User talk:Ig0774

Welcome!

Hello, Ig0774, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Conscientiousness versus conscience[edit]

You're welcome. Never forget, young Jedi, that if you assume good faith about other editors' intentions, and act with civility then it's ok to boldly change articles without fear of nasty edit wars. Also, WP:IAR helps maintain sanity. MPS 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Iqbal[edit]

On the sentence you removed crediting Averröes and Avicenna with making the first contact between Eastern philosophy and Western, I yield to your greater expertise. (Are you perhaps thinking that Christianity and Judaism are Eastern philosophies?)

I hope you can apply that expertise to the question of whether or not the picture of Muhammad Iqbal belongs were it is. I know nothing about him but what I read in the Wikipedia article. Still, when some would remove Buddha and Erasmus from the article, is he really of prime importance? And if he is, is this the right place for his picture, since there is no mention of him in the text? Rick Norwood 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone objects, I am going to replace Muhammed Iqbal's picture with a different picture. I can think of several that are more appropriate.

Also, unless you object, I will add some more moderate statement about Averröes and Avicenna that points up their importance in bringing Eastern philosophy to the attention of European philosophers. Rick Norwood 13:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius[edit]

Thanks for experimenting with the page Confucius on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice to know that there is such a quick response to edits on the Confucius page. Sorry I was, in fact trying to get rid of the text I accidentally seem to have reinserted. Thank you for the correction. Ig0774 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I did wonder from the edit summary whether you were trying to remove the vandalism. Not to worry! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy[edit]

I'll watch your grammar, you watch my spelling. Rick Norwood 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikaya schools[edit]

Hi, I saw you recent edit of the Buddhism article and I thought it made the article look slightly odd. Right now the text says (in the "Buddhist religious philosophy and branches" section) that the Theravadan school is the only school of the Nikayan branch to survive, and then further down, that Sautrantrikas and Vaibhashikas are Nikayan schools (as explicitly separate from Theravadan). So there's a contradicion at the moment. --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to User Talk:Andkaha#Nikaya Schools)

Ah, so they don't exist any longer. Ok, so that makes sense. In the section that you edited, should the "this is" be changed to "this was" for these two schools then? --- Andkaha^(talk) 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche und Stirner[edit]

On the talk page, as we discuss the tenability of the Laska paper, for which Nescio* aims to add to the article, I get the continuous feeling he is not at all replying to the obvious criticisms against the paper itself but ignores them entirely. For example, in his latest statement he writes, "Re: Walther's critique of Laska: Laska himself links to it, so he seems not too much afraid of it" and "Re: Leopold: he selected the LSR Stirner site as one of two internationally. Sure, he could not have known about the article on Nietzsche's initial crisis, but he approved generally to the seriousness of the site." These are sophistical refutations, which are not a refutations at all. In summa, this is the real heart of the problematic as the discussion has shown for the greatest length of time. How we go about acknowledging this and give a thoroughgoing disapproval of it is already there, and yet he persists despite all sensibility with "facts". For the while, since I will be too busy for the next few days, I'll watch how you handle the discussion and see what comes about as it further develops (if I may say, into degeneracy).

On another note, I was suprised to see that link to the Laska critique; it was fundamentally the same formulation of refutations as my own statements were of Laska's paper, a very good find at that.^—ignis_scripta— 19:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, despite his claims that he wants to discuss "the facts" he seems extraordinarily deaf to any discussion of them. Its too bad you will be away for a bit, you're responses on the Nietzsche page are always eloquent and show a depth of appreciation for Nietzsche that I cannot claim to match. Ig0774 22:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently added some of my thoughts on this. I hope it straightens things out.Filip Bishop 02:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the Nietzsche page. Nescio*'s choice not to answer your comments seems in keeping with his attitude which has thus far been anything but a willingness to discuss "the facts". This particular dispute has already gone on for too long in my opinion, especially since Nescio* seems to have no desire to debate the viability of this one particular article he cites. Let us hope that this situation can be quickly diffused and we can move on to improving the article as a whole. Ig0774 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermeneutics[edit]

Hello! Yes, I agree that it was probably ill-placed, I add the Kaballah quickly for other reasons. However, it is very surprising that the Kaballah isn't included in the article about hermeneutics. Since you seem to know a bit more about it, why don't you write just a little sentence somewhere to include it in someplace in the texts? Don't tell me that it has nothing to do with the Kaballah... Tazmaniacs 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it deserves some mention somewhere. I am a little at a loss to know where since the article does not, as yet, deal in any length with Jewish hermeneutics (and Kaballah is, in most respects, a tradition that grows out of the tradition of Rabbinic interpretation). I will add a sentence somewhere if I find the appropriate spot. Thank you for the contribution, however, as it would be a great crime not to mention Kaballah at all. ^iggy_talk 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious utility[edit]

I was responding to: "Mill differs from many current utilitarians in that he considered cultural and spiritual happiness to be of greater value than mere physical pleasure." It is not at all true that modern utilitarians are a sort of people who are vulgar hedonists. They may be frustratingly opaque about their values (due to modern trends), but any talk about their theoretical dispositions to hold culture/mind at equal or lesser worth than physical pleasure is at best unproven. Lucidish 03:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion revert[edit]

Thanks for repairing that last revert. Apparently I ended up reverting to an anon user's previous version rather than Bluegecko's, without double-checking the result in the article. I appreciate your correction of the situation. ... Kenosis 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that — I know you wouldn't have intentionally vandalized the article... :-). ^iggy_talk 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The end does not justify the means?[edit]

I saw that you edited the "Consequentialism" website. I am trying to create an open source project similar to Wikipedia, but that uses a different format. It states a belief like: "The end does not justify the means" and then lists reasons to agree or disagree separately. You are then able to click on any of the reasons, to find reasons to agree or disagree with them. I have created an example of how it might work here: http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21959922/The%20end%20does%20not%20justify%20the%20means However, I am looking for more people to help. The above site is the 7th result if you google “The end does not justify the means”. And so you would be providing direction to about 1,700 people a month, in a very organized way that I believe holds a lot of promise. If you would like to help edit the site, please contact me and I will give you the password. If you are interested more in the project, I explain it better here: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/ myclob (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]