Talk:Pluralism (philosophy)

message: The article could maybe present a bit of information on the philosophy of radical pluralism, which is a bit different from typical pluralism in that it is radical. ADM (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The practical upshot is more or less the same if one wants an account of change between those extremes, but of course, flux was Heraclitus, not Parmenides.—Machine Elf 1735 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical pluralism

message: If one is going to accept both contradiction and truth ("several conflicting but still true descriptions of the world") why bother continuing? 
Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every coin has two sides. BlueMist (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic on Wikipedia

message: A new version of the article ontological pluralism has been written and comments are requested on its talk page at User:Brews_ohare/ontological_pluralism#RfC:_New_version_of_Ontological_pluralism.. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: New version of Ontological pluralism 

message: :Ontological pluralism takes several forms. Among them are the the belief in classical elements that exists in many ancient world views, and the more recent interpretation that it is the discussion of  different ways or modes of being. These and other approaches are discussed in more detail below.
Classical elements
:blah blah blah (present text in article)
Modes of being
:A more recent interpretation of ontological pluralism is that it discusses different ways or modes of being. "There are numbers, fictional characters, impossible things, and holes. But, we don’t think these things all exist in the same sense as cars and human beings." In very technical terms, ontological pluralism claims that an accurate description of reality uses multiple quantifiers that do not range over a single domain of discourse. 
References
Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is great. On wikipedia I have found the best option is always to find some way to sub-divide a section/entry so that both editors can be represented. I have to say, I think if we were limited for space that Brews has the more relevant/important discussion of ontological pluralism. However, we are not limited for space. SO let's just divide the sub-section into an entry on "modes of being" and an entry on "classical elements". - Atfyfe (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ontological pluralism

message: The present section ontological pluralism contains an unsourced introduction to Wittgenstein:
:"Another example of ontological pluralism can be found in Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion of language-games; the idea that different mutually agreed rule systems, and in the case of ontological matters, ontological rule systems, are adopted in conversation and communication for a purpose which delineates the rules, constituting the language-game's meaning. For example, it is common to refer to a film, novel or otherwise fictitious or virtual narrative as not being real. Thus a functional ontological distinction is made, despite the fact one really did see the film, and one really did read the novel; that is, despite the fact that one cannot experience something that isn't real, or at least, a real experience. In the context of the language-game however, the characters in the film or novel are not real, where the 'real world' is the everyday world in which we live."
I believe this exposition is completely unrelated to classical elements and so requires a separate subheader. Also, the general idea of an ontological distinction between the reality described in a novel, and 'reality' itself falls under the rubric of 'modes of being' and should be lumped into a section on that topic along with a much more extensive discussion of 'modes of being'. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The  material is more than well covered in linked articles.  You are using the same material and sources on multiple articles and its not necessary.   If I look at the Oxford Companion, a recent publication the entry is very simple and does not have any of the material you are suggesting.  Also on quotations, you keep doing this, selecting quotations and adding your commentary.  This is not a place for you to write under graduate essays it is an encyclopaedia.  We have to create a proportionate representation of relevant material, not extended sections expanding on what editors reading of limited sources ----Snowded TALK 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments about 'undergraduate essays' are, of course, simply insults devoid of value. Your vague comments about what is 'proportionate' and 'extended sections' supports making ontological pluralism a separate article. Then things can be condensed here. What is not contained in the 'Oxford Companion' is legion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It (the Oxford Companion) is what Wikipedia calls a reliable third party source.  I am sure you think you could have done a better job, but you haven't been published on the subject so it is something you have to learn to live with ----Snowded TALK 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded: I didn't suggest the 'Oxford Companion' is unreliable, but that it is not an exhaustive treatment of ontological pluralism. It does say the following however, about Jacques Maritain: "he advocates ontological pluralism, claiming there are various non-reducible levels of existence, e.g. the physical, the biological, the psychological, the social, and the spiritual; and similarly he insists upon the diversity of our ways of knowing reality..." [emphasis added]. You may note that 'ontological pluralism' by this account is far, far broader than mere 'philosophy'. It is hard to understand how you can discount the discussions by Price and by Eklund, and indeed the entire discussion of various ontologies by Wittgenstein, Carnap, Hirsch, Putnam and who knows who else. Brews ohare (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Pluralism, it is not the appropriate place for an 'entire discussion of various ontologies" by any number of philosophers. Tone down the edit summaries by the way, you are just building a case ....----Snowded TALK 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A complete misreading of my comment. Argumentative to no purpose. Your chosen source supports a wider view of the subject. The comparison of multiple ontologies is ipso facto a consideration of ontological pluralism.  Brews ohare (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Snowded has now abbreviated the discussion of ontological pluralism and in doing so has dropped a number of the useful citations in the original, particularly to Wittgenstein's work and its discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy for references (without commentary) to be added back in ----Snowded TALK 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wittgenstein 

message: In several reverts including one with the comment Excessive quotation and also linking to carnap stuff , Snowded has removed the explanation of Wittgenstein's contribution, several pertinent quotations, and additional material relevant to ontological pluralism as discussed by Carnap and by Quine. He has made no attempt to discuss the reasoning provided in this thread. Further discussion is needed, both as to why explanation of Wittgenstein's efforts has been emasculated, and as to why the discussion by Price, and Eklund about Quine and Carnap and Wittgenstein have been deleted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The  material is more than well covered in linked articles.  You are using the same material and sources on multiple articles and its not necessary.   If I look at the Oxford Companion, a recent publication the entry is very simple and does not have any of the material you are suggesting.  Also on quotations, you keep doing this, selecting quotations and adding your commentary.  This is not a place for you to write under graduate essays it is an encyclopaedia.  We have to create a proportionate representation of relevant material, not extended sections expanding on what editors reading of limited sources ----Snowded TALK 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments about 'undergraduate essays' are, of course, simply insults devoid of value. Your vague comments about what is 'proportionate' and 'extended sections' supports making ontological pluralism a separate article. Then things can be condensed here. What is not contained in the 'Oxford Companion' is legion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It (the Oxford Companion) is what Wikipedia calls a reliable third party source.  I am sure you think you could have done a better job, but you haven't been published on the subject so it is something you have to learn to live with ----Snowded TALK 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowded: I didn't suggest the 'Oxford Companion' is unreliable, but that it is not an exhaustive treatment of ontological pluralism. It does say the following however, about Jacques Maritain: "he advocates ontological pluralism, claiming there are various non-reducible levels of existence, e.g. the physical, the biological, the psychological, the social, and the spiritual; and similarly he insists upon the diversity of our ways of knowing reality..." [emphasis added]. You may note that 'ontological pluralism' by this account is far, far broader than mere 'philosophy'. It is hard to understand how you can discount the discussions by Price and by Eklund, and indeed the entire discussion of various ontologies by Wittgenstein, Carnap, Hirsch, Putnam and who knows who else. Brews ohare (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Pluralism, it is not the appropriate place for an 'entire discussion of various ontologies" by any number of philosophers. Tone down the edit summaries by the way, you are just building a case ....----Snowded TALK 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A complete misreading of my comment. Argumentative to no purpose. Your chosen source supports a wider view of the subject. The comparison of multiple ontologies is ipso facto a consideration of ontological pluralism.  Brews ohare (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Snowded has now abbreviated the discussion of ontological pluralism and in doing so has dropped a number of the useful citations in the original, particularly to Wittgenstein's work and its discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy for references (without commentary) to be added back in ----Snowded TALK 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Snowded's reverts

message: The section Pluralism (philosophy)#Classical elements presently is a subsection under ontological pluralism. However, nothing in this subsection, nor in the main article classical elements, documents that this topic falls under this heading. If there is in fact such a connection to ontological pluralism it should be documented. Brews ohare (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a good section name, s/b something like Pluralism (philosophy)#Ancient pluralism.—Machine Elf 1735 02:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I did look yesterday in a limited way and could not find anything.  It is also not treated as a separate subject in several sources where you would otherwise expect to see if.  I'm inclined to get rid of it, go with Machine Elf's suggestion and just use the phrase in the context of the summary of modern thinking ----Snowded TALK 05:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The newly titled section Ancient pluralism appears to me to be properly an ancient version of metaphysical pluralism, so I moved it to that section and out of 'ontological pluralism' where it definitely does not belong. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

text: This reassignment is supported by this and this. I haven't tried harder to find sources. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical elements 

message: Apologies for interrupting your work! In Logic and Ontological Pluralism, Turner said:
:Metaphysics, I hope you will agree, aims to uncover the ultimate structure of reality. 
:Some of this structure is ‘ontological’: it has to do with what there is. ‘Ontological structure’ is the kind of structure we could represent by a pegboard covered with rubber bands. When we say that there are some negatively charged particles, we say that some of reality’s pegs have the ‘negatively charged’ rubber band hanging from them. And when we say that an electron orbits a proton, we say that there is an ‘orbits’ rubber band stretched between one peg with an ‘electron’ band on it and another with a ‘proton’ band on it. (Not that the rubber bands represent other things — properties and relations — but rather they represent that certain things are or are related to each other in various ways.
This quote is consistent with the literature on metaphysics as the structure of reality, and ontology as the study of existence within each metaphysical system. 
A mathematical metaphysics defines certain classes of numbers as existents. The rules (metaphysics) of chess defines the board, knights, and rooks. These ontological existents do not specifically exist in other metaphysical systems, such as for football or quantum physics. This is metaphysical pluralism. A metaphysics will have its ontology and epistemology, and perhaps ethics, aesthetics, and so on.
Ontological pluralism is something else. It is an effort within a metaphysical system, conceived as absolute and without peers, to engulf various desired foreign ontological objects, such as change, mind, life, numbers, universals, and much more. 
Most of the literature, and also reader interest is this last category, of offering and defeating attempts at expanding the range of existents in standard modern philosophy.
We need to be extremely careful about the use of the terms real, existent, being, thing, object, relation, and so on. BlueMist (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also with how we use the words ontology and metaphysics.   Ontology in IT and also to a degree in Logic has come to mean something different that the nature of being and with that other terms are diverging to a degree ----Snowded TALK 05:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: BlueMist: I agree with your assessments. Do you think there are problems in the revised presentation of these matters? Brews ohare (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metaphysical or Ontological?