Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:01, 11 December 2008

Status: Unknown

Archives

Template:Multicol 2008 March April May June July August September October November Template:Multicol-break Template:Multicol-end

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

TRUTH

Ordinary Language Philosophy... The controversy really begins when ordinary language philosophers apply the same levelling tendency to questions such as What is Truth? or What is Consciousness?. Philosophers in this school would insist that we cannot assume that (for example) Truth 'is' a 'thing' (in the same sense that tables and chairs are 'things'), which the word 'truth' represents. Instead, we must look at the differing ways in which the words 'truth' and 'conscious' actually function in ordinary language. We may well discover, after investigation, that there is no single entity to which the word 'truth' corresponds, something Wittgenstein attempts to get across via his concept of a 'family resemblance' (cf. Philosophical Investigations). Therefore ordinary language philosophers tend to be anti-essentialist. Of course, this was and is a very controversial viewpoint. Anti-essentialism and the linguistic philosophy associated with it are often important to contemporary accounts of feminism, Marxism, and other social philosophies that are critical of the injustice of the status quo. The essentialist 'Truth' as 'thing' is argued to be closely related to projects of domination, where the denial of alternate truths is understood to be a denial of alternate forms of living. Similar arguments sometimes involve ordinary language philosophy with other anti-essentialist movements like post-structuralism.

Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity is the social expectation that people will respond to each other in kind -- returning benefits for benefits, and responding with either indifference or hostility to harms. The social norm of reciprocity often takes different forms in different areas of social life, or in different societies. All of them, however, are distinct from related ideas such as gratitude, the Golden Rule, or mutual goodwill. See Reciprocity (social and political philosophy) for an analysis of the concepts involved.

"real research in classical languages using primary sources following established historical methods"...Slrubenstein

We can do it! :)

Hey Buster!

You are the coolest dude. You got your man elected as pres, I'm sure things are going to be fine with me. Thanks for rallying the troops.

I don't think we're going to have similar difficulties in future, but you never know.

What projects are you working on at Wiki right now? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you're back and working away. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

East-Flemish

Hi Buster, Thanks for your message on my userpage. I'm glad someone found the way to my little wikia. I would be more than happy with any kind of assistance, considering that right now I'm still on my own. Dialects in Flanders seem to be dying slowly and while there are several dialectbased events with usually a high degree of popularity I don't get the impression that they're doing much good. I myself believe that our language is a part of our cultural heritage and should be kept alive. Nychus (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice words at patriarchy

Thanks for perfectly helpful words at Patriarchy. One of the best things about it was that you didn't take sides. Keep up your great wiki-ing. I think I have met a man perfectly suited to settling things with cool, calm words of reason. How many ways can we contribute at Wiki? Let me count the ways ... :) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Celica

Perhaps that submission was made under the wrong rule? The behaviour of the reptile in question falls outside the rule's narrow parameters. I used to think that given enough rope it would hang itself; now I've started to worry about running out of rope. Good of you to drop in!

Strangers in a Strange Land

The Memory Pills are not working. I moved it here so I wouldn't forget (when,who,why):

What I like most about the Sarah Palin article is that it puts me in touch with knowledgable editors like you. Your comments regarding the goings on at the rape kit thread are educational and informative. I also Wholeheartedly agree with your comments about editor:C-----t. There is something more than meets the eye there. I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding C-----t. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless C-----t pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective). Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.--Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do have some kind of relevant information, I'd caution you to take it to administrators sooner rather than later and avoid revealing it in a public context. It will lose a lot of credibility if you try to use it to torpedo the guy instead of going through the proper channels in a timely fashion. You might even get into trouble for it. As for my own sentiments, I just find the whole thing very frustrating. It's very hard to AGF. I feel if I were not devoting time to the article then a lot of massaging and reinterpreting and excluding of the sources would be taking place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

please see ] here....and advise ASAP. What to do.....and when....it explains alot...confidential, please...I have shown only Homunq since he also has expessed problems --Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just now shared with admin LessHeard vanU...thanks for advice--Buster7 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Much as I would like to view that as a gloves-off admission of an obstructionist editorial style, it looks more like a sarcastic commentary on typical edit-warring. I don't like the guy too much, and have suspicions about his motivations, but I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. I wouldn't even bother bringing it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I didn't get anywhere but frustrated. Thanks for confiding and guidance. I'll drop it and move on.--Buster7 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)