User talk:WhiteC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkTroll 16:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nicomachean Ethics I[edit]

I removed the “See also” link to arete, because there was already a link in the text. Incidentally, your link was in fact to a disambiguation page; if you look at the code of my message, you'll see how to write the link so that it goes where you want, without messing up the text. Have fun! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I need you to help me here and talk about Arete; please see Talk:Arete (virtue). Thanks.WHEELER 14:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arete (excellence)[edit]

Yes, User White, and you Mel, and myself all agree on Arete (excellence) and I agree to change the links. Is this alright?WHEELER 14:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. WhiteC 20:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

Two articles are up for deletion: one is specific for Classical studies, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos and the other is Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Family/State_paradigm. Can I ask for you help in these matters. Thanks.WHEELER 15:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I seem to be too late in the last case, though the article looks alright to me. WhiteC 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My response to your change of heart.

I can't believe what I am hearing! We are in the midst of building an encyclopaedia. Either I am charged with original research because i put the bare bones out and other Wikipedians charge me alone with having to write a complete and thorough article at the onset or now, they want to delete because, I WHEELER, haven't had the time and the knowhow to put other articles on the encyclopaedia to mesh with vanavsos which is now the supposition and reasoning of WhiteC. This is absolutely outrageous! I am benumbed with consternation at all these floating reasons that have no bearing on the essence of the question! These people don't charge others with "these crimes" only myself and create "rules" that I must abide by but noone else. By WhiteC's argument, "The article must be deleted because it is not linked to any other article's". To WhiteC, this illogicity is glaring, "How are we to build an encyclopaedia when others are going to delete articles because they are not connected to something else?" I am floored by the "reasonings" imagined in order to get this article deleted.WHEELER 18:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Usually when I write an article, I put in links to other articles with similar themes which are related. I suppose that if others disagree and delete the links, it would show that the article wasn't appreciated, regardless of any intrinsic merits it may have.
YOU say that many people are not fully qualified to judge the intrinsic merit of your articles (at least I think that is what you were saying), and ask how it can be fairly judged given the very small number of qualified people. In the face of my not knowing the intrinsic merits of the article (I am not a classics expert, just someone who is currently editing a philosophy article related to classics), links from other articles are the [i]only[/i] fair way I know of to judge such things. If you know of another way, please let me know.
I am truly sorry that I don't know enough about the subject to form a vote any other way here. If it was about virtue, or something related to Aristotle, then I would be able to argue from knowledge about the subject matter. So, if you want only qualified votes for your articles in future, that is what I would be qualified for.
In answer to your last question, the article has (presumably--correct me if I'm wrong) been out there for a while, before someone decided it should be deleted. If not, then I would agree with you that this was very unfair. WhiteC 03:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the yelling. it is already connected to one page and I was going to connect it to the philosophy of mixed government that belonged to the deleted Classical definition of republic.WHEELER 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check it out[edit]

We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands. Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see you are arguing with some people on the discussion page, but it is a very long argument, with lots of bits. Which is the unmitigated disaster part? External links? The use of 'republic' when referring to ancient governments? Or potential deletion or merge with another article? WhiteC 04:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polytonic Greek[edit]

Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to make polytonic Greek look easily legible in the Wiki source — a problem that's shared with a number of other languages — look at any article containing Cyrillic, not to mention Japanese! But polytonic orthography, while redundant for Modern Greek, is essential when quoting the Ancient Greek forms. At least the fairly recent adoption of the Polytonic template makes the characters legible to the reader (even in MS Internet Explorer), and I'm very strongly in favour of the view that in Wikipedia the convenience of the reader should vastly outweigh the convenience of the editors! rossb 04:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to insert polytonic Greek characters is to copy and paste from an existing article. For example the article Polytonic orthography includes a table of upper and lower case characters with various diacritics. You can copy from the article itself rather than the edit page. rossb 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see my comment on User Talk:Ross Burgess#Polytonic Greek. --Macrakis 05:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Epistemology: Idealism[edit]

WhiteC - I'm confused by the change you made to the article epistemology. You changed this sentence:

Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are known to be the case without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements.

To this sentence:

Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), can be parts of systems without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements.

I find the second more confusing and perhaps misleading, but I am only one person. Can you tell me what you were trying to do by making the change? Thanks! --Kzollman 00:54, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found the first sentence to be confusing. What does it mean to say something is "known to be the case"? Does this mean it is "known to be true" or "defined as being true"?. I apologize if my edit wasn't very clear. I meant that pure mathematics (as opposed to applied mathematics) is only analytic because it doesn't refer to the outside world, and is therefore an isolated system (although idealists may disagree).
Perhaps I was taking the paragraph out of context. I forgot it was about the idealist POV. I have very little sympathy for idealism myself, but I wasn't trying to redefine it. WhiteC 06:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me either, but the general claim of idealists, as I understand it, is that we can know mathematical truths, and not that they are defined to be true. Perhaps refraising the first paragraph to say "known to be true" which (for most philosophers) is synonymous with "known to be the case" would solve for your concerns, no? Kant would say that euclidean geometry is true about the world and also known without experience and so I'm worried that your paragraph might mislead readers. Although, I'm inclined to agree with your characterization I think the first paragraph might be better. --Kzollman 07:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that your original is better than mine. I think "known to be true" is clearer than "known to be the case", but apart from that, I have no problems with reverting it. Sorry for causing confusion there. WhiteC 07:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I changed it back w/ the phrase "held to be true". Sorry for any confusion I caused. WhiteC 23:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos theory and determinism[edit]

Proposed wording is sounding better and better (see most recent discussion) Vonkje 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eudaimonia[edit]

Yes, great. I'll add something on the Socrates/Plato use of eudaimonia in the few days. Dast 09:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Science pearls[edit]

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Response to request for counterargument[edit]

The knowledge article's talk section contained a dialog between myself and 209.191.143.129 13:14 on 21 September 2005 (UTC) in which he said: "All our ideas should produce good and lasting results and then anything that is good NOW would have been good in the PAST and it will be good in the FUTURE and it will be good UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, so any idea that does not cover all this broad base IS NO GOOD. To be right, one's thought will have to be BASED ON NATURAL FACTS, for really, Mother Nature ONLY can tell what is right and what is wrong and the way that things should be. My definition of right is that right is anything in nature that exists without ARTIFICIAL MODIFICATION and all the others are wrong. Now suppose you would say it is wrong. In that case, I would say YOU are wrong yourself because you came into this world through natural circumstances that YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH and so as long as such a thing exists as yourself, I am right and you are wrong. Only those are right whose thoughts are BASED on natural facts and inclinations."

I later said I disagreed entirely with this, but didn't feel that the knowledge article's talk section was the right place for this disagreement. OK, so here it is...

I disagree with your definition of right. Things in nature that exist without modification are merely things that exist. When I use the words 'right' or 'wrong' that could mean factual (or perhaps logical) correctness ('right') or factual incorrectness ('wrong'). If you assert that a particular fact is true, this may be right or wrong, without regard to whether it is natural or man-made. "I am typing on a computer right now" is right, but "I live on Saturn" is wrong. I don't see the words right and wrong as being any more complex than that...
If I wanted to make ethical statements, they would be about behaviors, not facts. If you did something I thought was morally bad, then your action would be 'wrong'. But again, this wouldn't have anything to do with whether your behavior was natural or artificial--in fact I don't really think that behavior induced artificially can be judged as being that person's fault at all. WhiteC 04:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicomachean Ethics II[edit]

Thanks for your help with the introduction--it looks much better now. I made sure the article was accurate, but the writing style isn't always very good. Some of the other paragraphs could probably use some help too. I would like to link to golden mean from NicEth, but I'll wait until it gets sorted out a little. WhiteC 15:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! To tell the truth, I always worry whether copy edits will be appreciated or resented. When I get the time, I will see if I can do something helpful with Golden Mean, which needs a lot more help than Nicomachean Ethics. Also, thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Mean. Finell 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotelian ethics[edit]

Thanks for your comments on Aristotle. I presented this idea there: Take the information I've added here and the general details from the Nicomachean Ethics page and combine them into Aristotelian ethics. Leave the specific information (the "Overview" section) on the Nico page there as a subpage of the general ethics page. I think that would make more sense going from very general (Aristotle) to one subset of his philosophy (Aristotelian ethics) to a book that teaches this subset (Nicomachean Ethics). What do you think? If you're ok with it, I'll make the changes and then we can tweak. Uriah923 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go for it. It really makes a lot of sense. Uriah923 00:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singular their[edit]

In your edit of my text on Goodness and Value Theory, you stated that their is gender neutral but cannot be used at a plural. Plese take a look at this.

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. I still prefer either he or she, chosen at random. I guess if your text had been more difficult to change to a neutral (PC and old-grammatical-fogey-friendly) term, I would have discussed it with you. I think the best style is to avoid either he/she/they and find another way to write the sentence, even if all methods may be considered grammatically correct. WhiteC 05:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ionian School[edit]

Hi there Mr. White (if it is Mr.). I wasn't going to delete anything, but leave that up to you as you see fit. People get excited when you delete major blocks of their stuff. I did reorganize the names under Pre-Socratic. But if you will note, the names under Ionian school are still there. Each philosopher has its own article and some of those are outstanding. I would say this. The Encyclopedia Britannica - oh dear. I used to swear by it. Lately I've found so many errors in it that I think one might do better looking it up on Wikipedia. I would say this. If you can find a scholar who uses the term Ionian School then that would some justification for making a reference as an alternative classification. But, you know, most don't use it, as some of the Ionians are far out from the others. As for cosmologists - yup. Socrates criticised the previous philosophers for being concerned with cosmology when he, Socrates, wanted the reasons for things, not the mechanics of things. Those modern philosophers, you know, they have a great whopping chip on the shoulder. They think they and they alone know anything about anything because someone said - was it Henry? that he couldnlt be said to know anything until he could describe it in numbers. Sounds like Pythagoras. I switched from engineering to liberal arts and I had trouble with that myself. But at last I got it. You don't read into one tradition from another but you start from inside the tradition. Cosmology is definitely inside. Well I will be away from it for a while longer so bonne chance. I look forward to reading your stuff. I don't yet know how to send you a message so this will have to to. Adios, amigo.Botteville 00:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, buddy. I think that is what I have to call you now. You called on me to champion the cause. I did. Check the site. Just between us, the Internet has a bad reputation in colleges and universities because of all the baloney you are likely to see there. I understand that point of view. They want precision, excellence. On the other side, their excellence excludes most everyone else. They can't seem to communicate with the general public. What happens is, a few oddballs get to promulgate their views in abundant disproportion, while the better views and even the full truth go unseen. We may lose this fight. If we do, I am just going to keep attacking terms such as "physiologists" as part of the cleanup. Physiologists? Physiology was not studied as a field until ... etc etc. Physicalists? But there was no physics in our understanding of it. We owe it to the public. But, if worst comes to worst, there is something to be said for giving in gracefully just to stay in the game. If you get mad and quit, nobody will care and from then on you can contribute nothing. Best of luck, buddy. Thanks for raising the issue and not just calling me a fool.Dave 19:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Hi again. I just noticed we got Langner as an opponent on this one. Tsk tsk. It seems hopeless. The problem is, he seems to be "the expert." But, it is mainly in the scientific. Perhaps you are familiar with the difference? In essence, the two types got no respect for one another. Langner no doubt believes his expertise extends everywhere in philosophy and is accepted as such by powerful Wikipedians. The classicists have a totally different tradition. You study your author, reading him in the original. Then you read what is said about him. Then after years of teaching and publishing articles you publish a book, and that is read by everyone in the field, and then you are considered an expert. To have the time-space people or the philosophers among the physicists making categorical pronouncements on an antiquity they don't know much about, having spent their time on modern topics, seems like uninitiated meddling to the classicists. I'm a classicist. Langner is a physicalist. We aren't going to agree, I predict. Since I'm the newcomer and he is the expert, it seems that we may lose. What I will do then is not keep out of philosophy, as the articles on the ancients need a lot of work. I will just work around Langner, presenting the classical view backed up with references to the authors. Can't do any better. I hate to use terms like "baloney". Everyone has something to say. I would prefer to say, "physicalist", "monist", "Ionian school" and the like are categories less apt applied from outside the topic. The classicists are pretty resistive, having had decades of experience with Marxists, Hegelians, and the like. Well, I got pulled away from some other stuff, which I want to get back to. I'll pop in when matters have gone further.Dave 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More. Gosh, I didnt bow out when I said. Now look at it. Thank you for your initial response to my critique. Thank you for going to the trouble of researching it. It seems to me it is time to give in. They want the Ionian school. I think the deciding factor was the Catholic Encyclopedia. Apart from the issue as to whether the term is legitimate, the fact that people want to see it probably sways many who dont know much about it. What would it take to convince me? An article or book by Harvard U classics dept or U. Cincinnati or U. of Chicago, etc. Someone well known in secular classics. I dont think we are getting a NPOV, but I didnt want to get into big issues here. Maybe you've noticed the trouble Wiki seems to be having with philosophy. Maybe too many non NPOV. Anyway this time I really am bowing out. I concede. If I contribute to that section it will be in filling in detail of the lives from the ancient sources. But I do wish you the best. Sometimes victory is not victory. The fullness of time will bring out the best point of view. See you around and best of luck. I am sure you know a lot more philosophy now.Dave 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't respond here earlier... I got into the deletion argument and forgot about it. So, before I read your latest contribution to that, here is my response to what you've put here so far...
Yes, Mister White. But Chris is fine.
Well, if enough people search for something which is semi-legitimate, then it should probably stay. I'll probably edit the article to give a stronger indication that the main thing linking this 'school' together is geography. I should probably look at other encyclopedia articles to see if their versions of Ionian School have approximately the same members or not.
As far as 'internet expertise' in philosophy goes, I agree that it is somewhat lacking and difficult to moderate. But telling people that they are ignorant doesn't accomplish much. I seem to have a tendency for learning things the hard way, whether that is how to delete an article, or Pre-socratic philosophy. Next time I'll gather more support (ex: from within a philosophy group) before proposing a deletion. Thanks for your help clearing it up for me... I suppose I find getting engaged gives me a motivation to learn something :-) WhiteC 22:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical imperative[edit]

A bit of a dispute between me and User:Ultramarine has erupted here. In particular, he is suggesting that our discussion about the criticism section of categorical imperative was resolved not by agreement, but by your giving up after being too frustrated to continue arguing with me. As that was not my appraisal of the situation at all, would you please have a look at my discussion with him, and maybe share some of your thoughts? --Ryan Delaney talk 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socratic Method[edit]

I used to teach that way. (Don't ask me how I fell into it; it just seemed 'natural.') First, courses in engineering; then courses in psychology. Didn't matter; my students universally hated it! (But they never forgot the answer to a question they had asked! —"Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for life!") By answering a question with a question, and then going on with carefully framed questions— from the first question the student is able to answer correctly— you can build on his entire infrastructure of knowledge so that the answer to the original question is richly entwined with what he already knows, because he (eventually) answers his own question! ⇒ normxxx| talk ⇒ email 20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look for I.F. Stone's version of the trial now, it sounds intriguing. When I come across someone (usually online) who keeps asking annoying questions, possibly (but not always) based on a misunderstanding or a superficial understanding, I charitably assume that the person is using a variation of the Socratic method, but that person's precise complaint with an article might be difficult to articulate. Referring to the Socratic method explicitly helps to keep a focus on impersonality and the goal of trying to understand things better, perhaps providing a role model, so I think it can be a valuable reference when arguments get hot--regardless of who I think is the questioner and who is the questioned. WhiteC 14:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs[edit]

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhiteC&oldid=1141343476"