Talk:Organicism

message: I added the tag (essay-entry|article) to the article. Article needs to be rewritten for a more professional/encyclopedic style. -- 201.19.11.75 15:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree, and would add that there is another related article which also needs work: kyokan.  They reference each other.72.78.29.132 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite for style 

message: For those with free time in the coming days, weeks, months, etc., please add to the this wiki-page. It needs some love. Here are some great resources for expanding upon the material and (potentially) adding new sections and accompanying information: 
1. https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/1097-0177%282000%299999%3A9999%3C%3A%3AAID-DVDY1036%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24176290_Mechanism_vitalism_and_organicism_in_late_nineteenth_and_twentieth-century_biology_The_importance_of_historical_context
3. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3260986/ (if you click on "View More")
I will be adding substantial material over the coming weeks, and would appreciate assistance from any willing to help.
: I'll help you.
: Some other interesting articles:
: https://www.jstor.org/stable/746712
: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708514
: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2707685
: https://www.jstor.org/stable/428314
: (they are behind a paywall; I have full access to them and can send them to other contributors by email if necessary. Just send me an email via my personal page if needed).
: Alcaios (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Revision 

message: Alcaios has quite rightly pointed out that this lemma needs revision. One problem of the lemma is that its range of subjects is insufficient. As regards biology, organicism in ecology is not even mentioned although it has been (one of) the main field(s) of discussion about organicism in biology in the last hundred years. (The controversy among mechanicism, vitalism and organicism about the nature of single living beings is older and mostly ended in the 19th century.) For that reason, I have suggested to add a section on organicism in ecology. My editing has been removed arguing "I did not see it adding anything to the overall page, and it was very poorly written". I'm not a native English speaker, so,  maybe, the English was poor. However, I'm a scientific expert in theory and history of ecology, and I claim that the content was substantial. I would be happy if anybody could comment on the addition I have suggested and on its removal. Maybe, my addition could be reworked by somebody to reach a helpful expansion of the scope of the lemma. Best Smht% (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organicism in Ecology 

message: To my mind, the structure of the lemma isn't conclusive, especially as regards the section "In philosophy". I would propose to put the three paragraphs beginning with "Some forms of organicism ..." and ending with "... elementaristic individualism and mechanical materialism.[16]" into a new section called "In sociology and political philosophy". Thereby I would propose to place the 1. paragraph at the end, thus: 
"Organicism' has also been used to characterize notions put forth by various late 19th-century social scientists who considered human society to be analogous to an organism, and individual humans to be analogous to the cells of an organism. This sort of organicist sociology was articulated by Alfred Espinas, Paul von Lilienfeld, Jacques Novicow, Albert Schäffle, Herbert Spencer, and René Worms, among others.[15]
Thomas Hobbes arguably put forward a form of organicism. In the Leviathan, he argued that the state is like a secular God whose constituents (individual people) make up a larger organism. However, the body of the Leviathan is composed of many human faces (all looking outwards from the body), and these faces do not symbolize different organs of a complex organism but the individual people who themselves have consented to the social contract, and thereby ceded their power to the Leviathan. That the Leviathan is more like a constructed machine than like a literal organism is perfectly in line with Hobbes' elementaristic individualism and mechanical materialism.[16] 
Some forms of organicism have intellectually and politically controversial, or suspect, associations. "Holism" in terms of the doctrine that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, often used synonymously with organicism, or as a broader category under which organicism falls, has been co-opted in recent decades by "holistic medicine" and by New Age Thought. German Nazism appealed to organicist and holistic doctrines, discrediting for many in retrospect, the original organicist doctrines. (See Anne Harrington). Soviet Dialectical Materialism also made appeals to an holistic and organicist approach stemming from Hegel via Karl Marx's co-worker Friedrich Engels, again giving a controversial political association to organicism."
What do you think of such a change? Smht% (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the Lemma 

message: Under normal circumstances, I would continue my disputation as you have still failed to provide evidence that "organic state" as it is used by "traditional fascists," or indeed by any other group one could brand as Neo-Nazi, has any connection at all with organicism. After all, neo-nazis are not Nazis proper. Therefore, while you have demonstrated that the Nazis of Germany themselves did indeed seem to espouse a type of Organicism (which I didn't even originally dispute), you haven't addressed the original issue. 
However, while you have failed to establish a clear link, I, myself, have found the necessary evidence to support your claims, which I will be adding. I also fully approve of the adding of the information you recently uncovered. Thanks. SwordOfEquity (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late. Keep crying, babe. GenoV84 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: References