Talk:Actual idealism

message: Um, this has potential to be a great article, but a lot of the wording is truly alienating. Is it at all possible to generalize into a more immediately appreciable form, for the philosophically inept? (ahem!) If I knew ANYTHING about this, I would try myself, but, alas... Zanturaeon 06:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article makes no sense. But then, 90% of Hegel makes no sense either. Mjk2357 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Academics write hieratic prose that is not meant for demotic readers. A social class of priests and professors are needed to interpret the cryptic words for the common reader. This Wiki article of Actual Idealism could be considered to be a classic example of the academic manner. Analytic Philosophy, with its purpose of clarification, came into being in response to such uncommunicative writing.Lestrade (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Though I've removed it, the Fascism template (a political template) has been re-added. Though the philosophy, in the eyes of it's originator, accepted Fascism, Fascism did not accept Actual Idealism. Regardless of what either did for the other. It should have a philosophy, or Philosophical idealism, navigational template. Not a Fascism one. Any discussion about this should be added here. Nagelfar (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean fascism didn't accept actual idealism? I'm pretty sure it was considered the official philosophy of fascism MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism template. 

message: Since Gentile was a Hegelian, and his philosophy was called "actual idealism," I wonder if there is any relation to Hegel's definition of "actual"? Hegel used the word "actual" to designate his own concept. In a typically Pickwickian [idiosyncratic] manner, he employed the word "actual" to mean "the union of the universal with the particular." (In common non–Hegelian language, "actual" means "existing as a genuine, present fact.") For Hegel, any particular that is the same as a universal is actual. For example, if the particular keyboard that is now in front of you is not united with the universal keyboard, then your keyboard is not actual. Is Gentile's actual idealism somehow related to the union of universals and particulars?Lestrade (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very likely, and that meaning has older origins I'm guessing. Gentile spoke of Actual Idealism in his works such as the 'Theory of mind as Pure Act' which relates to the Thomist/Catholic Actus purus, which is very likely of import to this. Nagelfar (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside the philosophic historicity of the two terms (actual idealism) so qualified in tandem, a colloquial rendering more suited to the anglophone discriminations might be found as "actuated ideation". That however would not connote the persistence of act through immanence to the reification that the word "actual" does as in 'actuality', since it has the ability (when in the tense of 'actuate') to be construed as like articulation would be. Ideation, as a plane of immanence for the activity of idealism as self-generation, shows promise in making such distinctions, is my current inclination, though, as to what poses useful cogency of explanation.  Nagelfar (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The English translator of Gentile's 'Theory of mind...' had this to say about it: He names it "actual" idealism, and by this term he would distinguish two distinctive marks... ..."actual" means...that it is the idealistic concept of the present, the concept of an eternal present, which is not an exclusion of times past and times future, but a comprehension of all history as present act determined by past fact, eternal becoming. It is therefore in one sense the most familiar concept of our common experience, the concept of our conscious life in its immediacy... ...would avoid the Scylla of intellectualism (under which are included both materialistic naturalism and idealistic Platonism) on one hand, and the Charybdis of mysticism on the other... Nagelfar (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Actuality

message: This was removed:
According to Dr. William S. Sadler in a glossary companion he compiled for the Urantia Book, From the time viewpoint, the Actual is that which was and is: the Potential is that which is becoming and will be: the Original is that which is. From the eternity viewpoint, the differences between the Original, the Actual, and the Potential are not thus apparent. These triune qualities are not so distinguished on Paradise-eternity levels. In eternity all is—only has all not yet been revealed in time and space. From a creature’s viewpoint, actuality is substance, potentiality is capacity. Actuality exists centermost and expands therefrom into peripheral infinity; (1262.8) 115:3.11
Besides that it is an unrelated synthesis, it views the absolute as an object here, it being a "was" as well as an "is" would make it thus abstract and therefore the 'indeterminate absolute' which Gentile rejects in his Actualism. It appears to be taking the absolute in the Aristotlean sense (as Gentile would call it) reversing the concrete by making the 'actual' an objectification and making potential a 'becoming', whereas Gentile follows the Scholastics by making the act a becoming and anything in the 'potency' of another its fact not its act. Potentiality is an abstract concept of future, as is the empirical present is properly a past in the act of the eternal present act of thinking. Nagelfar (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sure you are right. however, since you are not yourself the established author of a treatise on Actual Idealism, Idealism, aristotle, the scholastics, etc, i think its safe to say that all this talk is still original research and synthesis from the WP perspective. who the hell cares what mr sadler says, and who cares if his interpretation is opposed to what gentile rejects in his actualism. who says he rejects it? really, who besides you says that? what this article needs is to be stripped down to 1 or 2 sentences using commonly understood terms, with additional sentences added with inline citations from books both critical and simply summarizing of his ideas. This article is an example of why WP is considered a joke to so many. ps, we might like to add comments about how fascist philosophies were, well, controversial at certain times. at least i heard they were, its not clear from the history books, which are so fence sitting on fascism. was it good or bad? I guess we'll never know...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing 'wikipedia synthesis' from article. 

message: I put the  template across this article on every sentence that I thought might be worth looking at the original italian and haven't reviewed myself, due to double translation from Italian -> French -> English Immanuelle please tag me (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification needed