goethe's Faust

References to Goethe appear in two places in this article: Use in Christianity > Translations > The notorious question of how to translate logos is topicalised in Goethe's Faust, with Faust finally opting for "deed, action" (Am Anfang war die Tat) and Similar concepts > In modern philosophy > Goethe has his Faust translate John's logos as "Will".

A) Goethe's Faust is neither specifically about Christianity nor modern philosophy. Move this somewhere, or remove (my suggestion). B) If not removed, can someone verify which it is and give a cite from the original? Clearly, Goethe translates logos into GERMAN -- "will, deed, action" are all interpretations of English translators, and pretty disparate at that. I'd chuck it altogether, this belongs in the entry on Faust if anything (because like Faust it's clearly flawed -- no Greek sense of logos corresponds to "Tat"). Orbis 3 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No way this entry about Faust should be deleated. I was delighted to see it here and was going to suggest it! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation

In the section "Use in Christianity", the Author uses incorrect style when quoting from the Bible. The proper citation style is:

(Book Name) (Chapter Number):(Verse Number)

For Example: Genesis 5:1 means Verse One of Chapter Five of the Book of Genesis.

I am not sure where in the Bible the verse "the logos became flesh and walked among us" (the verse that must be cited) comes from.

Ianus Maximus 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(reply to ancient) - a Google search suggests this is probably John 1:14, more often translated as something like the Word became flesh and dwelt among us--Rumping (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary references

Is the section entitled "Contemporary references" encyclopedically relevant? Antique Rose (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Platonism

A bit of a glaring omission! Plato's doctrine of Three Hypostases should be mentioned as the second Hypostasis is the Divine Mind or Logos. This clearly anticipates the later Chr

It's as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.141.201 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Logos = wording

The root idea (which no doubt predates the Greek language) of 'logos' is 'word'. Used as a verb it would mean 'wording' or using the faculty (that humans possess and animals lack) of speech or of thinking in words. In other words the faculty of 'reason'. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I also note that it's ironic that the article on logos is about the logos of logos, whereas the wikipedia is about ἰδέα- ideas; this article should be on the ἰδέα of logos.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is deeply flawed in that it is supporting only a Christian version of the term and does not attempt to outline or acknowledge the constestable nature of the term and the lengthy history of it outside of Christianity's adoption of it. The page attempts to describe the term as settled and suggests, aside from minor allusions to complexity, that it is grounded only in a Christ-supported notion. The attempts that I have made to insert some balance into the definition have been quickly deleted based on, what I see as, "half-cocked" assertions. The braver approach would be to hear what I am saying and acknowledge that it has merit, specifically on the grounds that logos is a essentially contested concept. We need a collective set of reasonable voices here to challenge the ideologues who are "camping out" on this term and guarding it like a sacred and settled text. Edunoramus (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is hardly Christian-only, although the sections on Greek philosophy, rhetoric, Sufism, and Jung could certainly be expanded. However, the article should continue to follow Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:LEAD. Keeping in mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL would be nice too. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. If you want to get down to details, I am ready. I agree with what you have stated above but there is a bigger issue at work here. I think we should discuss the larger purpose of this specific page, in light of the fact of the there is also a page for Logos (Christianity) on which I see that you are regular contributor. In my view, this page needs to be "neutralized" and given a stronger form in terms of providing a full picture of how many meanings this term has in contemporary life and how "loaded" it is in a historical sense. In my view, my own efforts to round out this definition have been negated based a series of arguments that really do not add up; this is where my frustration emerges from. I am in agreement that we need to specifically follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and other than my tone here being admittedly a bit defensive and curt, I am abiding by the guidelines in the changes that I have made.

I think the bigger question is: why should this definition of Logos have such a Christian-slant, given that there is another disambiguated definition that exists at Logos (Christianity)? I think that this entire article needs to be rewritten on the basis of this recognition, with a specific effort made to build out the philosophic and rhetorical grounding of the term Logos, in order to clarify the nuances, distinctions and give a realistic shape to the historical and intellectual complexity of the term. Edunoramus (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Re-Write

On the basis that a disambiguated entry already exists at Logos (Christianity), I am proposing that this entry be completely re-written in order to further disambiguate the historical antecedents of the term, especially in the rhetorical and philosophic senses from the Christian-centric definition of the term.

Here is the crux of what I am getting at, there is a distinct sense within the term Logos that can be traced back through Plato and Aristotle to Heraclitus. The notion generally suggests "everything is in flux, nothing is stable" but yet Logos is the pervasive basis upon which the world operates, it is in this sense, the stability of the world. Now, in contemporary terms, in which we presumably inhabit a diverse and pluralistic society, if we get down to discussing what gives a pervasive order to the Universe, we are going to get to essentially contested concepts and Logos is one of them. For this reason, we have to distinguish between our theology, our rhetoric and our philosophy because where they intertwine, we are dealing with issues of ontology and cosmology. This is what makes Logos a very complicated term. Edunoramus (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs a rewrite as much as a serious expansion. Your suggestion that "there is a distinct sense within the term Logos that can be traced back through Plato and Aristotle to Heraclitus" is interesting, but completely contradicted by the Heidegger quote, although I think that quote may be a little out of context, and the best thing the article can do is explore the history of the term "Logos." In terms of Christianity and WP:NPOV, this article has swung between being Christian-dominated and censoring Christian content completely. I think if we improve the other sections, the current article will be about right. If you go back through the history, you'll see that my main contribution has been to trim the Christianity section and add material on other uses of the term. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have reverted the comment "According to Matsen, et al (1990)", since the indicated page is within an excerpt from Aristotle's Rhetoric. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, your deletions of my suggestions are completely out of line. We will get this page on track in accordance with WP:NPOV. Edunoramus (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) I'm not sure why you say that. Which Wikipedia policy has been breached? Rather, your edit, my revert, and this discussion are all part of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

(2) Your edit to the Aristotelian Rhetoric section was a clear error. Presumably we agree on that? Your use of Heidegger was in my view, WP:SYNTH, in that the indicated page of Heidegger did not support the very general statement it was associated with. In any case, I would have thought that my partial rewrite of the lead gets across the point you were making?

(3) As to the RfC, Logos (Christianity) is not a disambiguated entry, but rather a child article under this main article, giving expanded detail on the Christian version of the Logos concept. The purpose of this article is to survey all the uses of "Logos" from Heraclitus to Jung. It does that; in my view the article needs expansion (expanding existing sections with sourced information, especially the recently added section on Neo-Platonism). This would also provide the required sense of balance. I don't see why rewriting from scratch would be required, especially as no specific problem has been identified with the article.

(4) I don't believe that "Logos" is an essentially contested concept; rather, IMO, it is a term with a number of different (though related) specialist meanings in philosophy, theology, rhetoric, and psychology. Again, explaining what these meanings are seems to me to be a sensible thing for this article to do. I don't think the article should be imposing a single overall meaning for the term. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs a full-fledged re-write, but I do think, on a slightly similar subject, that the sections about neoplatonism, sufism, and Carl Jung's input could potentially need expansion. I Read through the article, and thought that it didn't seem that bad. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree on the need for expanding those sections. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have with the deletions of my posts stems not from any claim to bad faith on your part but rather from the sneaking suspicion that you have no idea what I am talking about. Edunoramus (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay lets be civil guys. I agree with Ednoramus that this page is way to Focused on the christian concept of logos. However I agree Radagast with that the answer is not re-write but expand. Logos is a term with a bunch of specialist (but related) meanings. John the apostle may have been a bad reader of classical greek philosophy but none-the-less his concept of logos arises from contact with. Thus we cannot completely separate the meanings. My problem with this entry is the lack of contemporary philosophy references. No Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Badiou. Serious expansion needed. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see a "contemporary philosophy" section, but don't have the expertise to start it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its a massive undertaking. If we're going to be specific and try to trace a genealogy it would actually require both a modern philosophy section and a contemporary philosophy section. The modern philosophy section would have to deal with coincidence of logos and the Idea in German Idealist philosophy, particularly Schelling and Hegel but also prefigured in the late Fichte. Contemporary philosophy gains logos through these modern thinkers. Anyway on a different note I don't think Heidegger should be used a secondary source for Aristotle since his reading is so idiosyncratic that it would be tantamount to advocating a philosophic POV. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also for the sake of completion I want to point out this page also needs an Islamic philosophy section since the Islamic philosophy is what transmitted greek philosophy to the west. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken on modern philosophy, and thank you for your clarification on Heidegger's reading of Aristotle. As to Islamic philosophy, it's certainly worthwhile including the Logos concept as it appears in Islamic philosophy (possibly by expanding the scope of the Sufism section). However, I don't think it's quite true that Islamic philosophy transmitted the Greek Logos concept to the West -- I believe that happened earlier via such writers as Philo of Alexandria. However, I must confess to being hazy as to exactly what Greek philosophical literature the West had prior to contact with the Muslim world. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am really unfamiliar with the subject. All i really meant to say is that given that historically important Philosophers like Al-Ghazali, Averroes and Mulla Sadra (classical islamic philosophy in general) has always had a keen interest in classical greek philosophy this page should be more representative of the islamic philosophical connection to Logos rather than solely discussing the mystical theology of Sufism. I would even propose the hypothesis that Sufism's understanding of logos is indebted to these philosophers. But like i said this is not really a field I am too familiar with so I can't really say anything more conclusive than that. Ultimately what I am proposing is that this page be expanded to have a thorough examination of the concept of logos' trajectory through various philosophical traditions and how those conceptions in-turn influenced their theological appropriations rather than separating these two fields out completely. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As a head up, Nasty Housecat has posted a comprehensive set of comments on the peer review page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edunoramus (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Participants in this RfC discussion should note that those comments were in response to specific canvassing in response to this RfC. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is considered canvassing if the intent is to influence "the outcome in a particular way". As Nasty Housecat, is a volunteer peer reviewer, listed on the peer review volunteers page for Philosophy and Religion, my actions here are in accordance with the guidelines for the peer review process. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس is also a contributor who was invited here to review by the same peer review volunteer process. I am have opened both a peer review request and a RfC discussion simultaneously. Edunoramus (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, the peer review process is for editors of articles to seek help in getting to FA status, not for resolving disputes. Second, I note that you canvassed only selected volunteers from the list. I suggest we wait for the RfC to run to completion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose we end disscussion on RfC as Nasty Housecat has made clear that this conflict is easily resolvable by adhering to "Wikipeida policy, namely, to adhere to WP:SS." لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to end the RfC as it has not yielded any comments, rather the peer review process was able to get the kind of input that I was hoping to see. Now that we have a number of key issues to focus on, we can start a discussion around theses issues and work to resolve them within the page content itself, using the talk page as site of mediation. I have further comments on content to add which I will contribute later, once we have established a section for it, moving the peer review page and consolidating it here on the talk page, as discussed. -- Edunoramus (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any attempt to end the RfC early. Having started an RfC, I think you have to give it time to run to completion, and I'm not aware of any process for ending an RfC without a consensus to do so. Also, I believe the article already satisfies WP:SS. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned the RfC can run for the full thirty days and be deleted by the bot. Assuming that someone is actually paying attention to the RfC request, I am happy to have the attention on the content here and the more feedback that we have the better. The content has been my primary concern from the beginning. As far as the peer review page goes, I will leave it open for two more days and unless there are further comments, I will turn it into an archive and relocate the comments to the talk page. In terms of compliance with WP:SS, that is another conversation and seems to be worthy of its own heading here on the talk page. We need to discuss POV forking as it stands now and going forward, we will need to devise a new content structure with agreed upon naming conventions. Also, there is the issue of keeping this article from growing into into a huge beast of an entry. Clearly, there is a lot that about the term that can be said but how to do that efficiently and succinctly is also matter of WP:SS. -- Edunoramus (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of tracking the consensus, I support YWGonzalez's proposal resolve the dispute per WP:SS. I will try to re-state my reasoning succinctly below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to a project Christianity message asking for comments. I see NO reason at all for a total rewrite and I am amazed by the time wasted on this discussion, instead of just fixing the article. Looks like a soccer game with 12 commentators and 2 players. Please just "gradually fix this article" instead of all this discussion. I do think the Logos (Christianity) needs to be a separate article. When users want to understand a topic, be it about Christian beliefs or Jewish beliefs, they do not usually want to fish through gumbo to get the relevant parts that interest them, so the articles need to be separate and "to the point". History2007 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Extended content

Logos This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this page is overly thorough toward a Christian-centered perspective, especially since there is also a page at logos (Christianity), and weak in all other areas which are highly relevant to the topic, particularly philosophy and rhetoric. My efforts to balance the page have been shut-down at every attempt, so perhaps I am going about it in the wrong way? Thanks, Edunoramus (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC) FYI, there is also an outstanding RfC on the same topic posted to the Religion and philosophy list on 22 August 2010 -- see Talk:Logos#Proposed_Re-Write. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Here are some comments, focused mainly on the article content and the issues under discussion at the moment: With respect to the RfC, I do not think the article needs to be rewritten to disambiguate the various uses, but it does require a lot of expansion. So much so that it may be tantamount to a rewrite in any case. As to the question of how to handle the discussion of logos in Christianity: Because a main article exists on that topic, the discussion here should be condensed to a single brief section that summarizes that article. For WP:SS, what is here now is much too long. That’s what the main article is for. In general, the article is kind of a WP:QUOTEFARM at present. The blockquotes should be replaced with more extended discussion, augmented with pertinent quotes if need be. Direct quotes from primary sources should be used with caution. To the extent that they require even minimal interpretation by the editor or the reader, they should probably be avoided. They etymology discussion could be expanded a smidge. Why assume, for example, that we know the word is Ancient Greek? You should mention that it emerged around 700BC as the common term for discourse. Also, the primary distinction, which is important for the article, is between logos as discourse on the one hand and logos as reason on the other. All of the treatments of term that follow play on one or both of these themes from the Ancient Greek. You do not need to italicize the word logos. It appears in English dictionaries. The phrasing “Use of … “ in the headings is awkward. I might just say “In Ancient Greek philosophy,” etc. I would avoid using the Greek alphabet here. It will not help most English speakers. The Sophists of the 5th century also talked about logos, which is where the rhetorical sense of the term in Aristotle comes from. That should be mentioned. Plato uses the phrase in quite a number of different senses, including the expression of thought (nous) and an argument as a component of knowledge (which equals true judgment with an logos). There is a lot of ambiguity and thus a lot of debate, but it should definitely be discussed here. There are also many uses of logos in Aristotle, and I would not think the rhetorical sense is the most important (is it not original to him). In On Interpretation it means a statement or assertion, in Ethics it means reason (as in “right reason” = orthos logos), in Politics it means speech ( humans are animals with logos), in Metaphysics it is the form or essence of things. On the one hand, he uses it so freely that it is hard to say which distinctions are useful, but his logos as assertion will be important for Heidegger and all of the other uses are worth mentioning at least briefly. The discussion of the Stoics could be expanded. For example, that the human expression of divine logos is ordered discourse. As the overall rational principle of the universe, they thought humans should strive to live consistently with logos. You might consider moving the section on Philo to the Logos in Christianity section, since he is really the precursor of that line of thought. You might also add some discussion of the concept of The Word in Judaism to that article and rename it Logos in Religion. It would be more comprehensive that way. Logos also appears a lot in Hermetica. Might deserve a mention. The Neoplatonism section obviously needs expanding. The main point is probably that they saw it as a creative force emanating from the higher to the lower planes of being. In Augustine, that becomes the means by which God is incarnated in Christ (word became flesh). The part about Augustine should really be in the Logos in Religion article, though. Maybe stick Plotinus in with the other Greeks and call the section In Greek Philosophy? It is odd to have him after Christianity. Would you say that logos was a broadly Sufi notion or an Idn Arabi notion? I would lean towards the latter. I agree with the discussion on the talk page that a Modern section is warranted. It will be difficult, since the term appears often but seldom prominently, except perhaps in Heidegger and maybe a few others. You might combine all of the German Idealists into one subsection (they will all be similar). Maybe the 20th century folks together if there are enough common themes. Have to think about that. I don’t know much about Islamic philosophy, but if the term (or an analogue) is relevant, it should certainly be mentioned here. Obviously, expand on Jung. With respect to who influenced whom, unless is it so obvious from the primary sources that no one would ever disagree, you will have to find secondary sources for the interpretation and discuss and major disagreements per WP:NPOV. It will be hard to tell a coherent story about the history of the concept. I am not sure there really is one. Other than the general definitions of discourse and/or reason, it is more or less applied at will in philosophy. That is my own view, of course, which is really just a caution not to presume any view for which there is not strong academic consensus. Whoever said not to use Heidegger as a source on Aristotle is right. There are a wealth of authoritative sources for that. Minor points: The See also source should be worked into the text. That should be easy enough. Once you have expanded it, the lead will have to be reworked. It needs to summarize the article fully. There will be a lot to do there. I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling. It is tough to illustrate these articles, I know. But some interesting images of the people would be an improvement. I hope my comments are helpful. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I can be helpful in the future. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Response 1 Thank you for this very thorough review. I agree with you in pretty much every regard. Here are my responses. I agree that Aristotle rhetorical use of the term is not the most imporant. I would like to add that confining it to rhetoric is probably the first big blunder of the article since subsequent philosophical traditions were probably influenced more so by Aristotle's logic. The islamic philosopher I am thinking of (Al-Farabi, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna) were all devoted to merging Aristotle's logic, neo-Platonism and Koranic scripture. There influences on medieval philosopher likes Maimonides is undisputed. They should definitely be included. While the word logos appears sporadically in modern philosophy prior to Heidegger, I don't think it would be controversial to state that Aristotle logos influenced Kant's Reason and thus we can bracket German Idealist and their use of reason. I think Bracketing philosophers becomes much more problematic starting with Heidegger. Most contemporary philosophers gain their understand from him but then diverge pretty radically. I think philosophers that need to be included are Lacan (he translated Heidegger logos). Maybe instead of a section on Jung and lacan, probably a section on logos in psychoanalysis. There is Derrida and his critique of logocentrism (a word he did not term) as well as phallogocentrism (which he did term). Finally, (to my knowledge) there is Deleuze who popularized the idea of anti-logos in Proust and Signs. I guess what a common theme of contemporary would be they all wish to distance philosophy from logos(?) Those are my two cents لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Response 2 Thank you for the detailed feedback. I agree that the article requires a lot of expansion. I don't believe the Christian section will be seen as too long once the article is complete. It is after all this article which will discuss influences between the different uses of "Logos," including the Christian one. It has nothing to do with length, really. It has to do with summary style. When a separate article exists, the content should not be duplicated, but rather summarized and linked. Either this section needs to be summarized heavily or the Logos (Christianity) article needs be combined with this one and then deleted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I take your point, but this article is really about historical development of versions of the Logos concept, and that requires more than a paragraph on the Christian use. For example, proper expansion of the Sufism section will require referring to specific aspects of the Christian use; those aspects will need to be in this article. To put it another way, this article should summarise information one would find in books on philosophy discussing "Logos," Logos (Christianity) should summarise information one would find in books on Christian theology; some overlap is inevitable, but once both articles are expanded in appropriate ways, that overlap will be relatively small. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I really am going to stop now, since I am not sure my comments are going to make much impact here, but I actually don't think you do see my point. If you read WP:SS, good form dictates that the detail be in one article only and only the summary everywhere else. You can link between them as needed. There are other ways to do it, but that's the way Wikipedia does things. The idea that we have a philosophy "slant" and a Christianity "slant" on essentially the same material is the antithesis of NPOV. Both points of view should be represented, no matter in which article the material appears. When I have seen these disputes in the past (it happens a lot), I have found this essay to be helpful. Maybe it will be helpful here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC) You misunderstand me. What I meant was simply that much of this article is out-of-scope for Logos (Christianity), and many topics either in or potentially in Logos (Christianity) would be out-of-scope here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I think the Greek alphabet should be retained, as some readers will want it. There's no need to "dumb down" the article. Please see WP:MOS#Foreign terms. Foreign terms should be used sparingly. "Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think that applies, since the article is specifically about a Greek word; I would expect a philosophy text written in English to use the Greek word; I think we should too. And if I understand the policy you quoted, it applies to other articles not spelling Logos in Greek, but linking to this article instead. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps this essay will help. If a term could be a separate article (like most philosophical terms), it does not need a native spelling. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC) But surely this is the "separate article" on a philosophical term? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Sure, and native spelling in the first line is appropriate. But lexis? Pathos? Ethos? Could be (or are) their own separate articles. So why the native spelling here? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I agree that Plato and Aristotle both used "logos" in philosophy. Aristotle's rhetorical use may not be the most important, but it needs distinguishing from his philosophical use. Philo must not be moved to the Christian section, since he was Jewish. His influence on medieval thought in various religious groups should be distinguished from that of others, and medieval Jewish thought should be distinguished from Christian and Islamic thought. I was not suggesting he be moved the the Christian section, but rather that all religious discussions be combined in a single, separate, and more comprehensive article. They are, after all, closely related. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) But they are also closely related to the ancient Greek and Neoplatonist uses; the inter-relationships between uses should be here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) If you really think so, propose to combine the two articles into this one. That would be fine. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC) For the record, I strongly oppose your suggested split. Too many things in this article straddle the religion/philosophy boundary. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Neoplatonism should not, IMO, be combined with older Greek philosophy, since it followed Philo and early Christianity. However, Neoplatonism had considerable influence on medieval thought in various religious groups. If the article is going to flow chronologically, it should do so consistently, in which case the later Christian writers should come later (as it stands right now, they would come last). If the Christianity section is summarized they way it should be, it will be an non-issue. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I think the article should indeed generally flow chronologically. That does suggest splitting the Christianity section, but I don't think splitting the Christianity section aids the reader. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) So which is it? Surely it should not be a mere matter of taste. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It should be up to the editors writing the article to decide what flows best. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The editors do not WP:OWN the article, of course. There should be a good reason for the flow, whatever it is. And there should be consensus. If the Christianity content really just belongs together, chronology notwithstanding, it gives still more reason to think it belongs in a different article.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I strongly agree we will need reliable secondary sources on interpretation and on to who influenced whom. I strongly agree that the lead should summarize the article. Your point on images is well taken. I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling either. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Process issues By the way, editors should note the review comments by Nasty Housecat above were in response to specific canvassing in response to an existing RfC discussion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC) It is considered canvassing if the intent is to influence "the outcome in a particular way". As Nasty Housecat, is a volunteer peer reviewer, listed on the peer review volunteers page for Philosophy and Religion, my actions here are in accordance with the guidelines for the peer review process. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس is also a contributor who was invited here to review by the same peer review volunteer process. Edunoramus (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Well, first, the peer review process is for editors of articles to seek help in getting to FA status, not for resolving disputes. Second, I note that you canvassed only selected volunteers from the list. I suggest we wait for the RfC to run to completion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I was asked to peer review the article and I did. My comments are well beyond the scope of the RfC on which I chose not to comment because I think it is pointless. The article clearly needs extensive revision, whatever you want to call that. I am not interested in wading into this edit war, but it seems to me the real dispute you cannot resolve is about what to do with the Christianity content. I shared my view on that question in the review, and will reply to further comments above. I resent any implication that my comments were anything other than requested and delivered in good faith. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I was certainly not implying any breach of good faith on your part, and I'm sorry for any offence caused -- no offence was intended. However, I note that you have waded into an edit war, whether you wanted to or not, simply by responding to the canvassing that took place. Any revision of the article will have to be based on consensus on the article talk page; this peer review does not over-ride that requirement. I would suggest that we close this review until the RfC is resolved; I don't see any point in turning this page into an alternative article talk page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Is your insistence on calling it canvassing (when it clearly was not) just wading deeper into the edit war? This dispute seems way more personal than it should be. I hope the RfC resolves something. In the meantime, I hope the many other comments left here by myself and YWGonzalez are helpful. Seems to me this is the right place to discuss them, but maybe not. I have offered one way to resolve the conflict, based on clear Wikipeida policy, namely, to adhere to WP:SS. It would improve the article and eliminate your conflict altogether. Let the consensus fall where it may. I hope you work something out. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC) So do I; I'm not sure this peer review is really helping the RfC get anywhere, especially in light of some of the points I made above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC) This edit war is pretty silly an easily resolvable. Obviously the medium for this is was not peer-review (or RfC) but probably adding it to Requests for feedback page. However I think this was done by accident. I don't think it was canvassing. I think it was done in good faith as this page obviously needs revision. I have more to say but I agree we should close this page and merge the contents with the logos talk page. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I am in agreement that we should close the peer review page and merge it with the talk page. We have some highly relevant material here that will be helpful as we tackle the expansion and revision of the page. Thank you both for your input! As to comment on my own actions here, they were executed in good faith, perhaps I jumped the gun in moving so quickly from RfC to peer review but I was eager to get this project moving and that we accomplished. As an editor, I am learning as I go. In terms of additional comments on what has been stated above in terms of content suggestions, I too, have some things that I would like to add but I will wait until we are established back on the talk page to do so. --Edunoramus (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC) As I also stated on the talk page for Logos, I will leave this page open for discussion for two more days and after that time, unless there is further comment to be made here, I will turn this page into an archive and move the content to the talk page. RfC will remain open for thirty days and it is presumed that the bot will remove it when the time has elapsed. I have also added a sub-heading for WP:SS discussion on the talk page. --Edunoramus (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It should be transcluded, not moved. I'll do that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Transcluded is better. I had no idea that was possible. Thanks. --Edunoramus (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style (summary style) compliance

As per our previous discussions, I am adding this subtopic area to discuss WP:SS compliance for this article. -- Edunoramus (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is clearly a redundant content fork. We have two articles treating the very same subject, namely, logos in Christianity. The guideline says this is an unacceptable type of fork. There are two possible resolutions: (A) to merge the logos in Christianity article into this one or (B) to make the Christianity article a "spinout", also per WP:CFORK, using the WP:SS technique. The relevant guideline for this is WP:DETAIL, which states: "the parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." Accordingly, the detail on the Christianity topic should be moved to that article and only a general summary written here.

I personally would lean towards option A and merge the articles, as the articles are not long enough to justify a split and the content of the two articles seems more alike then different. But I could be persuaded either way. If, however, the split is retained, I believe it should be expanded to logos in Religion and include Jewish, Islamic, and Hermetic notions of logos as well. To leave only non-Christian religious approaches here would be incongruous, and in my view, create a WP:POVFORK. But the redundant content fork must be resolved either way.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since massive books can be, and have been, written on Logos in Christian theology, Logos (Christianity) is fully justified. It was spun out for good reasons, and any attempts to change its focus are IMO doomed to fail.

You could propose a merge, using merge tags, if you really think an article dominated by Christian theological issues is what people want here. Personally, I thought that was exactly what Edunoramus did not want.

In fact, Logos (Christianity) is a "spinout." This article should contain enough about Christianity for a general discussion to make sense (which is what WP:SS requires). I think this has been achieved; cutting the Christianity section would compromise the value of the article's historical overview. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that many people are passionate about the term Logos as it applies to Christianity but many topics are equally complex and nonetheless, they are succinctly and well-summarized on Wikipedia. It is a matter of sifting through all the details and putting the most important points forward with a well-organized schematic outline as the backbone. We can't say everything that is deemed important with regard to the term, that is in fact what books are for, to go deep and to cater to a specialized audience; the audience here is more general and broad. I think that a purposefully brief and to-the-point(s) summary article for Logos with several article "spinouts" is where we are headed, but there are many difficult questions that still need to be confronted.

It seems that the "spinout" for Christianity is apparent if we choose to make the Logos summary page a brief overview, but if this is the case, then we have a larger very important question to answer and that is: how to treat religion in general as well as the Jewish, Islamic, and Hermetic traditions that have also been noted, as they relate to the term Logos? It seems obvious to me that it is inappropriate, and not keeping with NPOV, for Christianity to have its own page and then for the "other" religions to get lumped together under an "other" sub-heading? On the other side, it seems that the philosophical aspects of the term are surprisingly more manageable in this regard, although this topic in itself is a vast discussion that will need to be made succinct. Right now, I see it as having several main sub-topics such as Classical, German Idealist and Contemporary, etc. but this kind of taxonomy does raise its own questions, such as where to place someone like Paul Tillich who could be classified as a Contemporary Christian existentialist philosopher, who has written extensively about logos with regard to faith?

Either way, in a broader sense, the tough part is going to be getting to a clarity and succinctness for the main article and then keeping it that way. Obviously, this word has a lot of meaning and my goal all along has been to help develop an article that reveals all of the perspectives that this word contains from a descriptive, neutral point of view; hopefully, in a way that succinctly reveals the inherent complexity of the term. -- Edunoramus (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason not to have a thorough article. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia has a range of readers with different interests and needs. Any subtopics that get too large should be spun out as child articles, whether it is Christianity, Islam, Neoplatonism, or whatever. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I responded above about the main issue, but I think this "style complaint" is frankly just a diversion to complain about superficial elements of form, when the substance discussion is taking place at the same time. Forget about style for now, fix the substance first, then polish the style afterwards. Remember: design of a car is one thing, paint is another. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your response is unnecessarily cantankerous. The undertaking of including the philosophical ideas absent in this article and placing them in a way that makes sense is a huge undertaking. Most of comments are working in that direction. Building consensus is an important part of writing a good article. Why I, of course, think we should be bold, the task at hand is larger than merely adding a line here and there. Anyway the "style complaint" as you put revolves around the attempt to figure our how to place widely divergent philosophical and theologian notions into one coherent text. I don't see how this could be considered superfluous. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny, because you also seem to agree with me that: "the answer is not re-write but expand", as do backtable and Radagast. So I think it is simple: the energy is best used to put the rewrite question to bed, then expand. No need for fanfare, this is not the most complex topic in the world. By the way, I agree that the cat was nicely sleeping in its own house, when WP:canvassing woke him up. History2007 (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that this term is not complex? Anyone can come here and make wild statements but if you are going to step-in and make claims, you need to have something behind what you say. The recent peer review comments substantiate the broad philosophical ground that is not covered by this article. If you were familiar with this philosophical territory then you would know how complex it is. Your argument seems to be coming from the Christian side of Logos and that is the problem, that is just one view of the term and other views exist that are not yet well articulated here. Getting these perspectives into the article in a cogent way takes more than a "just do it" attitude, it takes consensus and planning. We are not in a hurry to settle this quickly. I want to see it done well. -- Edunoramus (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This topic does not seem complex to me - really. To me, quantum mechanics is complex. This is not. But I did think statement such as references to essentially contested concepts were unnecessary, given that that concept itself is at best shaky in many cases - after all is essentially contested concepts an essentially contested concept itself? Did a new version of Russel's paradox just get invented here? Now, exactly, exactly, exactly where did I refer to Christian views and beliefs in my comments regarding a rewrite? You must clarify that first. What is your basis for that assertion? I have made no references whatsoever to the Christian views. I made references to soccer and fishing through gumbo. Are those Christian reference? And I must ignore what the cat typed given that he was awakened via a blatant case of WP:canvassing as stated above. If WP:canvassing is allowed to influence a discussion, what is the point of prohibiting canvassing. So I would advise everyone to: ignore fruits obtained from the tree of canvas. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of your canvassing accusation, if you are serious, I encourage you to file a claim against me (or whomever you are accusing) and let's see if it holds up against objective analysis among our peers. Quite simply, are you here to improve the article or argue? I am here to improve the article. Whatever I think about how you came to be interested in this article does not really matter. Let's stay focused on content. -- Edunoramus (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I only became aware of canvassing, after Radagst asserted it. It may yet get reviewed, in the meantime, it should be noted and fruits of the tree therefrom ignored. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This page has been peer reviewed by two generous commentors and it is currently open for comment under the terms of the RfC guidelines. Once the comment period has been completed, on or around 24 September 2010, we will collectively assess the contributions and move forward with edits based on all of the input received. -- Edunoramus (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was providing comments, because this was a request for comment. And my first comment was that there was "too much talk and argument" before I arrived (a soccer game with 2 players and 12 commentators I said). Now, I take it that you have conceded that the cat was canvassed given that you did not pursue that point. Now, to content. Again, pretty simple:

Apart from Etymology this article has 7 sections. Look at these 4 sections:

• Use in Neoplatonism
• Use in Sufism
• Modern and contemporary philosophy
• Jung's analytical psychology

What do they have in common: "They are empty, or almost empty". This article does NOT require "rewriting" it requires "writing". It is a simple observation. But most of the writing is on the talk page now. The only two sections that have content are the Greek and Christian sections. And I think they are both too long, given that there are Mains that can be used. It is easy to improve things pretty quickly: write the empty sections, and shorten the long ones via Mains. Then the article will have balance in terms of the real estate allocated to different issues. Then, as I said above, all the other articles that really need help can receive the help they deserve, for which they dialed 911 long ago. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure, but I believe this is the right place to make a comment. I would like to state that a mergere of both articles is definately not desireable. The reason for this is that, while logos definately deserves a place in the Christianity article, it encompasses more than just a religious thought. It is also the basis for meditationes (Descartes), which lead to Materialism (Spinoza) and from there to Kant's Logic, ending up in Frege's Begriffschrift. The religious spirit had been dropped somewhere between Spinoza and Frege; definately not being in the picture at Quine for instance. Add to that the fact that Aristotle and Plato were working on the logos before Chrsitianity existed and you understand what I am talking about. So, while Christianity deserves a section on Logos, it is not the only idea concerning Logos. In that sense a portion of the logos article might be included in the Christianity article, with a link to the logos article, thus not interfering with the total idea and not taking away from the Christian angle. I hope this helps...and is in the right place...--Faust (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right place. And in my view right answer too. History2007 (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the Christianity section to about half its original size; any further trimming would IMO make this article less comprehensible, given the various influences to and from Christianity. Trimming the Greek section would IMO make the article totally incomprehensible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, given that it Christianity two Mains, the rest of the info is "one click away" as usual, so nothing is lost after all. And given that the Greek section has no Main your comment is probably valid. In time (6 months to 6 years) the Greek section may get a Main and that will open another angle. The next issue is actually populating those 4 empty sections. By the time text finds its way into those sections, this will be a long article. History2007 (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to write a slightly longer article. That article will require the present Christian and Greek sections; it would be unreadable if the reader is constantly required to click back and forth among multiple articles trying to follow the threads of historical development. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the empty four sections do need material, anyway. The Christian and Greek sections are of an almost manageable size, but obviously the empty sections need help. History2007 (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! I wish people would add appropriate sourced material to those sections, as I've been doing. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We may just have to do it ourselves little by little. A paragraph a day, keeps boredom away. History2007 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was doing that, but put the effort on hold, pending the RfC. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there policy that prohibits good material from being added little by little? I don't think so. If not, I see no obstacle to gradual improvement anyway, instead of gradual talk-for-ever. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't stopped for policy reasons; just a personal feeling of despair for the article, after the discussion above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I am pretty sure there is no mechanism within Wikipedia for sending an electric shock through your keyboard. So you have my encouragement and support to add good material. History2007 (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a busy guy; this discussion is using up all my Wikipedia time. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. But typing less here and gradually doing good usually works. History2007 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos and Rhema

The Bible contains the Logos: the order of things, but also the Rhema: Its appeal to the individual person. The Greek word Rhema is used instead of the word Logos in some occasions in the Bible to give a different twist to the Logos. While Logos is objective, the Rhema is subjective. Alan347 (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We do have the article Rhema on that concept. Are you proposing something beyond the existing "see also" link? -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks Alan347 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC) well... to think about it hmm, the bible is both Logos and Rhema so we might put in a see also just underneath the title logos so that the reader would immediately relate the two terms. On reading the bible we cannot limit ourself to a logological understanding we have to focus on a Rhematological understanding. THANKS ! Alan347 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But Alan's comment points out that Rhema is hidden in the See also section and just mentioning it in the text will be helpful. And having just looked at the article on Rhema, I saw that it had called for an ambulance a while ago and needs help. It is an official disaster area. So that is where clean up energy should focus. History2007 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the Rhema section (copied below), because it was completely unsourced. It needs inline citations to reliable sources. Also, it seems to use "Logos" in a sense different from the usual Christian sense (which is that "Logos" refers to the Second Person of the Trinity). This is confusing: the section should explain its use of "Logos." Perhaps the solution is a subsection of the Christian section which explains this other meaning of Logos, and adds a sentence about Rhema. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bible can be read in two modes. According to the Logos as described in this article and according to the Rhema which does not exclude the Logos but adds to it the subjective understanding of the person reading the Biblical text.

The place to fix it is probably in the Rhema article that has "zero references", then refer to it in the Logos (Christianity) article, and a few words here. The wording (pun intended) needs to change a little, but for starters, here are some references, given that none exist in the Rhema article:

• The history of linguistics in Europe from Plato to 1600 by Vivien Law 2003 ISBN 0521565324 page 29 [4] : Aristotle's use of Logos vs Rhema

• General linguistics by Francis P. Dinneen 1995 ISBN 0878402780 page 118 [5] : Linguistic issues on Logos and Rhema

• Theological dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1 by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Geoffrey William Bromiley 1985 ISBN 0802824048 page 508 [6] : New testament use

• Biblical Authority by James T. Draper, Kenneth Keathley 2001 ISBN page 0805424539 [7] : Critical analysis of the Logos & Rhema relationship

• Holy Spirit, Teach Me by Brenda Boggs 2008 ISBN 1604774258 page 80 [8] : Logos and Rhema usage

• The Fight of Every Believer by Terry Law ISBN 1577945808 page 45 [9] : Rhema and Logos usage

• The Identified Life of Christ by Joe Norvell 2006 ISBN 1597812943 page [10] : Rhema versus Logos usage

But again, only a passing mention in this article is best, and the full development of the comparison should be done in a Main elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Great references! -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please be sure to send a generous wire transfer. History2007 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Alan's suggestion of Rhema and Logos lead to a clean up of Rhema and also a table for how Aristotle & Plato used that word along with logos, etc. And also the Septuagint's equivalent use of Logos and Rhema, etc. So I think this connection must be mentioned in the article, as a sentence or two somewhere and a reference made to the longer discussion within Rhema. So I do not think this strays from the article at all. It is a valid use of "the word logos" that needs to be explored. So why the stray dog flag? History2007 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

LOGIC	ARISTOTLE	GRAMMAR
subject	onoma	noun
predicate	rhema	verb
proposition	logos	sentence

The whole point of the above RfC was the suggestion that the Christianity section here was already too long. I don't object to it, but if a cut has to be made, the Rhema material seems to be the least closely related to the rest of the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the Logos Rhema issue is NOT purely Christian. The article also misses the fact that both Plato and Aristotle used those words together. So if anything that connection must be made also within the Greek section, not ignored. If something has to go, it is the big quote from Justin. History2007 (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Justin as of far wider significance, since he is one of the earliest Christians whose use of Philo and the Stoics is crystal clear, whereas for John 1, any Philonic influence involves some guesswork. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Now what about Plato? By the way, I had the Rhema item as 2 sentences there, you made it a section by itself, now think it is too long. As I said before, the material is in Rhemes and needs 2 sentences in Christian and 2 sentences in Greek section to refer to it. It is really simple. I think you should write the Sufi section like I wrote the Jung section, instead of all this talk-talk. Faust has already agreed to write the NeoPlatonic section. Then we will be in much better shape overall. History2007 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It must IMO be a separate subsection, since it's a substantial topic change from the rest of the Christianity section, which discusses a version of the Philonic Logos where Christ=The Logos. Failing to mark the topic shift is confusing for the reader.

I'm also restoring the POV tag, since the section is IMO taking a stand on one view of the Rhema/Logos question. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

First question: is your IMO considered Logos or Rhema here? There seems to be so much importance attached to it, I just had to ask. As for tags - go for it. It does not cost me anything. I have added the material and the reader can decide. But you still have not addressed the Plato issue, for that may make this talk unnecessary anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos and Plato/Aristotle

Both Plato (c. 428–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) used the terms logos, rhema and onoma. In Plato's usage, a logos (often translatable as a sentence) is a sequence in which verbs are mingled with nouns and every logos must have an onoma and rhema. For Plato, every logos was either true or false and in a logos, names included rhema which denotes actions and onoma a mark set on those who do the actions. Aristotle identified three components as central to the poposition: onoma, rhema and logos. These terms are translated differently depending on the context of the discussion - grammar or logic, as in the table on the right. But it was only in the 12th century that grammarians began to think in terms of units we understand as subject and predicate.

I must confess to doubts about that view of Plato and Aristotle. It certainly contradicts Heidegger's view that Plato (and Aristotle outside Rhetoric) did not use logos in a consistent way. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not like we can call them up and ask. I hear they both use iphones with At&T and the reception is not that consistent. So we just have to decide if those are WP:reliable references. And they sure look like WP:Reliable. History2007 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect those sources are picking up on one particular use of logos among many. It might be good to find some sources specifically about Plato & Aristotle. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? There are other sources also that say the same about Aristotle. I do not see why I have to do that. You can do it. Those ARE WP:Reliable sources and that is good enough. You can do the search if you want. I do not suspecions on the sources, and personal suspicions are not grounds for exclusion. This is getting to be funny. We are complaining about talk and engage in useless talk while the Sufism section is empty. It is better to write that, instead of this. History2007 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is all Greek to me

Is it all Greek to me why there is need for a rewrite hoopla any more. What has happened is:

• I wrote the sections on Jung and Sufism. I wrote roughly the same amount for each as there was for Aristotle, so there is equal opportunity real estate for each of these topics. In fact, another 10 pages can be written on Sufism and it is a pretty interesting approach in itself, but that does not affect this article.

• The Logos/Rhema connection that Alan introduced has a link now and 90% of the page on Rhema was rewritten - was a disaster before. It shows Plato etc. using it along with logos.

• Faust has agreed to write the section on Neoplatonics, so that will happen in a few days I guess.

• I am not sure what needs to go into modern philosophy. Unless there are suggestions as to what should go in, there is no need for void. If someone has suggestions for what should go in, I can write that in less than a day.

I do think the Christian section can shrink by 20%-30% and the long quotes just be moved out. But that is no major work, just major headache discussion on how to shrink it - a waste of time to debate it I think. Then once the Neoplatonic item is written (should take less than a day to write) we should have a reasonably good article with plenty of direct references. It will be Greek to me why there would need to be any hoopla any more. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos and Christianity

Logos and Christianity as a specific topic should NOT be included in this article. Instead, there ought to be a redirect link at the heading. All that is needed on Logos and Christianity within this article is a brief one paragraph mention that concepts surrounding 'logoi' have played a critical role in Christianity historical. A separate page would allow for greater and more specific elucidation of the topic. Furthermore, reducing and redirecting Logos and Christianity would all the original intent of this article to be prominent.

I will delete this section, replace it with a brief summary and redirect in five days, unless there is substantial reason not to proceed. DoNNNald 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is asserted without any backing evidence that the common and most accepted Translation of John 1:1 is false. Quotation of a selected few, of thousands of translations is not sufficient evidence for such a claim. I will edit it to show both POVs. --Mathaytace 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes, not because I dont agree with what you are doing, but because in the process you removed the different translations. I think that in order to establish what is the most accepted translation, we need to include the others and explain why they differ. John Vandenberg 02:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting some of --Mathaytace 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)the translations back, but I want to see that both sides are represented. The last writer, whoever it was, made assertions that are of a minority opinion, with no evidence. --Mathaytace 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Lets leave some of the translations, but insert my more neutral text. Sound fair?

--Mathaytace 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. I've added the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translation back into the list, so readers can see it in context of the other translations. John Vandenberg 05:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added an explanation of the reason for differing translation. There is no proof of "minority" opinion. I have removed bias adjectives in favor of neutral adjectives.

The text above me is unsigned, and of a different author. The current version is slanted toward the alternate translation. I have removed references to biblical texts concerning the equality/inferiority of Jesus, as they are irrelevant. I cleaned up the language of the Traditional section, removing words that cast unnecessary doubt on the interpretation. The Alternate version of the text is argued for, rather than offered as a possiblility. I have added a neutrality tag for this reason. This is obviously a work in progress.

--Mathaytace 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on whether Logos is God or a god should be a lot shorter. It should say that traditiionally Logos has been identified as God, that more recent translations sometimes identify Logos as a god, and why. There's a page devoted to John 1:1 where the rest of the details would be welcome. Jonathan Tweet 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Mr. Tweet. I edited the post so that the part in contention gives two short blurbs of equal weight, with no support for either position. The Deeper translation issues really should be addressed in John 1:1 article. Thank you for your clarifying opinion Mr. Tweet.

--Mathaytace 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathaytace, before removing large slabs of text, allow some discussion to occur first. I dont agree with this section being summed up in two short blurbs at present. The meaning of this passage underpins major theological debates of what Logos is in terms of the various Christian faiths, so it is not to be glossed over.

I would be happy to see the translations move over to John 1:1 as Jonathan has suggested, and Jesus the Logos and Christology are possibly an appropriate place to discuss the finer details of this subject, but I would expect that the section on this article would be a good summary of those two articles. John Vandenberg 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion. I don't like to see information lost. It should be moved to John 1:1 before being deleted, and I'd rather see it summarized in any event. Jonathan Tweet 03:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as it stands, the text of the article is biased towards the "a god" translation of the text.

I still think it reads as biased towards the "a god" wording (which is more uncommon in the English language). The section on John 1v1 needs to be cleared up to show NPOV - i.e. it should describe the facts, and let the reader decide their point of view (and stop after it says that without a definite article it *might* be rendered as "a god" or as "god". Spuddddddd - 17Dec09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My goal is to remove the bias. --Mathaytace 12:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You can satisfy that goal without eliminating useful information. First, transfer the information to John 1:1 if it's not already there. Then summarize it here instead of just deleting it. Jonathan Tweet 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mathaytace, removing information is rarely the solution to fixing a bias. A bias is best corrected by adding higher quality information; the best quality POV will shine through to an educated reader when both are given the appropriate amount of space. In this case, translation A is used in commonly used bible translations, while Translation B is used by obscure translations. Anyone who already sits in camp A will discard the camp B translation, and the same goes for the varied sets of people that prefer Translation B. Anyone who doesnt know what camp they prefer is unlikely to be reading this article to work out what camp they sit in; they will be predominately be reading this for academic reasons, and will probably be agnostic or atheistic. We have a duty to present all points of view in an academic manner. If you want to write a bible study that presents a specific POV, Wikibooks: Bible Studies is the place to go. John Vandenberg 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case I think this is incorrect. The bias comes from the selection and presentation of information. The "Translation A" and "Translation B" section presents a bias as it is trying to present the obscure translations on an equal footing as the common translations. The selection of an equal number in each column gives the false impression that both approaches to the translation are roughly equally represented in Bible translations. If you want to correct the bias by adding information, the translations of all equally obscure translations would need to be added, which would result in the page becoming so ridiculously long as to be inaccessible to dial-up users. Moreover, I think there is very little information there that is not already in the text. In this case removing information would not only lessen the bias, but it would make the section more consice, and closer to the length it should be.68.39.154.196 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the section entitled "Use in Christianity" is entirely off topic and should rather be placed in a section titled, perhaps, "non-Trinitarian views of John 1:1" and probably not in this article at all. This article is "about logos (logoi) in ancient Greek philosophy, mathematics, rhetoric, and Christianity" and not about the Divinity of Christ, which is what the editor of this section is apparently trying to argue here. If discussion of interpretations of John 1:1 belongs a "Use in Christianity" section of this article, then its use in Christianity is what should be discussed and, historically, the Logos has been "use[d by] Christianity" to mean Jesus is one with God. Now, if someone wants to add a section titled something like "Uses of the Word Logos and Interpretation of John 1:1 that most Christians Throughtout History Would Consider Heretical", then fine by me. They can write whole sections on how non-Trinitarian views of John 1:1 were discussed and rejected by the church hundreds of years ago and have continued to be throughout its history. They could also throw in that a belief in the divinity of Christ has historically been considered a prerequesite for calling oneself a Christian.

Also, the statement "Christians who profess belief in the Trinity often consider this to be a central text in their belief that Jesus is the Divine Son of God. Usually in connection with the idea that God and Jesus are equals." is both poor gramar and patently false. It should be, in fact, so obviously false to anyone theologically educated enough to be posting here that it causes one to wonder if it wasn't written to be purposefully misleading to the uninformed. "Christians who prefess belief in the Trinity" do not believe that "God and Jesus are equals," they believe that God and Jesus are one, or, to quote the Nicene Creed, that Jesus is "very God of very God." Jsminch 23:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is very badly written. There are a number of sentence fragments dangling around, there don't appear to be topic sentences at the beginning of paragraphs, placement of the paragraphs themselves seems pretty random; In general, this is difficult reading. Have any of you actually tried to read this section beginning to end recently? Some examples:

• "Usually in connection with the idea that God and Jesu* s are equals." - This isn't a complete sentence.
• "Other scholars, however, disagree with this translation and the subsequent interpretation of the text." - Is this any way to begin a paragraph?
• "The literal Greek text reads: “In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word.”" - Again, a bizarre way to begin a paragraph. At this point it becomes religiously technical in a way that I have a difficult time understanding. You never really adequately explain that we're talking about translation issues, so when you begin to discuss details of translation, it's very difficult to follow.
• "Additionally, the word for "god' in it's second occurence is significantly without the definite article "the". " - This has a misspelling and it's using the incorrect form of the word "its."

There are more (probably many more) problems than these. I stopped reading because it was making my brain hurt. Generally speaking, this whole section feels way too long to be on topic, and way too random and technical to be in anyway useful. Couldn't you just say that there are translation details pertaining to the use of this word that are significant to christians, broadly explain the significance and point interested parties to another page with more information? And if you take me up on that recommendation, perhaps you should proof-read the new page?

oh dear, this paragraph is really bad. Most of it seems to be original research completely innocent of knowledge of Greek. You cannot simply equate Greek ho with English the, this leads to completely false conclusions. Less OR and more quoting of sources please. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See Entry #5 on John 1:1 for in depth discussion of possible translation options for John 1:1. Fwnid 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The author(s) of this section obviously has an agenda. His/her translation of John 1 is not backed up by honest Biblical research. In addition, refering to the Word as "a god" contradicts the rest of the Bible. If John had been promoting polytheism or paganism, the Gospel of John would have never been included as part of scriptures. This interpretation of Logos as it pertains to Christianity is unacceptable. This article is not the appropriate forum for a Wiki contributor to argue that he/she knows more about ancient Greek and Christian dogma than centuries worth of published and accredited Christian scholars. - RW 05/19/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.215 (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 The part about Justin Martyr uses some of his words about seeing Jesus as an "angel" "in second place to God," but it leaves the
impression Martyr considered Jesus/Logos as a separate lesser created being, which doesn't jibe with the writings of Martyr about
Logos and holy spirit, which he gave as in the third position, I have below (I've never edited before--sorry about the formatting):

 Justin Martyr, in "First Apology," chap.63, interpreted Jesus to be the theophany (God appearing as an angel)--the angel of the
Lord who appeared to Moses.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany
 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

 "We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off,
which would diminish the word in us when we utter it.  We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another.  It is not
diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was." ("Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew," chap.61)

 "Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of

the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." ("The First
Apology of Justin," chap.13)

 "But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who 

follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore." ("First Apology," 6)

"Worship God alone."  "Whence to God alone we render worship." ("First Apology," 16 and 17)--Glen1ster (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Queston: The entry currently says the concept of logos spermatikos is NOT related to use of the word logos in the Gospel of John. I think that must need some clarification, and I can't understand how that can be true. The way John uses logos is to claim that Jesus is the generating principle and order of the universe. Isn't that the same usage as logos spermatikos? If not, then what is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.4.41 (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

logic

I removed the bold part of this sentence: "In English, logos is the root of "logic," and of the "-logy" suffix (e.g., geology)"

The reference used to support both claims is http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O27-logy.html Oxford Dictionary definition and while thi supports the later's origin it does not support the former's origin. The link to Wikitionary in the first para for logos goes to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82 which gives the etymology as "I say" whereas for Logic the Wikitionary in the first para goes to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE ehre the definition is uncountable. These are two alliterative words with different definitions. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Etimology

There is some confusion in the etymology in the article.

(in greek: λόγος) derives from the greek λέγειν (léghein) which means "to bind" or "to relate" or "to hold together", "to make order" as the italian/latin “legare” for example (the root indeed is Indo-European). It could also intended as “to sort” or better "to categorize" as computational process. The meaning “word” is a consequence of this. The others means are subsequent. Sorry for english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.74.24 (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing "meaning" of logos in this article is that logos actually means meaning

This would imply all parts of the mind, not just the mathematical function of the executive function (which is actually rather weak compared so, say, the oldest calculating machines -- sorry, human robots!) Rationality is a Latin invention possibly to describe "business logic," which is notoriously devoid of any kind of moral logic, or emotional intelligence (the center part of the brain where rationalists are typically missing mirror cells). From this "deduction," I think the best future for this page is blanking.--John Bessa (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Stoic Logos

The quote about the Stoics' use of Logos Spermatikos cited here conflicts with Vivien Law's account of their use of Logos in The History of Linguistics in Europe From Plato to 1600, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp 38-42. Not only does she not mention Logos spermatikos, she notes that we have no primary sources for the Stoics' views on language and the secondary sources are questionable. Her view is that the stoics departed from the Aristotelian model of Onoma-Rhema-Logos and saw it simply as 'meaningful sound', a subset of 'lexis' (writable sound) which, in turn, she says they saw as a subset of 'phone' (all sounds). As it stands, therefore, the article is biased. 109.145.194.227 (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Log (as in record) comes from logos???

In the intro: "In English, the word is the root of "log" (as in record)"

I can't find any reference for this. Every reference for log gives Middle English logge (wood cut from tree) as its root and the use as record derives from a log used to measure the speed of a vessel and the logbook recording these measures. Barring a proper reference, I think this phrase is fanciful and should be removed from the article. Michael Daly 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes. Surely the record sense of "log" is a cognate via Germanic languages of "to lay" and "to lie", which are legen and liegen in modern German. The difference between standing timber and logs is that logs lie (and, effectively, have been laid by humans or the weather) horizontally (usually on the ground). The "ship's log" is a book that records (inter alia, but crucially) data derived from the rate at which the log (a chunk of wood, presumably not actually a large portion of a mature tree's trunk, but something easily heaved by a single sailor) gradually pulls out a line (rope) after being tossed over the stern of the ship. (More specifically, the line has knots tied in it at multiples of a standard length, and the knots are counted as they are pulled past the rail. You stop counting when a standardized sand glass, turned over as the wood is tossed, has emptied, and the velocity of the ship, expressed as is traditional in knots, is the same as the final knot count.)
   The logbook article probably already says that (and certainly should), but my wording here is specialized for keeping the real etymological history from sounding as contrived as the mistaken (and presumably now 7+ years deprecated) "logos"-based etymology in fact is.
--Jerzy•t 20:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

John 1 Confounder Found

In the entire section after Philo, not limiting to the Christian or Neo-Platonic "demiurge" general meaning, there is a clear explanation for the difference between "God the Cause" and "Logos the Creator" - and it answers the John 1 conundrum as well. I cannot write this up as it is dependent upon research in dimensionality that I am just now publishing, moving from abandoned sites to 49Miracles.com, which is believe it or not, a commercial philosophy site. So the simple explanation is that the Logos is a later manifestation of causation within a layered Quantum Dimensionality. And I can even get very specific about the Logos, that it would represent the manifestation of the quantum entanglement caused by the presence of literally words. Though slightly indefinite about God, who is ultimately the time-transcendent bridge between future-present-past, hence is the source of teleological purpose, which the Logos must carry out, in the form of continuous Time Paradox. By this interpretation, Paradox is a manifestation of a combination of Schrodinger's Cat and the Conservation law of Thermodynamics, generalized into an interwoven (not literal) parallel universe system, based on interaction of creative threads. Anyway, I hope you are entertained, and if you have any q's, a's, or doubts in the equation -- hook me up. P.S. I reserve the right to claim this as an original interpretation - credit where credit is due, as it is the conclusion of more than a decade of specialized work (author name Ion-Christopher.) Many Thanks. Xgenei (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Logos = Reason or Purpose

I believe in the above, stating that Logos = Ratio (reason or purpose). I think that in John Logos means reason or purpose.

Sections from the main article with what I think they should say:

"In the beginning was the purpose [Logos], and the purpose [Logos] was with God, and the purpose [Logos] was God." (KJV with logos translated to purpose). Perhaps in our English the last clause should be “and the purpose was God's”.

From main article: "John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14)."

This quote should be:

"the purpose [Logos] became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14).

I think this makes sense. That is that God had purposed to have the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (v.14) from the beginning (v.2). And that God had this purpose with the earth (the reason the earth was created) with Him at all times (v.1) (Not that the Lord Jesus Christ pre-existed with God the Father). And that this was God the Fathers purpose (v.1).

I know some religions believe that this is what John means in his writing. Should this go into the main article?

Perhaps this goes deeper than this. This might be referring to God's purpose to have us all as sons and daughters of God and for God to be our Father (2Cr 6:18), which is possible through the Lord Jesus Christ.

• This is definitely interesting. Ianus Maximus 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The article correctly distinguishes logos from lexis. Lexis does mean word, but logos does not. Logos essentially means reason or reasoning based on a premise. It also means argument. It also means speech, as speech is normally reasonable and is based on premises. There are not different words for reasoning, arguing and speech in Greek. The article tries to define use over time, but to my mind, when reading the Greek texts references are being made to, the meaning is always the same. I cannot see any change in use over time or depending on the context. In English we try to differentiate between speech and other forms of reasoning (maybe mathematical logic), and maybe there is a feeling that an argument is a different thing than reasoning but actually the perceived differences relate mostly to how these words tend to be used in the English language, even though in essence they are synonyms. The translation: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, requires a new definition for Word, otherwise it does not make much sense. The Greek meaning would be: "in the beginning there was Reason (Speech) and Reason (Speech) was unto God and God was Reason (Speech)". John the Apostle uses logos to say that the Son that was Reason (Speech) became flesh to dwell among us. Skamnelis (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Logos was the Faculty of Reason?

The article says, "By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason...." This contradicts the judgment of at least two great scholars of ancient Greek: James Adam (The Republic of Plato, 2nd edition by D.A. Rees, vol. 2, p. 70) and John Burnet (Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito, p. 188). (In support of his claim that logos "is not the faculty of reason", Adam cites an article titled "Vernunft" ("Reason") by Friedrich Schleiermacher.) According to Adam and Burnet, logos in Plato always means speech, statement, argument, account, explanation, principle, rule. Isokrates 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In his The Ethics of Aristotle (1900), Burnet says, "The word [logos] is never used in Plato or Aristotle in the sense of Reason [i.e., faculty of Reason], though [logon echein] may be translated 'to have a reason' or, in that sense, 'to be rational' " (p. 488, Burnet's emphasis). This, he thought, was true of "ordinary Greek" in general (see his p. 35).Isokrates 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Burnet did not have a very good command of Greek. Perhaps an example can be given of what he had in mind. It is unimaginable that logos meant anything other than reason in Plato and Aristotle. Skamnelis (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Logos re-understood from post-positivistic semiotic/linguistic

Ugh. that title-thing I just wrote could give a person hives.

This is what I am trying to get at, however. We (at least most of us, in the Western world--by philosophical reckoning--from about 1850 until the later 1900s, or even now) have been steeped in the tradition of language as representative and correlational. This refers to the way we have tended to see words as "only" words which are separate from, and independent of, the "real" concepts, ideas or things to which they point.

Many postmoderns (or pick your favorite "post-") have followed from the work of folks such as Derrida, in suggesting that there is nothing "mere" about language; that it is at least as much a component of what we know as "reality" than are other "things".

This is important because it brings new light into what has been a problematic text: "In the beginning was the Word (logos). . ." Many theologians have worked around this mystery (how can God be "word") by expanding the meaning of "word" or by moving it into some arena of particular meaning. To many this has been unsatisfactory; it is difficult to comprehend why these few verses would be delivered in a voice so very different from the rest of the book of John.

But what if we were to accept the possibility that the Scriptures were inspired? What if they were written/revised/spoken/rewritten so that they had meaning for the present audience, but also would speak to readers from different times and places? This is not such a large step to take if one accepts, as has the majority of the Christian Church from the beginning until now, that there is a God and that this God is omniscient and not bound by time.

Wittgenstein in particular might be illuminating. Here is a paragraph from the Wikipedia article: __start quote___ On Wittgenstein's account, language is inextricably woven into the fabric of life, and as part of that fabric it works unproblematically. Philosophical problems arise, on this account, when language is forced from its proper home and into a metaphysical environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks have been deliberately removed. Removed for what appear to be sound philosophical reasons, but which are, for Wittgenstein, the very source of the problem. Wittgenstein describes this metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice; where the conditions are apparently perfect for a philosophically and logically perfect language (the language of the Tractatus), where all philosophical problems can be solved without the confusing and muddying effects of everyday contexts; but where, just because of the lack of friction, language can in fact do no actual work at all. There is much talk in the Investigations, then, of “idle wheels” and language being “on holiday” or a mere "ornament", all of which are used to express the idea of what is lacking in philosophical contexts. To resolve the problems encountered there, Wittgenstein argues that philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the “rough ground” of ordinary language in use; that is, philosophers must “bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use.”

_____end quote_____

Especially if we simplify a bit to capture the main thrust, something like "On Wittgenstein's account, language is inextricably woven into the fabric of life, and as part of that fabric it works unproblematically. Philosophical problems arise. . .when language is forced from its proper home and into a metaphysical environment. . .. Wittgenstein argues that . . . philosphers must "bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use."

Now the reference to God as "the Word" assumes a strikingly new tone. This is, by the way, a tone that fits more easily with the rest of John's gospel than does the disembodied theological referent. John, the apostle "whom Jesus loved" gives us a gospel that is more 'human' than the synoptics.

What a way to speak to us about the incarnation--the embodiment of God into human flesh.

I completely understand that this is probably not a meaning that the original hearers (probably speaking Aramaic, not Greek) would grasp in the same way as a postmodern might. Yet if we remember the striking account of Acts 14:

When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they yelled out in the language of Lycaonia, "The gods have turned into humans and have come down to us!" The people then gave Barnabas the name Zeus, and they gave Paul the name Hermes, because he did the talking. The temple of Zeus was near the entrance to the city. Its priest and the crowds wanted to offer a sacrifice to Barnabas and Paul. So the priest brought some bulls and flowers to the city gates. (Acts 14:11-13 Contemporary English Version)

All is to say that the audience witnessing the event, as well as the audience later reading the account after the Gospel of John had been written, would have no problem with the idea that the gods might descend from the heavens and walk around, interacting with ordinary people. Note that the priests of the temple of Zeus apparently believed it.

So if it makes sense to frame "Logos" as "the Word" (rather than as logic or concept or ...) in both the original and present situations, perhaps we don't need to work so hard at bringing in an enlightenment-era account. Though it certainly would not have been heard the same way by a First Century and Twentieth Century audience, the word works in both cases.

I realize that this is not the place for new theories or speculations. However, I would be completely surprised if this were new--I believe it likely that this point has been covered by theologians of the last few decades.

I include it because the things that were included (Tao, mathematics, etc.) seemed way farther afield than a reading of the text with rather ordinary meanings. And it just might be that Wittgenstein understood this, though I have not run across any Wittgensteinian theology. After all, he was known as "the Gospel man" for handing out copies in the war.

Also, I do understand this is much longer than usual, but it is a rather complex idea. It is because of this that I thought it better to post here than directly to the article. This isn't a campaign, I don't have much at stake whether it gets included or not. It does, however, seem to me to meet the basic criteria for a reasoned argument, and seems much more plausible than many. . .

Roy 04:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If one reads the initial definition of the term on this page, "Logos" has already been surrendered to semiology on this page. I came here in hopes of introducing the concept of classical "Logos" as it is opposed to "Chaos" that preceded it in the Greek cosmological sense. One does not have to subscribe to this idea to preserve it, yet the definition offered to any casual Wiki reader reduces "Logos" to a mere facet of linguistics.

Sad, really. If one wants to understand modern linguistics, one has to have the idea of "western" start somewhere - Logos is a good place. If one wants to put forward Derrida's idea of "false binary oppositions" being endemic to western thinking, it would be helpful to understand "logos" vs. "chaos" unmolested by reductionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.221.147 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Logos Critique

I analyzed the Logos article for my critique. One question was, "Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?" After going through the article, I would have to say yes, the majority, if not all facts, are referenced with an appropriate and strong reference. Besides checking each fact, another way to prove this is to look at the extensive reference list at the end of the article. Another question is, "Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?" After looking at some of the facts, as well as clicking and viewing citations associated with them, I conclude that the majority of the links work. Although my review was brief, most of the article did not appear to be plagiarized. Most information was presented in a different, unique matter, and the majority of quotes were very brief. This article on Logos is an example of what an article on Wikipedia should be. Ckid199 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Logos Article Critique

Question one is, "Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?" This page has many sources from a long time ago but in this case that can be okay because the historical context and the accepted history of this has not changed. Along with the older sources, there are many new ones from the past few years. To answer the question, no, the information is not out of date and nothing about the topic seems to be missing. Question two is, "Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?" I went to the bottom of the page and checked a few of the citations and there links and the ones I clicked on, the links did work. When reading through the article I did not find any close papraphrasing or plagiarism, I assume that it would be remove quickly so that is why I did not find any. Alexdh9 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick review of Logos

I'm reviewing this article for a WikiEducation assignment. This article seems to use neutral language throughout and includes many solid references. After skimming through a few other comments on this article, I would agree that some of the information in the Christianity section would be more appropriately located in John 1:1, namely, the discussion of different translations in the section "God" or "a god". That being said, I think it is a well-balanced article and I found it very informative. oadugmore (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Logos is logic" Tautology

In the first paragraph:

"Logos is the logic behind an argument." "Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence."

The first sentence is especially unhelpful. Something more substantial should be placed here. "Logos is the method, order, and presentation of an argument."

The second one just needs the logical clipped.

And the source is tripod page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.136.201 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Logos = Ratio

I believe that logos means fraction or ratio in Greek math. That's why logarithms are called logarithms: logos-arithmos = ratio-number. Logarithms can be used to measure ratios, e.g. at a logarithmic axis.

The several meanings of Greek logos and Latin ratio seem to connect nicely. We have logos = ratio = fraction. Since proportions can be expressed as fractions, like two-to-three, 2::3, 2:3 or 2/3, we also have the meaning proportion. Being able to see things in their proper proportions has to do with being sensible, rational, knowing (rhyme and) reason. But rationality deals with that which can be verbalised, hence with words.

In math, rational numbers are numbers that can be written as fractions, describing those proportions the Greeks would call commensurable (actually, that's the latinised word; what's the Greek???), where as irrational numbers are those that cannot be written as fractions, realted to incommensurable proportions (abhorred by the Pythagoreans).

Now, I don't really know this stuff, but if it's not too contrived, someone else can perhaps incorporate some of it into the article. --Niels Ø 17:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC), rev. --Niels Ø 07:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Me again: If the above is correct (and no-one has denied it here!), I think ratio should go into the list of "similar concepts" in the article, but being no expert and having no sources, I will not do it myself.--Niels Ø 20:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Since ratio = proportion (mathematics), i'm linking one of the definitions of logos, "proportion" to "Proportionality (mathematics)" Onionmon 20:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Intuitively or otherwise Neils is spot on. What is missing from this article is the meaning of Logos that is so important to the history of the formal sciences at least to Kepler, viz., the Pythagorean meaning that was exulted in Platonism. The two words are logos and ana-logia. logos was translated by Boethius as ratio and analogia as proportion. All rational numbers are logos. Irrationals are a-logos and 1, 2, 4, 8 is an analogia. In Pythagorean Platonism the emanation of creation is by analogia, an analogia of the binary one and not-one. From middle Platonism this eventual emerges in Proclus. I am happy to collaborate to fill this big whole at the centre of this article Bernie Lewin 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick update, seeing as I have some level of knowledge, and the proper resources, I will get to work on writing a "logos in mathematics" section. Cineloeb (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logos. 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/20100114230348/http://innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/sgat.htm to http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/sgat.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314133944/http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/mnt.htm to http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/mnt.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As much use as a chocolate teapot...

I came here looking to contrast Logos with Pathos and Ethos. Are these other words mentioned anywhere in the first paragraph? No. In fact it seems to be a bit of a quasi-religious mess; not quite what I was expecting. So off to the talk page I go, where with growing dismay unrolls one of the messiest pedantic bunfights I've ever had the misery to read.

As unbiased encyclopaedists, somewhere in the first paragraph we should insist that this article states: it is considered one of the three modes of persuasion, alongside ethos and pathos. This is self-evident. But I ain't gonna add any such text; it would be reverted within milliseconds by the weird religious or otherwise nit-picking hijackers that have already rendered the opening of what should be a fine article as an almost unintelligible mess.

Yuck. Funny how the pages for Pathos and Ethos seem much more digestible... Blitterbug 08:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

In case you at all still care after all these years, Blitterbug, I have recently been cleaning up this article and included your suggested addition in the second paragraph of the lead, which surprisingly was still missing from the lead even despite the existence of Logos § Aristotle's rhetorical logos. It appears that "the weird religious or otherwise nit-picking hijackers" have disappeared, too. Regardless, I just wanted to inform you of this, if only so that you know that your concerns were not forgotten—that is, discounting the over five years they apparently were. Have a great rest of the day / night. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nøkkenbuer! Blitterbug 08:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Heraclitus II

Footnotes placed in this section's discussion should be sought at the end of the section. (However, the second half-dozen of the footnotes used to appear at the bottom of the page, and re-occurrence of that phenomenon cannot be ruled out!)
--Jerzy•t 02:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add to this section somewhat: For Heraclitus logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.

The total would become:

The writing of Heraclitus was the first place where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy. Although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way it was used in ordinary Greek of his time. For Heraclitus logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.

The rest seems to be an introduction to quotes. I would like to change it to the following:

An independent existence of a universal logos is already suggested:

"This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (Diels-Kranz 22B1)"

"For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (Diels-Kranz 22B2)"

"Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one. (Diels-Kranz 22B50)"

What does everybody else think?

Note: The layout stinks...It'll be alright on the real page.

--Faust (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I Think you are right that the section needs help. It is not a "quote farm" but a mini-quote farm. It would be best to add text, and have a better quote to "real explanation" ratio. I would suggest even adding more text. Also page numbers and author names in the references will be essential. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

An instance of {{Reflist}} was placed at this point, but (perhaps for lack of intervening blank space that might have encouraged further contrib'ors in the same talk section to put their ref-bearing comments above it) there are more refs at bottom of page, for comments added lower on the page. I am moving that {{Reflist}}to the end of this section, preceded by some blank space, so (for now at least).
--Jerzy•t 23:49, 11 and 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, do you want to drop the quotations? It seems I should not jump in and work on too much at the same time, so my idea was to add just the one line for now. By the way, I noticed I misunderstood your work concerning logos in neoplatonism at your talk page as well, sorry. I will fix it one of these days (this evening, tomorrow, the day after or so). Apologies! --Faust (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not drop all the quotes, but add text to balance the 90% quote 10% explanation issue. Feel free to add text. I just added the NeoPlat items we did together, so I think the various topics are covered now, and if you add 4 or 5 sentences to Heraclitus it will be good to balance it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I've got:

The writing of Heraclitus was the first place where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy. Although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way it was used in ordinary Greek of his time. For Heraclitus logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure. Heraclitus stresses that man do not and will never understand logos, which is always present. What logos means here is controversial though. Many assume that it means reason in the sense of an objective cosmic law. Logos would mean 'wise fire' or 'the one wise'. Others maintain that logos is used here as no more than 'elaboration' or 'explanation'. However, an independent existence of a universal logos is already suggested:

"This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (Diels-Kranz 22B1)"

"For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (Diels-Kranz 22B2)"

"Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one. (Diels-Kranz 22B50)"

Sorry, forgot the sig.

--Faust (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added what you had with minor touch up. By the way: "Heraclitus stressed that man can not, and will never, understand logos which is always present" was also suggested by Carl Jung! I do not have the exact reference for that now, but Jung suggested that the subconscious would move in ways that would result in what Heraclitus said. Of course, neither has scientific proof for their statements, but would be fun to find the Jung quote and relate the two. Jung was a master of "re-packaging". History2007 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I love what you did with it. By the way: I did mention the Heraclitus quote, but not literally. That seemed immoral to me. I'll leave something on your talk page. Then you can see what you want to do with it. --Faust (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If Herac wrote what teh handbook said, I see no problem with the quote. History2007 (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Left it at your talk page as you have seen. --Faust (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I think we should consider translating logos as "objective reality". BTW, terrific quotes selection. I spent last few days bitching about most people being utterly incapable of grasping that very concept. And the 3d quote Jesus alluded to a few times... or rather repeated in his own words (given that the objective reality is God): "The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.", John 14:10 Yuri Zavorotny (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(Please be aware that several refs appear more than once in the following list, due to neglect of the mechanism that in articles usually prevents that.)--Jerzy•t 02:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Latin congnates and λέγειν not λέγω

Perhaps a linguist or Latin scholar, could confirm Latin lex as a cognate of Greek logos which, if I understand the word correctly, conveys the meaning of law (also principle, rule). Then the same expert could establish the word's relation with Latin ratio which affords two of the meanings of logos mentioned in the introduction, that of reason and proportion. The wikipedia article on Ratio points out this connection between the words ratio and logos which is absent from this article. The essential meanings mentioned in the introduction are reason (in the meaning of lex but also of ratio), reasoned discourse (in the sense of verbum) and proportion (in the sense of ratio). From reason we can derive the meanings of cause, purpose, "natural" law, etc. From reasoned discourse can be derived the meanings of argument and speech. I am less sure about some of the other meanings included, particularly those of "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word". Perhaps some examples could illustrate how these other meanings are also afforded by logos. Logos certainly does not mean "word" in Greek but can be translated into Latin as verbum (discourse), which also has the meaning of "word" in Latin (but not in Greek). However verbum lacks the other meanings better conveyed by lex and ratio. Aristotle uses the word logos primarily with the meaning of reason anywhere where he uses the word casually. I might add somewhat pedantically that the Greek verb referred to in the first line is λέγειν (infinitive) not λέγω (that is only the first person of the present tense in the indicative of the active voice). Skamnelis (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Purdue Online Writing Lab: undue and potential copyright violation

This edit by Edunoramus introduced a literal quote from the Purdue Online Writing Lab (an Online Writing Lab at Purdue University) in the second paragraph of the lead. This contravenes multiple policies: WP:UNDUE (where available, Wikipedia uses monographs, journal papers and reference works published by expert scholars, not the creators of writing aid websites: the latter are indeed insignificant), WP:LEAD (the lead summarizes info already in the body of the article), and WP:COPYVIO (we paraphrase what reliable sources say, we do not copy-paste it: literal quotes are only to illustrate something already explained). I don't have time to deal with this now, so I'm hoping some other editor will pick this up. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm delighted that we can have this conversation on the talk page. In fact, I'd like to briefly explain why I think this contribution in the lede of the article is important-- significantly, I think this article lede does not adequately offer a "concise overview of the article's topic" in keeping with [Manual of Style] If you look at the history of the page and the extensive arguments and reviews that occurred over ten years ago, you will find contributions by me, Edunoramus, and you will see that there has been a very long history by those with enthusiasm and passion for the topic of Logos_(Christianity) controlling the topic of Logos. Quite simply, this is a war over meaning, see also the topic of [essentially contested concept]. Logos is a term used in rhetoric and philosophy; and, there is a page for Logos in Christianity-- feel free to work this over there. In the meantime, I believe that,(as has been said on the previous talk pages), this entire article needs a revision. We should work on a full page revision immediately; this has gone on too long. Logos needs to connect to rhetoric here, as Logos in Christianity has its own page. BTW-- in terms of the suggestion above pertaining to WP:LEAD (that "the lead summarizes info already in the body of the article", where is it in the body of the article?), and WP:COPYVIO (we could paraphrase, however, this quote is substantive and clear and sets the tone for the changes that need to be made in terms of linking Logos to the broader study of rhetoric, which is not currently even properly summarized in this entry. Edunoramus (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not persuaded by this, specifically not that the resource you supplied is adequate as a source for the change you are proposing. The Purdue writing resource "connects" to rhetoric essentially by observing it to be a concept in parallel with ethos and pathos. We do connect to philosophy via Heraclitus and Zeno; we could mentions Chrysippus here too. The Christian gospels were written by scribes who were schooled in Greco-Roman rhetoric, which seems the obvious reason for the appearance of the term in John. The term in Christian context continues to have a rhetorical and philosophical dimension. My subjective sense of Heraclitus is that he deployed the concept in an argument among the pre-Socratics that can be seen to be proto-theological in nature.

I'd like to see you share a bit more detail of your plans before you dive in with a big restructuring. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sure. Let's dig into this a bit more. As you said, "The Christian gospels were written by scribes who were schooled in Greco-Roman rhetoric, which seems the obvious reason for the appearance of the term in John. The term in Christian context continues to have a rhetorical and philosophical dimension." My question-- Is Logos intended to be about the rhetorical and philosophical or the Christian contexts of the term and if so, what is the function of the Logos_(Christianity) entry? What are the differences? We need to parse the differences here, then proceed with an update. Logos is a complex term and I believe the complexity (in relationship to the various meanings of the terms) needs to be clarified and reflected here. Edunoramus (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also, as a side note, Logos (disambiguation) is weakly structured and confusing. Logos and Logos (disambiguation) could be strengthened by limiting the forks and providing a well-organized and well-balanced orienting page for Logos in all its various forms (eg. philosophy, analytical psychology (Jung, etc.), rhetoric, and religion to include both Christianity and Islam). Edunoramus (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Edunoramus, are you proposing a merge of Logos_(Christianity) into this article? This might be a good idea, but we have a protocol for discussing moves of this complexity: see WP:RM. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdemattos, Oadugmore, Jihobae. Peer reviewers: ThomasSolis, Oadugmore, Jihobae.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am curious about the bot-generated message above suggesting that Logos has been assigned as a 2022 Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, then, it points to a 2016 course. If this, in fact, is managed by a real and active English 110 course at Cal Poly Pomona, then it is important to connect to the correct Wiki_Ed resource. Perhaps, an update of the Wiki_Ed online resource for the course is in the works? Edunoramus (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Noted: no response, no action on above. Edunoramus (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Fire of knowledge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fire of knowledge and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 24#Fire of knowledge until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits on meaning of logos

Recent edits have changed what, for the most part as far as I remember, was correct. I cannot find the previous version that I seem to remember, it was possibly over 2 years ago. I have edited the introduction to agree with the sources of the article because the Perseus article and the wikt link cited were no longer in agreement with the text. The primary meaning of Logos is that of Reason. The other meanings are secondary and some of them ("ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word") do not apply to the use of the word logos in classical antiquity, if at all. They are not in the Perseus source. If anyone knows of examples where the word Logos had those meanings, they can cite them. Skamnelis (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I can help clarify the disagreement and maybe clear up where there may be misunderstandings here.

Summary

"Logos" is a complex term that has been used to refer to a variety of concepts, including "ground," "plea," "opinion," "expectation," and "word." Its meaning has been explored by philosophers and scholars throughout history, and there are many resources available that can shed light on its significance. We aren't going to agree but there are parameters of shared understanding that can be stated, if one is willing.

Definitions of Logos

• The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a comprehensive resource for English-language definitions and usage histories. According to the OED, "logos" can refer to: "a ground, a plea, a reason, a proportion, a ratio; an opinion, a saying, a word; the Word, or Divine Reason, supposed by some Greek philosophers to regulate the Universe."
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is an online resource that provides detailed, peer-reviewed articles on a wide range of philosophical topics. The entry on "Aristotle's Metaphysics" includes a section on "The Meaning of 'Logos'" that explores the various senses in which Aristotle uses the term, including as "word," "reason," and "account."
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) is another online resource that offers articles on philosophical concepts and thinkers. The entry on "Heraclitus" discusses the role of "logos" in the thought of this pre-Socratic philosopher, who saw it as a unifying principle that governs the universe.
• The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is a reference work that provides concise definitions and explanations of key philosophical terms. Its entry on "logos" notes that it can mean "word," "discourse," or "reason," and that it is a central concept in the work of philosophers such as Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle.
• The Encyclopedia Britannica is a general knowledge encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics. Its entry on "logos" provides a historical overview of the term's usage, from its roots in ancient Greek philosophy to its later adoption by Christian theologians.

Edunoramus (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

To advance this conversation a bit more if anyone else is interested in tackling substance over "agenda". The term "logos" is an "Essentially contested concept" that resides at the intersections of fact and metaphysics.

Logos encompasses multifaceted meanings, including reason, logic, discourse, and divine ordering principles. It involves both objective aspects, rooted in rationality and empirical evidence, and subjective elements, intertwined with metaphysical and philosophical considerations.

Daniel Kahneman's work on cognitive biases reveals the challenges of resolving the concept of "logos" as individuals' subjective biases and cognitive processes can influence their interpretations of facts, rationality, and logical reasoning. These biases can hinder objective consensus and contribute to the ongoing debate and contestation surrounding interpreting and understanding the multifaceted concept of "logos."

Edunoramus (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)