Talk:J. L. Mackie
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.) |
|
[edit] Comments
Um, sorry i don't have an account i was just looking at this and the bit says that he is a moral skeptic not moral nihlist, yet it is not distinguished what the difference is, the moral skepticism page implies they are the same , and the moral nihlist page again says the two are different but doesn't say why or go into detail. I don't know enough on the issue to alter this myself.
-
- The page moral skepticism has been edited; it no longer conflates nihilism and skepticism. Though Mackie was a skeptic, and called himself a skeptic, he was also a nihilist.Unisonus 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why does the page still say "In meta-ethics, he took the position of moral skepticism (to be distinguished from moral nihilism)" if Mackie was a nihilist? There must be a reason for this being in the article.
- I am not happy with this Wikipedia entry on "John Leslie Mackie".
I am convinced that the original publisher had not so much of an idea of the real meaning of the philosophy of John Leslie Mackie. If the original writer and the public agrees, I would like to transform this Wikipedia entry to a more worthwhile one. (This would only take me 51 weeks to complete.) Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal at t-online.de -- replace " at " by "@")
- Its a free Wiki. Everyone is invited to contribute his knowledge, so go on! -- 62.224.10.142 09:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way: If user
62.224.10.142
believes in God, he has to _immediately say so_ !
Otherwise, he would disqualify himself from being an honest contributor or moderator for this page.
(I am an atheist, so do frankly deny the existence of God.)
Would you please change the main entry title for
"J. L. Mackie" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Mackie
to
"John Leslie Mackie" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leslie_Mackie
within the Wikipedia ?
Thank you.
Hans Rosenthal
PS: If you do not, I will allow myself to do so later ;)
Dear Penelope,
"His daughter Dr Penelope Mackie was a lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham from 1994 to 2004. She is now at the University of Nottingham"
Have you noticed that your father was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century ?
Now, I call him one of the most brilliant philosophers of all the time that passed...
Hans Rosenthal (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
Is it not ridiculous that when I am searching for the term "John Leslie Mackie" within the wikipedia, I will be (Redirected from John Leslie Mackie) to the article (the term, the search string) "J. L. Mackie" ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15012006)
Sure, his name was, in fact, "John Leslie Mackie." However, he published everything under "J.L. Mackie" and most people are likely to know him only by that name. I actually had an ethics professor who didn't know what the J.L. stood for! While that may be uncalled for, it remains a fact that the term "J.L. Mackie" makes it easier to search for the Mackie article. Everyone who knows "John Leslie" also knows "J.L." but not the other way around.
- Everyone knows "Jesus", but few als know him as "INRI", but always the other way around. So what did you want to say: That "J. L. Mackie" could or should serve as an encyclopedic entry ? Because those who already know him will have no problems to find this entry ? Ahh ! J. L. will smile upon us. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (25112006)
