Edward Ockham
User talk:Peter Damian
This page is a soft redirect.
Welcome to Wikipedia, Edward edit
I'm just a fellow user, not a WP officer; nevertheless, WP bids us to welcome newcomers. For myself I am rather glad to see anyone else at all take an interest in these "being" articles. First things first. After you begin to get the hang of making a contribution you might want to design a user page - it can be simple at first. I'd advise against identifying yourself personally, unless you are a significant author or professor. It doesn't seem to work out too well, but we'd like to see some credentials or background if you have any. Otherwise just put a nice page in there. WP does not require any credentials. If you were a literate chimpanzee that would be fine, as long as your body is warm. I don't mean to discriminate against the lower animals. WP has help but it is often formidable. For a long time I just copied the templates as used by others. Second, you may not want to make major changes before acquiring experience. Third, don't get discouraged. Along with my welcoming I got some advice about what a nut I was and how WP didn;t want any Bible freaks on it. My first article was removed. Not too many are willng to remove my stuff now.
Now, for your request, let me take look. I'm taking a biology break for a while but then I will be back on the "being" articles. I'm sure your input is valuable even if just to underline that someone does not understand something. Without taking a look I don't remember offhand. I will be back shortly. Ciao.Dave (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The "Is", the "Is" edit
Edward! I took a look. Before you get overly frustrated, take a look at Being where I'm addressing the question under rationalism. I have not finished that. Now, I think you will see I left you an "out." What I objected to mainly was 1) Lack of references 2) Too general generalizations to have any meaning to the readers 3) the location. It seems to me this is a specialized topic. What I suggested to you I believe is that you develop the theme and put it back later in the article. I never dreamed anyone would take me up on it but the suggestion stands! In your objection you cite a few philosophers whom you say addressed the question. The question is, I believe, whether "is" is a verbal distinction or at most a verbal/rational distinction or a real distinction as well. My point is, you cannot even consider that question without already having accepted the at least hypothetical reality of the things connected by "is", and what is it that you are debating? Whether a real relationship exists designated by the word "is." It matters not in the slightest whether you use the word "is", the debate is implied just the same. It is like saying "pick up the book", which implies second person, but whether you actually use "you" has no bearing at all. This is why I call it a trivial solution, and none of the metaphysicians I read even bother with it. But- I did leave you an out. If you are really fond of it, develop it, reference it, put it back! All I do with these philosophy articles is fix errors, supply references, fill in gaps. They need a lot of work, Edward. The main key is the references. If you say Avicenna faced this question, reference where he faced it or where someone says he faced it. That is how WP operates, to avoid original contributions. I'm going to finish Being and then Object (philosophy) and Entity and a few others, and also I will be looking more seriously at Existence. What I find more objectionable is the name dropping, the tossing around of the names of philosophers without any indication of why one is using it or what idea the philosopher had that is relevant to the topic. You can list anyone and if we are not stating contexts no one would know the difference. I think I will start dropping Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun as phlilosophers if we are not going to explain what we mean. Well anyway Edward I hope I have taken the sting out of any pique you may feel and that you will take more of an interest in getting philosophy articles better than a grade C (which is low).Dave (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Try reading this first. The question of whether 'exist' is a predicate is central to the subject so I'm bewildered by why you think it isn't. What have you actually read on the subject? (Sorry) Edward Ockham (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I took it to the user page. What subject? What is a predicate? You mean, you want me to give you a reading list of everything I've ever read? Well, I've read a lot of presocratics, a lot of Plato, a lot of Aristotle, some of a good many other philosophers, a lot of texts on metaphysice and epitemology, some Hegel, some Kant, ... but this is sort of pointless it is not? I ask you for references, outline, plans, you ask me for what I have read? Well, I don't accept the dodge. Don't dodge me. I'm not a student you can suppress with demands for futher reading. I asked you for references. While you were considering this you noticed a few other things, so I'm putting those into the general works as well. I don't really care what you do in the article. Your input is as good as anyone's I suppose. I only care if it is comprehensible to the public (and to me) and is supported by references. I challenged and removed per WP policy. What you do now is up to you, not me. If you just put it back I will tag it for references and whatever. That is the major issue. Now that that is out of the way, I'm not really sure what you are asking me - it seems like the whole history of ontology. You mean, is there any such thing as existence? Does existence exist? No, existence does not exist, being exists. Has the existence of existence been an issue? Not in ancient times. What is the nature of existence? It has none. What do we mean by existence? What indeed. That is part of the topic. I would say, it might even be the topic or central to the topic. What has that got to do with grammatical predicates? Do you mean predicables or predicates? I believed and it still seems to me that is true that we are talking about verbal as opposed to real distinctions. True the issue may have been mentioned but is not central to classical metaphysics, which accepts declarative assertions as assertions of being - something is being said to exist or not exist regardless of whether you use "is" or not. I know the idealists and phenomenalists would deny that but I assert they are later. The article in fact omitted about 2500 years of ontology. All this is neither here nor there. If YOU consider it central to the topic and can explain and support what YOU mean then go ahead, rework it and put it back. Decisions such as this are not absolute. Well, Edward, I got other fish to fry too so I might be a little slow on the uptake. I will respond to what you do but you have to act according to your perception; I can't do it for you. I could just go through that article and others and lard them down with templates. You know perfectly well that everything that was said lacked references and was not clear or was wrong, so what's all this? You've been on since 2003. Is that your idea of a good article? I got to go now. I'll be back when I see something definitive to which I can respond. I plan to concentrate on being. I was about to start in on Kant as the representative idealist, where idealism is a late phase of rationalism. I got to work on clades now so I will see you later.Dave (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi - that was rather long. I only asked because some of the things you are saying are pretty strange, and I was wondering if you had any knowledge of the subject. It seems to me that if you haven't heard about the question 'is existence a predicate?', you haven't read much about of the subject at all. I'm assuming you haven't heard about the question, because you ask above whether I mean 'predicate' or 'predicable'. Anyone who knew the first thing about the subject would know that 'predicate' was meant. Google may help [1]. Edward Ockham (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I took it to the user page. What subject? What is a predicate? You mean, you want me to give you a reading list of everything I've ever read? Well, I've read a lot of presocratics, a lot of Plato, a lot of Aristotle, some of a good many other philosophers, a lot of texts on metaphysice and epitemology, some Hegel, some Kant, ... but this is sort of pointless it is not? I ask you for references, outline, plans, you ask me for what I have read? Well, I don't accept the dodge. Don't dodge me. I'm not a student you can suppress with demands for futher reading. I asked you for references. While you were considering this you noticed a few other things, so I'm putting those into the general works as well. I don't really care what you do in the article. Your input is as good as anyone's I suppose. I only care if it is comprehensible to the public (and to me) and is supported by references. I challenged and removed per WP policy. What you do now is up to you, not me. If you just put it back I will tag it for references and whatever. That is the major issue. Now that that is out of the way, I'm not really sure what you are asking me - it seems like the whole history of ontology. You mean, is there any such thing as existence? Does existence exist? No, existence does not exist, being exists. Has the existence of existence been an issue? Not in ancient times. What is the nature of existence? It has none. What do we mean by existence? What indeed. That is part of the topic. I would say, it might even be the topic or central to the topic. What has that got to do with grammatical predicates? Do you mean predicables or predicates? I believed and it still seems to me that is true that we are talking about verbal as opposed to real distinctions. True the issue may have been mentioned but is not central to classical metaphysics, which accepts declarative assertions as assertions of being - something is being said to exist or not exist regardless of whether you use "is" or not. I know the idealists and phenomenalists would deny that but I assert they are later. The article in fact omitted about 2500 years of ontology. All this is neither here nor there. If YOU consider it central to the topic and can explain and support what YOU mean then go ahead, rework it and put it back. Decisions such as this are not absolute. Well, Edward, I got other fish to fry too so I might be a little slow on the uptake. I will respond to what you do but you have to act according to your perception; I can't do it for you. I could just go through that article and others and lard them down with templates. You know perfectly well that everything that was said lacked references and was not clear or was wrong, so what's all this? You've been on since 2003. Is that your idea of a good article? I got to go now. I'll be back when I see something definitive to which I can respond. I plan to concentrate on being. I was about to start in on Kant as the representative idealist, where idealism is a late phase of rationalism. I got to work on clades now so I will see you later.Dave (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)