Talk:Other (philosophy)

message: This page was barely coherent, so I've rewritten it. I'm not a philosopher though, so it needs checking. Also, I've added some invisible queries within the text that need answering.The Singing Badger 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Checking

message: This is a good introduction but it should be more greatly emphasised that the other is not just women.  Otherness also comes out of race, religion and so on. Even beyond this everyone feels other at some point.  Even a rich, white man can be made to feel other through social slights.
Insert formula herei love being an other person
:I see nothing in the article which indicates that the other is just women. The first example given, in the introduction, is Asians construed as the other by Europeans. Hyacinth 06:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Women

message: this introduction sucks balls!
every other page expresses some sort of criticisms of the thought that is being described, I think that some should be added to this page. mainly from the essay written by Slavoj Zizik titled "Smashing the neighbor's face." Zizek expresses several very interesting, and convincing, arguments against the ethic of the other, most specifically the justifications made by levinas. (Impaler2g19 05:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no criticisms? 

message: In the "some other quotations" section, there's a link to Calvin Thomas.  The Calvin Thomas listed in the sources is the 21st-century scholar Calvin Thomas (critical theorist), for whom I just created a stub.  Is the Ferdinand de Saussure quote something from that Calvin Thomas, writing about de Saussure, or is it something that de Saussure wrote himself, quoting the linguist Calvin Thomas, who was his contemporary?  I couldn't tell from the context — the 19th century Calvin Thomas was also a linguist, so de Saussure could have been quoting him, but the 21st century Calvin Thomas is a theorist who has written on the concept of the Other, and he could have quoted de Saussure.  If anyone knows which is being referenced here, please ensure that the link points to the right place.  Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Calvin Thomases 

message: Hey y'all.  This article is one huge copyvio. See here . Eclectek C T 15:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the whole article, just three sections. The offending material was added at 03:32, March 16, 2007 by User:74.102.64.140. It has been removed. --Blainster 09:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation 

message: At the end of the "History of the Idea" section, am I the only one who thought the final addition was completely superfluous and unnecessary? It adds nothing to the article itself, or the understanding of the concept, nor is it philosophically or historically important or relevant. It's just a meaningless interjection of vegan propaganda with no real connection to the concept.
The section in question:
"The Other manifests in the ethical theory of vegan feminist Carol J. Adams in the form of the absent referent. This refers to a psycho-social detachment between the consumer and the slaughtered animal which occurs when people eat meat."
I'd remove it, but I imagine this discussion panel is here for a reason. - AceRoccola 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree whole-heartedly, the sentence in question does not sinc with the work and adds little to it except to provide an example of the concept in use from a particularly radical perspective. The last thing this article needs is to fill itself with a glut of misc. examples as the concept is so pervassive that it has seeped into countless gender and ethnic studies. --70.190.102.19 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: No, remove it if you feel it is irrelevant, others will comment  on your change if they disagree. The discussion page is for things like major and persisting disagreements. Otherise we dive in and alter if we feel we can justify our case. TonyClarke (talk) (a vegan!)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegan advertisement. 

message: Doesn't the Existential use of the concept of the Other go back to Husserl's work on intersubjectivity? If so, why isn't that mentioned? -- 213.6.14.165 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does and should be. Andrewa (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husserl 

message: Someone has put together Theory of Others which is suppose to be a joke or something. Could a more experienced editor help get it removed?--Ducio1234 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of Others

message: Rimbaud was not the first to use the phrase, nor was Hegel even "among the first". In a commentary on Levinas i remeber reading that it has been used as far back as Plato - I don't have the source material for that though - could someone look into this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross.Brighton (talk • contribs) 05:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Idea 

message: What is indivudation?  It's not in OED or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  I inserted a wikilink to nothing (redlink) in hope that some cleverer soul can do at least a stub to add to the understanding of this article. Maryna Ravioli (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indivudation /* History of the idea: Levinas quote */ 

message: It is interesting to see that someone most academics would have never heard of made it to the bibliographical list, with an essay title cryptic to the point of asininity: 
 
:Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad (2006), "'Etymythological Othering' and the Power of 'Lexical Engineering' in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. A Socio-Philo(sopho)logical Perspective", Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion, edited by Tope Omoniyi and Joshua A. Fishman, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 237–258.
 
It seems unintelligent to include this paper -which has had absolutely no impact on the academic world- and not include in the same list any works by Edward Saïd. It would not surprise me if Ghil‘ad Zuckermann had edited himself into this article. I honestly do not see who else would have thought of doing so. Oulipal (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who?! 

message: Alot of this sounds like a person who thinks they're profound but they're not getting high and then being told to write something as profound as possible.
;Reply to the Editor:
Yes, the obscure language of this edit indicates an in-crowd definition of the subject, which renders the matter inaccessible to the layman reader.
I am reviewing the provided sources, and shall clean up the text. 
Chas. Caltrop (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  All these words and there's like nothing there 

message: Hegel calls it Lord and Bondsman, not master and slave as Marxists have used it. The former refers to much more than a struggle between classes (as the latter implies) and rather involves a struggle between two different forms of consciousness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  master slave dialectic? 

message: The article alterity should be merged here, since they deal with the same topic. Evenfiel (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose – In Continental philosophy, the relation between the terms "same" and "identity" is not the same as the relation between the terms "Other" and "alterity". The term "Other" is usually used in the context of ethics (see also Face-to-face), while the term "alterity" is usually (but not exclusively) used in the context of ontology (sometimes along with the term "indeterminacy"). Thus, I would be reluctant to support a merger of the two articles. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hegel, Fichte, Husserl, Sartre... This is fine for students of philosophy who are familiar with their works I suppose. But shouldn't people first be referred to by their full name for identification? 184.98.127.78 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name conventions 

message: Many philosophical terms are capitalized in this article. Does that conform to MOS guidelines? WCCasey (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: * Having looked over MOS:CAPS I can't find anything to indicate that capitalised "Other", "Otherness", "Othering", etc is consistent with the MOS, which implies that the article needs correction. (Same goes for the capitalised "Self".) However, I haven't already done this because I may have missed something.
: The issue of capitalisation has been raised before by  who also questioned whether this article complies with WP:MOS. Since it definitely isn't a proper noun, the only case for keeping the current capitalisation I can see is that it may be especially common in academic/scholarly sources.
: My understanding is that although it is common in philosophy, it's not overwhelmingly so to the extent that it would be weird not to capitalise "the Other". For example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article for Emmanuel Levinas apparently only capitalises "the Other" in book titles even when referring the specialist term.
: My anecdotal experience is that "Other" may be capitalised in the context of continental philosophy (a practice that I suspect may be influenced by German, where all nouns are capitalised, although it also seems popular with people who like Lacan so maybe it's French thing), however this is not a universal practice and it is actually uncommon in other contexts where the philosophy of "the Other" has been influential, such as the sociology and politics of othering. I don't recall ever seeing "othering" capitalised as is done in this article and it seems like it's done here for consistency only. However, this isn't really my field so I could be dead wrong about this.
: I suggest de-capitalising "the Other" and associated terminology in this article. -- Scyrme (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hello, hope you don't mind the ping. I know it's been a while, but after seeing this article I decided to check the talk page to see if this conversation has already been had. Doesn't seem like it has, since no-one replied to you until now. -- Scyrme (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience it's about half-half on capitalization, and it does tend to be more Europeans who capitalize. But for me it's often useful, just for ease of reading, for it to be capitalized. M.luochuanensis (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's an arbitrary preference then Wikipedia's manual of style should take precedence, and I haven't seen anything in the MOS which would justify this usage of capitals. – Scyrme (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital letters for "Other", "Othering", etc? 

message: While some of what is written here identifies various authors’ views on the concept of the other, a large part descends into just some post-structuralist grad student waxing rhapsodic about his political views.  These can be found, not surprisingly, when the subject of race, gender, and post colonialism are broached. The amount of rewriting it would take is significant, even to get it to the point of coherent let alone an objective description of the matter. Whole paragraphs would best be trashed, such as on racial aspects. I have no inclination to do so since the topic is so ludicrous and arcane to begin with, but it reflects poorly on Wikipedia (then again, what else is new). Sychonic (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific about what text/sources you object to. Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Large Part of this Article Reads As Advocacy