Talk:Human/Archive 12

message: *Materialism holds that a human is matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a certain set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature.
vrs.
*Humanism is a philosophical view emphasizing Materialism. It can perhaps be best understood in emphasis on human cultural values (Moral relativism), rather than what is objective or absolute.
vrs.
*Humanism is a philosophy that is centered on human interests or values. As a philosophy, it generally rejects supernaturalism and emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual and the capacity for self-realization through reason.
----
The first is what was there, the second is my version, and the last is what is there now. Why anyone might think I was confusing materialism and and humanism is not the subject for debate, but rather the reasoning behind our preferences for these 3. New suggestions or mergers of these passages are of course welcome. I find the 3rd to be redundant and POV. For example, nearly all views of humanity emphasize dignity and the capacity for self-realization through reason. Sam Spade  21:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire 'Beliefs about human nature' subsection, despite whatever content is settled upon, is misplaced where it now resides. It belongs in the Culture section of the article. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What were discussing here

message: Just as an aside, infanticide is forbidden by section 206 of the Solomon Islands Penal Code. Here's someone being tried for it. Grace Note 09:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: illegal but not substantively enforced, i'd say.  $50 fine.  i pay more for speeding tickets.  i doubt this ruling is consistent with a view of infants as persons.  No admitted murderer of an adult could get off with a $50 fine because of "emotional strain," being a member of a youth group, and having six stitches.  i think the differential treatment implies some difference in the view of infants as persons. at the very least, the baby was not afforded "the full protection of the law." Ungtss 15:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solomon Islands infanticide 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing a policy proposal of general interest 

message: I've kept away from the article for a while, but on my return I discovered that my attempt to get clear about the philosophical issues had been removed.  I've again tried to clear up the conflation of distinct positions (such as dualism and supernaturalism), as well as the central distinction between the human being and the person; it's now accurate, but probably needs polishing. I did have a reference to Kant as well as a more specific refernce to Locke; if it's felt that they're needed, I'll try to find them in the history of the article. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam Spade reverted your good efforts here citing "materialism and dualism don't deserve this level of emphasis, not does locke, etc." My questions are who is Sam to say what level emphasis they do deserve, and what is his justification for this rather wholesale, sweeping justification? I've reverted his attempt at deletionism pending satifactory answers. FeloniousMonk 21:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical part of summary 

message: I've been watching the reversion wars with interest... it seems to me that neither version is especially appropriate for the opening paragraphs of this article - not because they are not well written or because they do not address important aspects of human experience, but simply for the sake of a concise intro.
Look at the topics and links brought up in the first two paragraphs: primate, reasoning, speech, introspection, nations, cultures, beliefs, social norms. They are general; they are appropriate for a brief overview of humanity.
The distinctions between monism and dualism, and the like, are better addressed deeper in the article. They are far too specific to be hashed about in such a brief introduction. The intro does well to take on the basic scientific and sociological distinctives of human beings in a very concise manner. It suffers when burdened with philosophical matters like these. While the article as a whole probably benefits from the discussion (although I'm not convinced these debates properly belong in the human article as opposed to their entries of their own), the introduction does not benefit from their presence, IMHO. --Bob Schaefer 19:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concision