Talk:Monad

message: Has anyone some more information about monads in category theory?
--JensMueller
Isn't the term monad also used for the Asian yin-yang symbol, which was also used as a corporate logo by the Northern Pacific Railroad?  
--Chris Rodgers
: Close but I think your thinking of Monad (Technocracy)
There is also a monad associated with Haskell (a programming language). 
http://www.nomaware.com/monads/html/
Dictionaries such as 1913 Webster tell that a monad can be "4. (Biol.) A simple, minute organism; a primary cell, germ, or plastid." and even "5. (Chem.) An atom or radical whose valence is one, or which can combine with, be replaced by, or exchanged for, one atom of hydrogen."
: I think the biological usage is now archaic, and related to Liebnizes usage.  If the biology or chemistry usage are still in use let's add them.  Anyone know for sure? Bmorton3 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: What about monads in Haskell programing language ?
:The entry was there already. I just moved it outside of mathematics item so it should be easier to see it now. --TuukkaH 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Haskell programming language|Haskell]]

message: Why did you remove the philosopher links but leave the occult ones on this page? LoveMonkey 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really explain the link to Gnosticism you left then. If it is inapprepriate then the resolve would be to create YET another monad page that has the words history. Why this page? A page that was deciced to be ambigious but there is no alternative page that covers the history of the term then? If I look up the word Monad in a normal encyclopedia I get the word and it's meaning not a reference page.
LoveMonkey 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not your standard people can go to the monism page and find out about gnosticism. You might consider adding  **Hermetica, The Cup or Monad there. 
LoveMonkey 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Not your standard if that was the case then you would have at least let some of my edits. You removed the the father of monad and the most famous philosopher of the monad when you removed ALL of my edits. But you left the two only occult references? I don't follow.
LoveMonkey 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That could be only one possible assumption the another is that they would like to know that the specific word MONAD was used to MEAN ATOM. But you removed that too.
LoveMonkey 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That might hold water if A) you hadn't left the two occults references and b) I had only added philosophy links that had no barring on other fields of study. But since you removed Epicurus that argument doesn't hold water either Atomism.
LoveMonkey 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Then removal of my Kant reference was incorrect. The book I referenced isn't even mentioned on Kants article page. This does not fit with any of the other critieria. This appears to mean a term and it's history can not be used unless explicitly noted. In that case a WHOLE LOT of greek philosophy articles need to be reworded to express the monad in greek as monad from the original text rather then whatever word Monad was translated into. AKA Plotinus, Parmenides, Xenophanes need to explicitly say the greek word Monad. Also the chinese don't have the word Monad at all in their vocabulary. And then why remove the Plato and Parmenides links? So what is it if Monad can be mentioned in the Gnosticism why can it not be mentioned by the philosophers? If one is looking for a book about Monads why did you remove my mention of Kant and his book on "Monads"? Your edit has an impossible criteria. It also contridicts its self. 
LoveMonkey 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at my latest edit Harmil 1 what does that mean to your comment "The monad disambiguation page is not a place to explore the history of monadism, but as its goal is to provide searchers with access to a list of "monad" pages, I left anything that had specific similarities of name." and "That's as I recall. If there's something not explicitly named "monad" on that page, it should go." Go look at the Plotinus page. When I came to this page to edit it. I did it with my late edit in mind 1. Tell me now why the occult references where left (without translation duplicity)? Or are you missing the point that ALL of the articles I linked create the meaning of the latin word monad. Since the english word for monad is ONE or UNIT. 
LoveMonkey 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. First off, please read WP:D. It will help you to understand the purpose of a disambiguation page. Second, relax. I have no agenda here, other than to improve the usability of Wikipedia, and I'm am assuming that you don't either. -Harmil 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov/bias 

message: *Monad, a symbol of God or totality is known in several philosophical circles
Why was this heading left? But the edits that I contributed to explore this where removed?
LoveMonkey 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading 

message: I replaced the links removed by Mongo, because no one told me not to... no, I mean, because they seemed like a valid attempt at a compromise on the part of one editor. I think Mongo, for whatever reason, didn't notice that perhaps consensus was at least being moved towards. In any case, I consider it hashed out (unless somebody else decides to removed them again, of course :). Also, I made a few formatting and wording changes to the page, but most of those are of a fairly uncontroversial nature, so I won't bother to explain them.
It seems to me, I might (in fact, will) add, that often, when I see a page where someone has done substantial work adding info (the way LoveMonkey has here, for instance), it often indicates there is susbtantial relevant information available. When disagreement like this erupts, it's sometimes because the underlying page 'concept' is wrong in the first place. I guess what I'm saying is, has anybody considered Monad (philosophy) as an exploration of the history of this notable and interesting concept? Many other philosophical ideas have pages tracing their history, changing definitions, etc, and this word could qualify for one, too. (BTW, you'll also need to mention Theosophists specifically, or at least those of the Alice A. Bailey persuasion, as the word figures quite prominently in her books, as well.) Eaglizard 10:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I have deleted the following entry from the article:
* Monad, a term used by the ancient philosopher Epicurus to describe the smallest units of matter, much like Democritus's notion of an atom (atomism)
There is no indication whatsoever that Epicurus ever used the word 'monad' to describe the smallest indivisible units of matter. In all of his preserved writings he was perfectly happy to follow Democritus' lead and speak of 'atoms'. --Fabullus 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Epicurus and the monad

message: The first definition of monad here shows some signs of original research and is saddled with a bit of theosophy. It's true the Neoplatonists occasionally used the term to describe the One, which they equated with god, but this usage is hardly the common one. Plato and Aristotle, when they do use the term (i.e., in the Philebus, Topics, Metaphysics), never do so to discuss a deity of any sort. Further, the word μονας does not even appear in the extant fragments from Parmenides. Also, it's sloppy to attribute usage of "monad" to Pythagoras himself when we posses none of his writings (if he wrote anything at all). Please avoid making contributions if you're not familiar with the primary sources.
T of Locri (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not supposed to be a definition, it's just supposed to be a brief pointer to a real article. With only one link. I undid your expansion which made it even longer and had more than one link, but I'd have no objection if you come up with a more concise and more accurate rephrasing of this line that only has the one link. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not linking genus is fine by me, but I don't think the text added is extraneous. A compound sentence is preferable to one that's simply false.
T of Locri (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Monad" in Greek Philosophy

message: http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~pareigis/Vorlesungen/04SS/Cats1.pdf
See pp.6, 8, 9, 15
77.125.104.71 (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A strange use of the term 

message: Do we really need it in the same dab page as monad? Not sure what the guidelines say on this type of issue... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *But it might be possible to construct a tiny dab page at "Monadic", with Wiktionary link, to point to the Monad page and the sense used in Arity, with the same "lookfrom" and "intitle" links. PamD (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I've added an entry in wikt:monadic (it was missing the math sense although Collins Unabridged has it ), and I changed the Monadic page here to point to that. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monadic 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Monad (philosophy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress