Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:18, 21 May 2007

Philosophy Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

R in Idea?

Why do some people say "I-DI-ER"? 205.174.22.28 05:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Idea/Concept confusion

Ideas and concepts should not be confused. Ideas can be propositions or plans. Concepts cannot. Ideas can be much more complex. I can have a clear concept of dogs but have not the faintest idea of how to make her happy. Changes ought to be made.

Intellectual Property

Why talking here about intellectual property, when there is already a dedicated article?

Yes. But I would like to talk about the differece between ordinarly property and intellectual property because idea can be exclusive but cannot be non-rivious. Overlapping is not a problem. Every article should has a complete text to describe it thoroughtly. Well, I may be wrong. As always, just correct it in the way you wish Taku

I believe that the difference between intellectual property and ordinary property should belong to the intellectual property page.

I hope you will allow me a humble suggestion. What I find most interesting in your addition, which might perhaps be developped, is the mention of the commercial use of ideas (which caused a branch of law to consider the intellectual property and related protecting rights), in the sense of using ideas for personal benefit (making money, in most cases). This, of course, could be in contrast (and it might be put into evidence) with a traditional - and some say, instinctive - free sharing, uninterested communication of ideas among humans. Would it be an acceptable idea? :-)) --G

Sorry for really late. I think your suggestion is interesting. But I am not sure I can write a good text like a philosopher (After all, idea is a philosophical term I believe). If I have time and come up with good idea, I will (it seems highly unlikely thought). -- Taku 02:05 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

I understand mental picture; but, it is a metaphor that many people would not understand. I can't do better off the top of my head But let's think about it. Two16

Taku states that an idea cannot be non-rivalrous. That's exactly backwards, pure ideas are non-rivalrous. Great quote from Thomas Jefferson: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

In any case, while I agree with the sentiment (and am currently obsessed with copyright & intellectual property issues), I beleive that the "Ideas as Property" portion of this article has definitely departed from neutrality. Budesigns 03:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

     Agreed. Flying Hamster 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you budesigns, I wished I was smart enough to write about this topic. Maybe you could add some stuff? I would help with grammar as much as I can if you want. Jaberwocky6669 23:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC) =) Jaberwocky6669 23:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Although there are some good points in this article, it clearly does not do justice to broad topic of the idea, eidos. Unfortunately, I would not be able to unilaterally go about modifying this in an organized manner. My proposition is that we list subject areas that ideas relate to, as to develop a system of organization for a new, modified article. Philosophy is an obvious subject area that comes to mind, so is psychology. Detailed links could be made to derivitave words such as Ideology, Idealism, etc. It would be my argument that the idea is primarily philisophical, since there is much more written about the nature of the idea in philosophy than in any other social science. Anyway, just tell me what you think. Peace. Flying Hamster 01:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Analogies

Is it just me or does the statement "There are some who believe that there is a realm in which ideas exist and that we only discover these ideas in much the same way that we discover the Wikiwiki world." depend on a really bad analogy that is also (indirectly) self-referring? If the notion that there is a hidden realm of (finite?) ideas which are gradually discovered by people is what it's trying to demonstrate, then an analogy isn't necessary at all.

Idea & Concept

These are two ambiguous words that each have multiple meanings. An idea is definitely not simply a concept. This can be understood by looking at the concept article here on Misplaced Pages.

Broadening the article

I think the article could be broadened, somewhat. currently, the realm of ideas is becoming increasingly important in every aspect of our lives ... Business, science, math, education, and so forth.

External Links

No room for a Idea Wiki Website? - The point of putting it on here was to have it grow in the wiki community. How is it supposed to grow if no one can find it? Should we let it grow a little, by some mysterous force, and then put it on here? Is there no relation to Idea and an Idea Wiki? Swerty 08:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The same is for Idiki. When did Idea Wiki started? Idiki started approximately at October 2005, furthemore it has already 39 ideas and 33 (valid!) users. Alpt 06:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant / Commercial Links

Most of the links (with the exception of the Encyclopedia entry and (possibly) the last one on patenting / copyrighting an idea, are sources of ideas (some of which appear to be paid consultants who'll produce ideas on request). This topic is not discussed at all in the article.

Either the irrelevant links should be removed or the article revised to include this topic. I vote for removal. --SteveMcCluskey 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Idea

The opening definition in this article is too limiting.

"An idea (Greek: ιδέα) is a specific thought which arises in the mind. The human capacity to generate ideas is associated with the capacity for reason...."

I was planning to link here from a discussion of Plato, but in the ancient Greek sense an Idea neither arises in the human mind nor is it generated by the human capacity for reason. For Plato, ideas come from outside the mind.

I do not want to say that a definition should assert that ideas come from outside, but it should be sufficiently broad to include philosophical positions such as Platos that hold ideas do have reality of their own independent of any mind. --SteveMcCluskey 23:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article now full of irrelevant and erroneous material - suggest reversion to last sound version

The recent poorly-edited major expansion of this article raises the tough question whether it's better to have .

• Example of what I mean by "irrelevant": lots about Charles Sanders Peirce that belongs in the article about him, certainly not here. (I assume it's obvious to anyone who reads this article through that this is just the tip of the iceberg.)
• Examples of what I mean by "erroneous": The claim in the lead that Clement of Alexandria and Thucydides said such-and-such about "idea(s)." Since the Greek word Template:Polytonic does not mean "idea," these passages are quite simply mistranslated and irrelevant; they would belong in the article Idea (Ancient Greek word), except for the fact that Misplaced Pages does not contain articles about how words in foreign languages are used (Wiktionary maybe). (Virtually everything new in the article having anything to do with antiquity is tainted by some similar kind of error. It seems likely that the same is true of topics I know less about.)

The obvious idea that occurs to me for improving the article, or making future improvements feasible, is to revert to the last pre-expansion version. But rather than acting so boldly myself, I place the suggestion here to see if it will be embraced by others. I don't see the point in copy-editing "Quaestionses," "rid," or the more obvious "persihable," "diety," etc., so long as the larger & deeper mess remains. The article is transparently User:Doug Coldwell's attempt to get the idiosyncratic ideas with which he stuffed the now-appropriately-deleted article Good sense (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Good sense) into the encyclopedia somewhere. Wareh 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles