Talk:Gaston Bachelard

message: CharlieMansfield (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

message: This article is rather sloppy.  Take for example: "He argued against positivism andNewton had been left behind by the Theory of Relativity."  I have no idea what this means, except that the article is in serious need of attention. beekman 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tag 

message: ; Quotations
* Et, quoi qu’on en dise, dans la vie scientifique, les problèmes ne se posent pas d’eux-mêmes. C’est précisément ce sens du problème qui donne la marque du véritable esprit scientifique. Pour un esprit scientifique, toute connaissance est une réponse à une question. S’il n’y a pas eu de question, il ne peut y avoir de connaissance scientifique. Rien ne va de soi. Rien n’est donné. Tout est construit, Gaston Bachelard (La formation de l'esprit scientifique, 1934)[citation needed]
*: "And, irrespective of what one might assume, in the life of a science, problems do not arise by themselves. It is precisely this that marks out a problem as being of the true scientific spirit: all knowledge is in response to a question. If there were no question, there would be no scientific knowledge. Nothing proceeds from itself. Nothing is given. All is constructed."[citation needed] 
; Bibliography
* 1934: Le nouvel esprit scientifique  
* 1938: La formation de l'esprit scientifique: contribution à une psychanalyse de la connaissance objective 
; My comment
The above quote from the main article is self-contradictory, around my bold-face emphasis, as "La formation..." should match with 1938, and "1934" with Le nouvel esprit scientifique, as indicated in Bibliography. Unfortunately, I see to it that this erroneous Wikipedian information has been reproduced again and again. And I cannot help but say that the following two are responsible for this propagation of errors: 
# Wikipedia, and 
# Constructivism.
Should you not agree with me, say nowhere but just here so that I can hear you indeed. --KYPark (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious constructivism  

message: At least, if not at most, birth is given to you so that you can enjoy the whole world as much as you can at will. What on earth does Bachelard mean by "Nothing is given"? 
Too sick and tired of common Western partiality or sophistry, I should say on this occasion:
: "Nothing given, nothing taken." 
Or, more precisely:
: "Were nothing given, nothing would be taken or constructed." 
Does anyone sane really mean any "construction of reality" from nothing, from scratch for sure? Is a dragon or any imaginary, say God, surely such a sheer construction? God as such could not be known at all, I am afraid. Should God be omniscient and omnipotent, is it a human construction? Should constructivism be under control of the church, isn't it an absolute insanity? --KYPark (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing is given? 

message: Bachelard also influenced George Gusdorf; I have a draft article in my personal sandbox.  When added, 
Gusdorf would be a candidate for the list in the opening para ( only fashionable names are listed ??)
G. Robert Shiplett 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Gusdorf 

message: One part of the Section "The role of epistemology in science" reads: "and saw error as only illusion: 'Scientifically, we think the truth as the historical rectification of a long error, and we think experience as the rectification of the common and original illusion (illusion première)'". Saying that Bachelard "saw error as only illusion" would only be justified if his quote said "Truth is the historical rectification of a long error and experience is the rectification of the common and historical illusion". The gap between a general claim about the nature of error (what some would probably call an ontological concern) and Bachelard's statement about the way error works as a concept in the field of science (which some would probably call an epistemological concern) is fundamental to the meaning of Bachelard's work, the conflation between the two is distorting and inadmissible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect rendition of a quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaston Bachelard. 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/20071107075823/http://www.u-bourgogne.fr/CENTRE-BACHELARD/ to http://www.u-bourgogne.fr/CENTRE-BACHELARD/
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) 17:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find that the reference to his psychoanalytical and poetic side is quite poor which makes for a one-sided representation of his work.
i looked him up to find this information and was disappointed. non of those books are included in the list of english translations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasemincakmak (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  i am missing more information on his relationship to psychoanalysis and poetry 

message: This section sounds terrible. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I hope someone will: 
"Feminist philosopher
It should be noted, in his singular career, the concern which he had to ensure the development of his daughter, so much the time was marked by the cleavage of the sexes and the functions. Going against sexist stereotypes, he wanted to make his daughter a scholar. Suzanne would be a mathematician and philosopher and would be able to develop phenomenological and epistemological research of high standing" Amskie (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrible writing