Talk:Projectivism

message: Quite an enigma.  Seems like there's two concepts which might be related.  One concept involves moral philosophy-- Simon Blackburn's name keeps cropping up.  A second concept involves philsophy of perception, usually moral philosophy.
Hope someone smarter than me sorts this all out.
-Alecmconroy 04:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Projectivism?

message: I'm on vacation at the moment and I have few books with me. When I get back home I will be able to add the missing citations.
I decided to go for an informal style. I have missed out a lot of the detail and subtlety. I hope, however, that it is easy to understand. Please tell me if there is some part of it that needs changing.
I suggest merging this article with the article on expressivism, since the two theories are so closely linked. If I get some measure of agreement on this, I might try to write a joint article.
Tom Donaldson
---Hume section edit---
I don't have time to edit the entire article, but I edited the Hume section to make it more accurate to what Hume actually said (although I did not cite sources).  I agree that the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone.  However, I must disagree with the suggestion that this article be merged with expressivism.  Although it is true, prima facie, that they are conceptually related, they are nonetheless distinct concepts which I believe merit their seperate pages.  Frazerho 17:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "encyclopedic" you mean "in a manner appropriate for an encyclopedia", I fail to see any problem with the article as it stands. If by "encyclopedic" you mean, as a large number of Wikipedians seem to, "dull as dishwater and lacking all traces of personality", I agree that the article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, but that's fine; in that sense Wikipedia needs to become less, not more, "encyclopedic". 66.60.237.20 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL theres not any encyclopedia in the history of the world that would have accepted anything close to this piece. Its not at all encyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.37 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: My Edit

message: So the article says: "A bigger vulnerability for projectivism is that it lacks explanatory power over meta-ethics, and instead explains it away. Projectivism may stand to meta-ethics as particularism stands to ethics." I don't understand, what needs to be explained and why this is a vulnerability? It could potentially be a strength: we don't know how to turn a tree into a table. The carpenter comes by and tells you how to, therefore it explains the 'problem' away. The carpenter perhaps lacks explanatory power over why others didn't understand how it could be done, but that's a non-problem.
 
What am I missing here? Perhaps the article could be improved by expanding on this a bit more? I also don't see how it's like ethical/moral particularism. 31.20.133.166 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - the whole article is problematic due to lack of citations - the section, Projectivism in ethics and meta-ethics, has only two sources, David Hume and Simon Blackburn - the article could be a candidate for deletion due to lack of reliable sources - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be explained and why is it a vulnerability?