Talk:Being in itself
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 18 to Apr 24 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:
Nothing there. RickK 20:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Although this is a substub right now, it is an important philosophical topic. Presumably the original author is planning to expand. Give him/her a chance. If not expanded by end of VfD period, then delete. Bkonrad | Talk 21:01, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I expanded it a bit. It's still a stub, but at least it's a semi-useful stub now. There's still a lot to be done in terms of distinguishing it from Dasein, but seeing as Dasein doesn't even have an entry right now, that's probably a future task. Regardless, it's a work in progress, and an important one. Keep. Snowspinner 21:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in its current form - looks promising. Pteron 04:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Ack! Give it a chance! It was listed on vfd the same day I started the article! Anyhow, yeah, it can be distinguished from Daesin because being-in-itself is a term that Sartre develops in his own direction. Thanks for the added text, btw. Keep. -Seth Mahoney 17:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep. --Michael Snow 03:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, expand. It's an important concept in the thought of an important (and difficult) philosopher. -- Jmabel 08:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to being Bensaccount 18:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Its not the same as being, and its a big enough topic to warrant its own article, really. -Seth Mahoney 20:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, and by extension the lack of a Being for itself article feels slightly inconsistent. -Yog Sothoth! 17:00, 11 Apr 2006 (GMT)
- Its not the same as being, and its a big enough topic to warrant its own article, really. -Seth Mahoney 20:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
End discussion
[edit] Sources
There should be a source for the claim that Heidegger's alleged anti-semitism was rooted in his belief that jews were not whole Daseins. There is much scholarship on the issue of Heidegger's links to the Nazi party and whether or not he was truly anti-semitic. The wording damages the NPOV of this page.--Sam 04:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Being-for-itself
- Can't understand why the being-for-itself article was deleted. Can't make sense of that. Anyway I've added in some basics about Sartrean Being-in-itself. Without getting over the top with terminology. I'll grammaticalise it a bit tomorrow. Sludgehaichoi 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
