Talk:Meditations on First Philosophy

message: I'm a bit confused. This article says in one spot that Meditations on First Philosophy was written after Discourse on Method. In another spot, it seems to apply that "Cogito Ergo Sum" was written as a response to criticism on Meditations. Specifically, the article states: "In one of Descartes' replies to objections to the book, he summed this up in the now-famous phrase, I think, therefore I am..."
Every other article regarding Descartes says that Cogito was first written in Discourse (Four years before Meditations!!)? - Patrick95350 04:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I changed the quote containing the (approximation of) the cogito to reflect what is actually said in the version of the Meditiations that is linked to at the bottom of the page (Meditation 2, paragraph 3). 
Baffledexpert 16:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not in the book

message: I've begun a major content expansion here.  I plan on continuing with Meditations 3-6 later.  uriah923(talk) 03:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Expansion 

message: It would be great to expand this wikientry to include the a summary of the Objections & Replies.
We could start with a summary of the Seven philosophers who submitted their objections...
:I second that wholeheartedly. If it has not yet been added once I have given them deeper study, I'll do what I can.Kai 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just in: I'm an idiot. It was already there. Tee-hee?Kai 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections & replies 

message: I changed, "I think, therefore I exist," to "I think, therefore I am."
First, you can either go with the French to Latin to English translation of: "I am thinking, therefore I exist,"
or, more properly, the French to English translation of: "I think, therefore I am."
The previous one was a mix of the two. Unsuspected 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think, therefore I am 

message: Probably the best I've read on the Wikipedia.  I'd submit it as a Featured Article candidate, but am afraid it'd be destroyed in the process.  --Tim4christ17 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing article

message: This page entitled "meditations of First Pholosophy" is really a discussion of Descartes works.  While we normally expect that an encyclopedia really is just a discussion or treatise on a subject, there is already a wikipedia section with the actual direct translations for many of Descartes works.
Now, in many ways, I believe this page is better, if at least more helpful, than the actual english translation (John Veitch Translation of 1901).  Therefore, I would never suggest that this article be proposed for deletion, however, I would want any wikipedia readers who come upon this page to understand that the contents of this page are the post-modern analyses of Descartes work and not actual translations.
So, I'm proposing to the author that he edit the page only to add a short contextual disclaimer informing the reader that this page is a modern interpretaion of Descartes meditations.  Then a link should be added to the actual John Veitch Translation of 1901, also found on wikipedia.
So then, the title of Meditation II shouldn't be "OF THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN MIND; AND THAT IT IS MORE EASILY KNOWN THAN THE BODY"?
:I suspect the author of the above was referring to the text linked from Wikisources. I found much of this article to be a fairly straightforward summary; I suppose, however, that perhaps mention somewhere that this is the common modern interpretation (as opposed to elimination of any analysis at all) would not be out of line. Comments, convention experts?Kai 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not actual translations 

message: The subtitle listed in the first sentence is not a translation of the "original Latin" subtitle. Did the subtitle change at some point, and if so, shouldn't it be mentioned how and why? Otherwise, it looks like a gratuitous change was made in translation, and if that were the case, I would expect Wikipedia to keep with the original consistently.
128.253.231.119 02:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitles 

message: There are serious flaws in both arguments. In the first, the "thing" that is infinitely perfect does not have to exist. The "God" that Descartes had in mind was the God in his perception, which does not qualify for existence. As an example, one part of the God is this argument that God exists, which Descartes believe to be true and thus part of a perfect image of God. In the second, Descartes failed to understand the time as a fourth dimension - that the "God" of his image is all the things in his perception, plus infinity. However, without the fourth dimension of "time", he would be indeed created by himself - His argument that he did not create himself was that he would have made himself perfect, which is not true, as the will to make himself perfect is actually "imperfect" - in other words, the imperfect always seek to be perfect, but we do not know that for the perfect. We can use this argument in the opposite way and conclude that we did create ourselves. Aran|heru|nar 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I think I may have been way to harsh, and misunderstood the ordering. Nevertheless, I think it would be betteer to rebuild that section up than try to trim the preveous wadge. Larklight (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Third Meditation 

message: Isn't the purpose of an Encyclopedia to give background information about something? Where's the introduction to this article? "Meditations blah blah was written by Rene Descartes in 16xx and was published blah blah while he was working on blah blah blah. The document may be seen as a response to blah blah blah and is symptomatic of the contemporary blah blah blah" - I mean, obviously, I could write all this, except that I came to this article to learn all this... seriously you guys I'm just writing to enquire as to whether I've read this whole thing wrong or if it's true that, in fact, this is not a good article according to the doctrine of Wikipedia etc. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah pardon my frustration and do please validate me if you think I'm not entirely insane. Thanks dudes. Urmarkt (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a major deletion by someone at 69.48.147.53.  The article now has an introduction. Minding (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not very Encyclopedic 

message: Either the SparkNotes website is copying verbatim Wikipedia, or Wikipedia is copying SparkNotes. Due to the lack of formatting for both the "summary" and "analysis" subsections on the Wiki page, and the section's incongruency with the summaries of other meditations, I think it's the latter. The text can be found here. If this is not useful, or mistaken, please accept my apology.
Bragglemuffin (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meditation I and SparkNotes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Meditations on First Philosophy. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131224052623/http://www.egs.edu/library/rene-descartes/quotes/ to http://www.egs.edu/library/rene-descartes/quotes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906100932/http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/hobbes/objections/objindex.html to http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/hobbes/objections/objindex.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210101629/http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/hobbes/objections/objects.html to http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/hobbes/objections/objects.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928085810/http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/descartes/elizabeth/gmrintro.html to http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/texts/modern/descartes/elizabeth/gmrintro.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060627102015/http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/philosophy/phi212s_descartes.htm to http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/philosophy/phi212s_descartes.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified