Talk:Quietism (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Speedy deletion
Only just created this page a few hours ago - I'm amazed that people are trying to kill it off straight away.
In any case, the page is definitely not 'patent nonsense' as alleged. Anybody with an informed view of philosophy could confirm that there are a number of philosophers (active: McDowell/historical: Wittgenstein) who take the view that philosophy should offer no substantive theses (i.e. positive doctrines such as 'the world is physical'/'souls exist' etc.) but should seek instead to explain away apparent philosophical problems by showing that they are just misunderstandings. Austin's Sense and Sensibilia is a prime example of a work of philosophy that shows philosophical problems are the result of abusing ordinary language. I accept that the page is not yet fully referenced (though note links to Wittgenstein, Austin and McDowell) but it is not nonsense. See the article on John McDowell for a reference to quietism (in the first section on Work). -Bosphor 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Now added references and more examples. -Bosphor 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you encounter any similar difficulties, go ahead and leave a note over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. If we're not all busy, you should be able to get some support. - KSchutte 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
