User talk:Wilson Delgado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Wilson Delgado, 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:Questions, 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!  --Dpr 19:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 Thanks for the welcome, dpr!  I'm happy to be part of this amazing effort.  --Wilson Delgado 13:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cupples house 1890 western view.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cupples house 1890 western view.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact?

Hi, I noticed that you don't have a working userpage. Is this discussion page a place to get a hold of you to chat? --Dialecticas 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dialecticas. I did not expect to need a userpage, but I will put something there, if it makes it easier to chat. Otherwise, this page is good enough for me. --Wilson Delgado 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! I have a few random thoughts I'd like to share with you surrounding the discussion on the Humanism talk page. If you'll forgive me some rambling, maybe we can get some fruitful discussion going here (if you feel like it).
First of all, I want to say that I don't so much agree with your opinion. But, I think the way you've handled the debate has been exemplary; I think I could learn a thing or two from you regarding tone, style, etc. You've been staunch and opinionated, but never what I would call disrespectful, condescending, or rude. This is to be applaused. *applause from audience*
As for not agreeing with your argument, I have a caveat regarding my sympathy to your stance, and part of the reason why I'm so interested. I am a Marxist-Humanist (the hyphenated form is how we write it, not Wikipedia), what could definitely be called a minority stance within self-identified Marxists. I sometimes feel as if all Marxists and non-Marxists are wrongheaded and completely incorrect by not understanding Marxism as Marx first described it, as "a thoroughgoing Naturalism, or Humanism." In short, Marxism is Humanism, and the hyphenated addition of "Humanism" in my opinion is unecessary.
What I'm trying to say is that I must stick with the title "Marxist-Humanist" until everyone else understands Marxism the same way as I do. I kind of see my dilemma as being akin to yours. Though you don't agree, I believe that Humanism proper is secular. The definitions that OldMan offered are, I believe, solid. Until the world understands humanism to be more inclusive of faith, I think you're in the minority (which of course does not invalidate your view, but does push it to the back of the room, so to speak). Maybe I'm wrong. Are there long lists of religious humanist organizations, as there are of secular ones? I don't know. But if there aren't, couldn't that be indicative of the fact that Humanism is not by and large a philosophy with much of a faith component?
I hope this interesting discussion continues, and I hope you feel that whatever conclusion is arrived at is fair. Sorry if I don't make much sense. --Dialecticas 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your compliments, Dialecticas. I am offering what I think will make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and if I / we learn something on the way, all the better. I don't know how much longer the debate will go, since I have pretty much finished exposing my position.
What you say makes a great deal of sense for the philosophical sphere. Humanism as an organized contemporary philosophical movement does indeed seem to exclude religious belief. So I am not saying that there is no sense at all in the arguments against my position. I am operating from an educational / historical / cultural horizon in which humanism is basically the educational cultivation of ethos and society through Letters. So if I look up Humanism in an encyclopedia and it is about the philosophical school rather than the long-standing cultural tradition, I fail to recognize the meaning. I actually think that the burden should be the reverse of what it has been in our discussion. The broader sense is where we start, and within the philosophical usage certain meanings have taken definite shape.
Marx, who wrote a classical dissertation on Democritus and Epicurus, is probably an interesting connection between the two usages. That would be an interesting bit of research -- finding out how he defined it, why he used the term, etc.--Wilson Delgado 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)