Template talk:Enlightenment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal 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.
Template	This article has been rated as template-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.)

Gah, I'd still like this template to be "honed up" a bit more...--Jazzwick 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There you go. Let's agree on whether we are going to use Template:Enlightenment or Template:The Enlightenment. --AVIosad 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say we should keep Template:Enlightenment. Mainly because people (like me) forget the "The" at the beginning, as well as the space. Tell you what though, you've done an absolutly spiffy job here. Thank you man (or woman)!--Jazzwick 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Do all the pages on which this template is use Template:Enlightenment? If yes, you can clear Template:The Enlightenment. To be fair, there still remains some work to be done on this template — possibly more concepts and people; definitely Major works, such as Candide, L'Encyclopedie, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, etc. Well done for starting the whole thing, I never would have got round to doing it : ) --AVIosad 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank ye, it beats Applied IT any day ;-). I haven't really put it on that many pages involving the enlightenment, but I will over the coming days. Perhaps we should ask people on the discussion threads of the enlightenment to do the same. If anyone wants to add more, let them, but seriously, cheers for making it better. It's much appreciated *thumbs up*... --Jazzwick 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Template: The Enlightenment has no pages linking to it and that 'Template: Enlightenment' has been editted such that the two have major differences. Can the former be deleted? --Karophyr 02:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Karophyr

Yes, certainly. There was initially some confusion over which template to use, but this has now been resolved (see above). --AVIosad 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion

I've put the template on the pages of all the people in the original one. User:Logologist added some Poles. Could you have a look at User_talk:Logologist#Enlightenment_Template: I think we need to decide on the notability criteria for inclusion in the template — is it European-wide notoriety (which probably limits the list quite severely) or country-wide (which might inflate it to ridiculuous proportions). I'll invite Logologist to join the discussion here. As an option, we might have a more general template, and then create individual ones for separate countries — but that's a lot of hassle and I'm not convinced of its necessity.AVIosad 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus man, you've done shit loads! Anything I can do?--Jazzwick 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Advance an opinion on notoriety/inclusion, for example ; ). Seriously though, there still remains a lot to be done: a list of major works, placing the template on the concepts pages, and also it might make more sense to sort people by dob rather than alphabetically, that would be very useful, although it would take some time. --AVIosad 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to work on the concepts...--Jazzwick 22:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now put this onto the concepts. However, should there be one on the science article? Looks awfully out of place.--Jazzwick 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it kinda does. You can move it to either History of Science or Philosophy of Science. Or, even better, Scientific Revolution. --AVIosad 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it on all three if that's okay. But as soon as I finish this, I have to log off. Self-control, see?--Jazzwick 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably no need to put it on all three, though, Scientific Revolution should be enough, may be with Philosophy of science --AVIosad 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The 17 men now listed in the Template:Enlightenment Polish section are practically an irreducible minimum. Most (nine) are of such stature that they appear in the "History of philosophy in Poland" article's "Enlightenment" section.

The problem, I think, is not that this template's Polish section contains too many individuals, but that some of the other national sections contain too few. logologist|Talk 10:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the template should be kept to a small number, or it will soon get blown out of proportions. I can think of three solutions. First, we keep the numbers to a small arbitrary number (5?). Second, we implement 'show/hide' functionality for each country, or for each person above 5. Third, we go with the first option but create national Englightment templates with would have many more names but be included only in national people/things, as an add-on to the general Enlightment templates. Bottom line is, as fond I am of the Polish Enlightnment, if we go with 17 Poles, we will have to include at least that many French, German, Italian, English and so on people... we will get a template with a hundred or more names and it will get TfD soon (with my support...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some good ideas here. logologist|Talk 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the technical solutions, Wikipedia needs, I think, to be not less but more inclusive. If only to counter the ignorance that feeds chauvinism. logologist|Talk 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another point, alluded to by AVIosad in an exchange with me: many biographical articles on Poles need improvement in content and English usage. logologist|Talk 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the same number for all countries would be unfair on those which were more involved in the Enlightenment. For example, French philosophers were obviously more important for the Enlightenment than those of Russia (shame, really, but true). I think we should keep some of the most notorious people and create separate national templates (and may be put a link to them from the main template, but that's something to think about later). That would not mean limiting numbers to a certain number, but rather agreeing on the most important persons (I shouldn't think this would be very had, although no doubt will cause a debate). And, by the way, User:Piotrus, could you possibly add a 'show/hide' thing on this whole template? I couldn't figure out how to do this. --AVIosad 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Hugo Grotius

I'm afraid Hugo Grotius is a bit too early to be included in the Enlightenment proper (or we would have to include Descartes as well, they lived at aroung the same time. I added George Berkeley to the American section — he was Irish, and live in London a lot, but also in America and I wanted to expand the American section a bit. Tell me if you disagree. Also, what's the consensus on the inclusion of people in the Template? --AVIosad 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishop Berkeley looks very out of place in the U.S. rubric. But David Rittenhouse should make a good replacement. logologist|Talk 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had added the Enlightenment template to the Grotius page, so I added him to the Netherlands list. Then, of course, I checked here and realized that it was a recent matter of discussion (guess I should have checked first!). I'm fine with removing Grotius from the template, in which case we'll just remove the template from the Grotius page, too. Grotius is a very significant founding figure for the Enlightenment (in political theory especially), but there is a case to be made that his own thought is along more traditional renaissance-humanist-scholastic lines even though it lays the roots for something more. I am actually surprised not to find Descartes on the list. He is chronologically the contemporary of Grotius, but in his work, Enlightenment ideas (individualism, scientism, etc.) are well underway. I'll follow the discussion. Sarvodaya 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Hugo Grotius and Descartes may be considered as belonging in the Enlightenment, if the 17th-century Age of Reason is construed as being the early part of the Enlightenment. logologist|Talk 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of Descartes within the ranks of the Enlightenment thinkers is, I am given to understand, a matter of considerable debate among academics. Personally, I would say that while his ideas are fundmental to the Enlightenment thinking, they are not strictly speaking "Enlightenment philosophy". I think in this particular case the debate can be resolved by adding a list of precursors to the Enlightenment. This would include Grotius. Does that sound like a good idea? --AVIosad 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea. Perhaps the list does not even need to be on the template, but just be linked from there to a separate 'list' page. Any thoughts on the pros/cons? Sarvodaya 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Romantics

Goethe is not an Enlightenment figure; he is wholly a Romantic. But the Romantics were counter-Enlightenment. Therefore, Goethe ought not to be listed. The same argument could be made for Herder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.255.103 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

This, most unfortunately, untenable dichotomy in Goethe's case is not particularly helpful with regard to determining his inclusionary value, for Goethe's thinking, which was heavily based upon German Classicism (which had itself grown to fruition under the behests of the Enlightenment), does not completely stand contrariwise in relation to the Enlightenment, for he rather attempted to illustrate its disadvantages as among other such thinkers during this turbulent period. Briefly, I am no advocate for eliminating him, nor the "Romantics" of other stripes (and here I must add, in Germany, a German Romantic was very different from a German Classicist, but within the broader purview of Europe, both were considered "Romantic" in nature), at all for it would do much damage to informing others of the various modes of thought that were also current during Enlightenment times, that is, were influenced by the Enlightenment as any successive instance would have to be properly considered as being—but I do not hereby wish to imply any "romantic" is acceptable here.— ^ignis _scripta 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)