Talk:Philosophical anthropology

Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[Untitled] edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article should have some references. - Pernambuco 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article needs to stick to anthropology within philosophy (which it barely begins to do at this point) and not talk about anthropologists who are deeply engaged with philosophy. See the German version for a much better development. 195.37.16.155 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am reverting this article as it has recently been hijacked with some lame revision to Plato and Aristotle. What gives? Let's talk about the aims here. If they are politics revisionist attempts then, we have a problem. 67.247.44.192 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

c'mon now... edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is terrible. There are spelling errors ("philosophycal"). It doesn't even mention Rousseau, who many regard as the forebear of modern Anthropology (e.g. consider the importance Rousseau places on observing other cultures in order to understand ones own and Man more basically), nor does it mention Karl Marx (which is extremely odd considering his notions of 'species being', work and technology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.108.9 (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Uh, what? edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The articles reads "Augustine saw the human being as a perfect unity of two substances: soul and body.[5] He was much closer in this anthropological view to Aristotle than to Plato.[6][7]". First, Augustine was a follower of Plotinus and that does not sound Plotinian. Second, even if we grant him that view, it is not closer to Aristotle than it is to Plato. Aristotle held that the human being, like any animal, is a single substance and that substances may be analyzed into composites of form and matter. There are not two substances, but only conceptual distinctions. It is well known that Augustine represents a Platonic tradition in Christianity while Aquinas represents the Aristotelian, so it boggles the mind how Augustine could possibly be characterized as more Aristotelian in such an essential matter. So please correct this characterization. It is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.213.133.168 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Never commented before, but this same passage made me. This article is a mess. 104.220.12.220 (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic