Talk:Xenophanes

message: *Peer review Xenophanes.
**I spent some time copyediting and NPOVing this article, but it still seems a bit "rah rah" to me. For example, it claims that Xenophanes influenced the work of Karl Popper, and that he anticipated the discovery that water originally covered the earth's surface. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the Presocratics, so if someone could peer review this I'd appreciate it.  —  Adam Conover † 01:39, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
** Volunteers:
**I'm not sure what "rah rah" exactly means, but as for Xenophanes' influence on Popper, see e.g. the latter's famous Lucas Prize acceptance speech, K.R. Popper (1982), "Duldsamkeit und intellektuelle Verantwortlichkeit", in: Toleranz. Zur Verleihung des Dr.-Leopold-Lucas-Preises, D. Stuhlmacher and L. Abramovski (eds.), Tübingen: Attempto, 173-185. That water once covered the earth Xenophanes deducts from finding fossils of sea creatures on mountains; this is Diels-Kranz fr. A 33 (or Kirk-Raven 184), Hippol. Ref. I 14, a very well-known reference indeed. Clossius 07:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the Editions section, it is stated that the book by Diels, Kranz is superior to the book by Kirk, Raven. I have seen this same comment in other Pre-Socratic articles. It is most probably a correct evaluation. However, isn't it a personal opinion? In addition, it is frustrating because the book by Diels, Kranz is generally unavailable and has not been translated into English.Lestrade 15:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just because an edition is hard to find (I wonder where; is there really any College library that doesn't have a DK edn.?), one shouldn't hush up that it is the betrer one, no? :-) Of course, "superior" is POVish, yet it is clearly the case on a scholarly level. And by serious reasons, such as that Kirk & Raven have a lens: They are interested in one aspect of the Presocratics, and that is their contribution to the philosophy of science. Thus, their edn. leaves out key fragments - and certainly testimonia.  In the end, Kirk & Raven is a student edition, as it was meant (DK was meant that way also, incidentally, but it wound up to be the standard scholarly edn.) Clossius 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bookish Superiority

message: I put in a reference to my own book here. If someone wants to replace it with a more suitable one I shan't mind a bit! Andrew Dalby 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is really great, and we really need more scholars to take the guts and do this if this ever should become a valuable encyclopedia! Many thanks! Clossius 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing for future generations

message: Xenophanes is created as one of the philosophers who completely de-anthropomorphsize the gods. In reality however, instead of projecting many different human qualities onto may gods, he simply projected a more specific person onto a god. Xenopahenes simply projects a philosopher onto a god. Xenophanes' god is mentally based, just, and omnipotent. Xenophanes is getting closer, but has not completely de-anthropomorphsized god (assuming this is even possible). He has made a break from Hesiod's mythology but he is still projecting human qualites onto god(s).
:Closer? Closer to what? Your personal image of God? Anyway, this is all as OR as it can be. Clossius 09:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xenophanes is the philosopher who wrote: "There is one god. He is the greatest among gods and men. But he is not, in any way, like mortals in body or in mind." He is different from the concept of the Hebrew God, the Saracen Allah, the Indian Brahma, and the Pharmigian Arnz. Although he resides on a cloud, and is reported to wear a long, grey beard, he has few other humanoid characteristics, and comes closer to being an abstract, de-anthropomorphized (without an "s") mental conception or figment. "He remains at all times in one place. He doesn't move, even an inch. For him to change position at different times is simply not proper." As a result, he, himself, cannot get closer to anything. Xenophanes deity is almost purely a mere empty thought in Xenophanes's mind.Lestrade 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is right as an answer to the first comment, but the last sentence is surely wrong. (There are some nice theological essays on X. in the references, precisely on that topic.) If transcendence and emptiness were the same, one could argue that, but they aren't and thus one can't. Clossius 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  he made a break but not completely 

message: At about 57.3 N and 82.0 W (Lunar co-ordinates) there is a crater on the moon called Xenophanes. Shouldn't we put a disambiguation notice at the top of this page? --216.106.109.111 14:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't there a crater on the moon called Xenophanes? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xenophanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090605160127/http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk:80/faculty/staff-bios/academic-research-staff/malcolm_schofield/ to http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/faculty/staff-bios/academic-research-staff/malcolm_schofield/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090309002849/http://philosophy.unc.edu:80/lesher.htm to http://philosophy.unc.edu/lesher.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article says, "Later philosophers such as the Eleatics and the Pyrrhonists also saw Xenophanes as the founder of their doctrines, and interpreted his work in terms of those doctrines, although modern scholarship disputes these claims."  But the linked-to article on the Eleatics says, "Although many philosophers throughout history have interpreted the doctrines of the Eleatics as responses to Xenophanes, Heraclitus, or Pythagoras, there is no broad agreement or direct evidence of any influence or direct response, although many theories have been put forth interpreting the eleatic in terms of these philosopher."  Article shouldn't assert that the Eleatics saw Xenophanes as the founder of their doctrines if there is no evidence of any direct influence. Philgoetz (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on Eleatics 

message: It is well established, to the ancient history of Mosul, that Xenophanes had visited Mosul, he gave it the name of (Misselah). This name was also called by the (Assyrian historians, post the common era), of the few remaining Assyrians. BUT, I cannot find a source to confirm this. However, if the whole notion is not true, so where did the Name of Ancient Mosul (Misselah) come from.  
If this visit was considered true, presumed true and it was taken for granted -that had been conveyed from generation to generation- then would it be true that Xenophanes might have been affected or influenced by the Jewish people in Mosul whom founded Mosul after the total destruction of the ancient city of Nineveh (bear in mind that the Israelis had been brought to Nineveh in 718 BC by the Assyrians) and he, Xenophanes, espoused the faith of the only One God? or, (Could he be a prophet that distinguished between the knowledge that we learnt in everyday life or by studying and the faith. Otherwise, where did he come with the idea of faith in the only One God from, or, the supreme One God that is Omnipotent, and can does things by his mind)? 
I would be grateful to you or to anyone who could help me find any clue that Xenophanes had visited Misselah, or, if Xenophanes had actually mentioned the town of Misselah in anyway? thank you. 185.239.178.145 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Visit of Xenophanes to Mosul (Moussel or Mousil) 

message: The infobox characterizes his criticism of religion as utilizing the concept of projection. Aside from worries about anachronism - he lived long before Freud, is projection the concept involved in anthropomorphizing?  In one sense I get it, projecting human qualities onto a non-human figure. On another I don't, projection is as I understand something like blaming others for what you did before they can blame you, making it seem stale when they inevitably do. Rather like inb4. In that sense of course, it seems little to do with Xenophanes. Yet it seems the more usual sense of the term. Why not, say, "criticism of anthropomorphic gods" as short enough to fit enough in the navbox but less ambiguous? Cake (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropomorphism as projection