Talk:Renaissance philosophy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval philosophy

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some mischief[edit]

Someone tried do some mischief to the page, editing its content. Please, don't do it here. That's a encyclopedia for all humankind.

Yes, the nasty fat hobbitses did it. Fat hobbitses, doesn't trust Gollum. Aagh! Bad Dobby, bad Dobby!

Are you sure? Narssarssuaq (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article[edit]

...is pretty sad considering its importance and the fact that it's on a navigational template. Seems like most of what it says is about defining the Renaissance and not about philosophy at all. Someday I would like to work on this article. Is there anyone who's attached to the text as it is? Maestlin 18:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right after I wrote that, it occurred to me to check the edit history. Some vandal blanked the page and nobody caught it. I have restored the lost material from an edit by FuelWagon on 18:24, October 24, 2005. There haven't been many changes since. I think I have it all straight but I hope someone will correct the article if I messed it all up. Maestlin 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, this article is not as good as it could be, in parts it is even wrong (e.g. the general preference of Plato over Aristotle: who soever claimed that did not bother even to make a quick check e.g. of the number of commentaries existing to both of these philosophers from the period in question).

141.84.151.226 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it, and I just revised it to get my point across better. Maestlin 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________

This article is very poorly written. At one point it says, "Having established that many aspects of philosophy were held in common during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, it will now be useful to discuss in what areas changes were afoot. I will use the same outline as above, to show that within trends of continuity one can also find surprising differences." There are also numerous grammatical and syntactical errors; like "In terms of method philosophy was considered during the late Middle Ages as a subject that required robust enquiry on the part of people trained in the subject’s technical vocabulary." Which should be rewritten: "In terms of method, philosophy was considered during the late Middle Ages as a subject that required robust enquiry on the part of people trained in the subject’s technical vocabulary." The bolded doesn't make too much sense (and I added a comma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.13.88 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]