Talk:Potentiality and actuality

message: I have archived the page contents up until very recently based on an AN/I thread discussion. I was indiscriminate - so if useful information was archived please feel free to selectively unarchive it again. I hope this is amenable to everyone --Errant 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Potentiality and actuality. 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/20110927014640/http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-fathers/61-gregory-palamas-an-historical-overview?title=Gregory_Palamas%3A_An_Historical_Overview to http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-fathers/61-gregory-palamas-an-historical-overview?title=Gregory_Palamas:_An_Historical_Overview
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) 14:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is some 9 years after my first assessment. I can't believe I am still here. Incredible luck. Whatever I said before if mainly true was incredibly daunting. I apologize to one and all. I must have frightened people off. I have not seen Andrew for a long time. 
Current standing. It is not really so bad. A lot about it is right. But before, I was not entirely candid with you, as I was afraid to be, in deference to the non-Catholic audience. The part I left out is, you can go to any Catholic college and take this material in any philosophy course. It falls basically under Metaphysics, but it comes from a number of treatises of Aristotle, such as Physics. The reason you can do this is that St. Thomas Aquinas relied heavily on Aristotle, and a lot of St. Thomas was adopted by the popes as dogma. So, if you want to understand it treat yourself to one of the handbooks in philosophy published by the Jesuits for use in Catholic colleges. Catholics do not bother with articles such as this. This is only for non-Catholics who have no comprehension of it and like to go around in circles. I'm not Catholic myself. I'm Protestant. So when I bring these matters up to my fellow non-Catholics I sort of cringe. The fundamentalist Christians just reject the whole thing out of hand and demand to know if I believe this stuff. To the scientists this "metaphysical" stuff is just witchery. Understanding a lot of it now I have to say, no, it isn't witchery. If you want that, read the story of Puritan New England. If you want to know what it is all about, bite the psychological bullet and read the material you have been taught to be prejudicial about. There's no other way. As far as improving this article is concerned, I'm still holding out for what I said before. We need some degree of expertise, someone with some Greek and Latin, with some philosophy and tolerance for other views. I can't do it - I would not be doing anything else. Good luck, ciao.Botteville (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still around. But I do not recall what comments you made in the past, so it is a bit hard to decrypt your remarks. Are you saying the article is prejudiced?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Fly-by revisit

message: Upon visiting this page, I believe that this page deserves a more lengthy treatment of the concept of potentia within physics, as it has been used by Heisenberg, Shimony, and others. SpiralSource (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Further considerations for usage within physics

message: The redirect Actual has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Actual]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The German language wiki links this concept to Blumenbach and Kant's discussion of Bildungstrieb (lat. nisus formativus) 
I'm curious to understand why it is missing from this English page, given the presence of other German philosophers. 2A02:1812:414:6C00:904D:B8B7:AAED:2ADC (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That might simply be work for the future. Thanks for raising it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are Kant and Blumenbach?