Talk:Absurdity

Philosophy: Logic / Continental 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:
/
	Logic
	Continental philosophy

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ElaineBM.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity v. Nonsense[edit]

Absurdity and nonsense are not synonyms. Kavka's Metamorphosis is absurd, but not nonsense. Anyone know RS on the difference? PPdd (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable article. Perhaps absurdity is a clear clash of sense, nonsense a lack of sense. Another little def. of absurdity here: reductio Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity Constraints[edit]

I had go at reading the paper "a constructive approach to testing model transformations" to see what i could understand about the absurity constraints. But it is very deep to dive into. The best i see so far is that the model is made up of domain clauses, and absurdity clauses are checks on the models validity through different states/transforms. I will read more and can try to hazard a note for the article if a metamodelling engineer doesn't relieve us. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sop much. Remember, WP:Use plain English

Now I am trying to understand "absurdity constants", on top of "absurdity constraints" (and I was Alonzo Church's and Patrick Suppes' student, so I am supposed to understand this stuff). PPdd (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In legal interpretation[edit]

I've removed the "further information" link to 'strict constructionism' until the sense in which that term is arguably closely-related can be incorporated into the lead of the linked-to article. Otherwise the cross-reference comes off as a political statement. A few sentences later the same POV this resembles had leaked in in the form of the "or original intent" tacked onto "...rather than literal reading of a law". It's usually in light of exactly legislative intent that a court calls a literal reading of the words of a statute absurd. (The example elsewhere in the article of a law against spilling blood in the street being used against a surgeon for opening someone in a sidewalk emergency is a prime example. The literal meaning of 'spilling blood' is said to be absurd not in itself but given the original intention to protect safety.) --MilFlyboy (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I had it backwards. PPdd (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puffenstuff vs. Pufendorf[edit]

In this quote: "The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffenstuff (sic. Pufendorf), that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’...", both the case being cited and the older case being indirectly quoted obviously refer to the words of Samuel von Pufendorf; I'm not sure where "Puffenstuff" came from in this context. This passage appears on several pages; I've left in the '[sic]' but changed "Puffenstuff" to "Pufendorf" and corrected the link to refer to the political philosopher rather than to the children's television series. - Liber loquax (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Absurdity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

Hello, I am working on reorganizing this article based on the information that is available. There are a few sections that are very short (1-3 sentences), so I will be combining some of them as subsections below a corresponding larger section. If anyone feels there is a more appropriate way to organize the information feel free to do so. I want to point out that I have added a subsection for absurdity in literature below Philosophy for now. Please feel free to add information to that subsection or separate it out as its own section in the article. --ElaineBM (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity in Literature/Media[edit]

Hello, the information under Absurdity § Hobbes' Table of Absurdity might be more appropriate under the Philosophy section of this article. Another option is to include a section for Absurdity in Literature/Media, where Absurdity § Theater of the Absurd might also be added. We could include a link to Absurdist Fiction as well. If anyone has other opinions on what to do with this type of information please let me know.--ElaineBM (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]