Talk:What Is Enlightenment?

message: What is enlightenment is a magazine edited by the American guru Andrew Cohen and an essay by Immanuel Kant.  I know the magazine a bit. The current content could be moved to enlightenment_(concept). Andries 20:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: An article on the subject might be useful, but just a list of various translations does not an encyclopedia article make.  And it should be at What is Enlightenment?, anyway.  RickK 19:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
it is so a pity that the first who answered this question - Mendelssohn is not even mentioned.
Kant himself said that if he would know about Mendelssohn's article he wouldn't bother writing his.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.50.98 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request 

message: I am not a specialist in philosophy. I have been looking around in many sources about the specific context of Kant´s publication (and I mean: what was the Berlinische Monatsschrift, who else answered, did Kant receive an answer himself in the magazine, etc.), and all that I am getting is "he answered to the question, among many other important philosophers". Only Mendelsshon is sometimes mentioned.
I am not sure if I should be posting this here, it is rather a request than a discussion, but if anyone happens to know something about the issue I will be very thankful and I think the article will be a more complete one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmgram (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people sent in essays, one of them being the Jewish-German philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. Foucault, in his brief 1980s essay which is mentioned at the end of the present article, makes several interesting points about Kant, the essay and his relation to the age - and he points out that Kant's reply was the one that most clearly described enlightenment as an epoch, a particular age (which had broken through in his own lifetime) within world history - and also an essay that showed a clear intention of making philosophy the investigator of the present time, of history as it moves around us and through us at any given time, of the fluent relationship between human history, "the now" and thinking. That kind of "Now's the Time" preoccupation of philosophy was new at the time, and has remained part of the compass of philosophy ever since (at least most traditions of modern western philosophy). 83.254.151.33 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: of it being a personal reflection of someone other than Kant, the work being a personal reflection. Do see there is text which is interpretation, historical revision from the present but that is a matter of lacking attribution which the other tag covers, and most of it is apparently factual, common present time interpretations of late 18th century europe. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources claiming it's a personal reflection of someone other than Kant? If not, there does not seem to be an issue to be discussed, only an opinion. Kleuske (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's why I removed the tag. Thank You. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No active discussion of issue 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Johann Friedrich Zöllner. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Johann Friedrich Zöllner" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Unfortunately, this whole article appears to be original research, which contradicts Wikipedia's established policies. I imagine back in 2004, when this article was originally created (see diff here}, such editing was permissible. But since that time Wikipedia has evolved and a personal essay written by a Wikipedia editor on Wikipedia is not acceptable. This is because coverage by multiple reliable sources is required . Editors are supposed to report what independent, secondary or third party sources say, and not what an unpublished editor says. So, it would be best if this were brought into compliance with Wikipedia standards. Lastly, see this latest comment from the editing history: here.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research