Talk:Eo ipso

This page was proposed for deletion by Carchasm (talk · contribs) on 7 September 2022.

This redirect 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

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Latin Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

In longer phrases[edit]

Is "eo ipse dixit dominus domino" a common phase? —DIV (128.250.204.118 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Forms[edit]

Is "eo ipse" just another grammatical form? —DIV (128.250.204.118 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Relevance[edit]

The Kierkegaard quote does not seem to provide any clarity to use of the term "eo ipso". In fact, the Danish specifies a female artist, which is directly relevant to the reviewer being "gallant". If the reviewer acknowledges her (the artist) as an artist, then - eo ipso - he should restrict himself to addressing her artistry. If he instead seeks, gallantly, to speak e.g. of her sustained beauty, then he is addressing her as e.g. a woman, perhaps a desirable one - which is actually to insult her as an artist, since he is not addressing her as an artist at all. Further, since she is someone who has actually chosen to live her life in expression of a particular ideal (an artist), if he has not made such an existential choice, but is e.g. only a bumbling mish-mash, perhaps a 'gentleman-reviewer', then his error is double - misunderstanding her, as a result of misunderstanding himself. While she has chosen to be something definite, he expresses only that he has not understood even what it is to choose. Talk of Ideals requires qualitative clarifications, and the term 'eo ipso' is useful in concentrating the mind on the differences, the distinctions. A quotation of this sort, without clarification, serves only to discredit the source and genre. WigglyWoggly (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]