Talk:Anthropocentrism

message: I made a new version 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSZvH7N5n8/Anthropocentrism
Human exceptionalism should be redirected to Anthropocentrism. This is better for future maintains
SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropocentrism and Human Exceptionalism merge

message: The article itself was really well written, I found it really interesting and easy to follow. Formatting is fine except for a few areas like the sources at the bottom where it has things like [1] and [2] can be fixed to read as text so that the readers know what they are clicking on. I also noticed a "[citation needed]" symbol in the article which should be adressed for copyright issues! I got a little confused when I got to the "article is in the process of merging" banner. Does that mean you're article is going to be merged under a new name or that another articles information is going to be merged onto your article? All in all though, it was an easy, informative and interesting read! Good job:)
Kgroblee (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: formatting

message: It seems that the page is no longer neutral.  The page seems to consist entirely of why biocentrism is greater than anthropocentrism.  The only information about anthropocentrism is in the introduction, and everything after that just slams it.  All of the sources cite pro-biocentrism articles, so this page no longer seems neutral or useful at all, considering it has little to no information about anthropocentrism itself. Jumpercable (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutraility, again 

message: internal contradiction:
1st sentence: anthropos, "man, human being"
2nd sentence: anthropos refers to both man and women. 
...does anthropos explicitly exclude hermaphrodites and other sexes? 
whatever-
easiest solution: suggest removing 'man' in first sentence, then " anthropos (the term, like “human”, refers to both men and women)" in second sentence can be cut.
:The simple answer is:  andros refers to "man", i.e. "male human being", whereas anthropos refers to "Man", i.e. "humankind" -- all members of the species H. sapiens sapiens.
:: Androcentrism:  a value-system that places primacy on males.
:: Gynocentrism: a value-system that places primacy on females.
:: Anthropocentrism:  a value-system that places primacy on humans.
: And so forth.  An ambiguous case is homocentrism, which could be interpreted either as equivalent to anthropocentrism or as referring to a value-system that places primacy on homosexuals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.149.73 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  anthropos=man= human or just anthropos=human?

message: Since wikipedia is supposed 
to be neutral, lets reduce the
anthropocentrism in articles about stuff like
extra terrestrial life and planets. T.Neo 11:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There definitely doesn't need to be a Christian Point of View section in every article, but I do think it's quite pertinent to this one, which should be developed further. Arguably, a big part of the reason for the pervasion of anthropocentrism is the Christian tradition, which grants man dominion over non-human animals and the earth. The two main stems of Western thought, the Greek and Western tradition, both emphasize anthropocentrism to some extent.--James O'Callaghan 08:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: Anthropocentrism (Homocentrism) – Viewing man as the center of the universe ; Human chauvinism ; Relating all that happens in the universe to the human experience ; The root cause of ecological crisis and extinction of species.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.69.28 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick summary of Wikipedia's anthropocentrism page 

message: I don't see how biocentrism can be a suitable antonym to anthropocentrism, as biocentrism by definition would include humans, it would be an overlapping definition. Perhaps the term Agrarocentric, as "Agrari" means "wild" in Greek, it would set up the contrast between Man and Wild.
:How would one then account for the homeless, or stone-age tribesmen living in the wild?  Would such "feral humans" be covered under "anthropocentrism" or "agrarocentrism"?  (Asked only partly in jest.) Paulburnett (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that vivicentric is an antonym to anthropocentric. --Lbeaumont (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biocentrism as antonym 

message: From the article: 
:Mark Twain praised Alfred Russel Wallace's "anthropocentric' theory" that the universe was created specifically for the evolution of mankind:
:
I cannot agree with the interpretation that Twain here is praising the anthropocentric theory. Clearly, he's ridiculing the entire notion that this chip of paint at the top would ever be perceived as the reason for the tower's existence. This is classic Mark Twain sarcasm.
Suffice it to say, changing "praised" to "ridiculed" would work perfectly to call attention to the true meaning of the quote. Change made, this is here for explanation. --trisweb (Talk) 04:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twain Quote Interpretation 

message: This page is not neutral at all! As noted below. How can you have a quote that ridicules Anthropocentrism to begin the entry! This page would be better off deleted than existing in its current form. It sits like an entry on dogs written by cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.78.179.90 (talk • contribs) 
:We can present a non-neutral point of view in a neutral fashion.  We explicitly acknowledge the position and biases of the author in our caption.  I think as a quote, it does an excellent job of giving the reader a feel of the character of the philosophical debate.  Gigs (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsigned comment 

message: I disagree with the person who left the comment directly above this one. I believe that this is a work in progress, and that there is a better way to fix up your article rather than deleting it. My first advice would be to perhaps compile definitions of Anthropocentrism based on multiple sources rather than one definition from a dictionary. With Multiple sources it is much harder to claim that one is bias, because it will prove that more people support what it is you are trying to say, and will add more validity to the article and the topic it covers. The initial definition needs to be more concrete, and a little bit longer, this needs to summarize Anthropocentrism in a way that is informative enough to grasp the concept, and intrigue readers to investigate further. 
The rest of the article is well supported by citations and I think that it is fairly well written. I like that there is a large amount of reading suggested in the "See Also" section. (Thursday March 15th 2012)
-BMPog  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMPog (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Those who would support the Greater Value Assumption assume that humans and animals are not equal; humans are superior to other animals. A primary reason for rejecting this view is that it could lead to biases in favoring humans over animals and mistreating different species. The opposite of the Greater Value Assumption would be deep ecology; humans and animals stand on equal grounds. http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Philosophy/anthropocentrism.htmlClhen88 (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Value Assumption 

message: The section on Christianity claims
:The use of the word "dominion" in ¿the? Genesis is controversial.
Then goes on to say Catholics...
:consider this to be a flawed translation of a word meaning "stewardship"
and that Catholics believe
:[mankind] is not inherently better than any other form of life.
The citation that follows (#12) points to the Vulgate, which contains the latin word "præsit" (jurisdiction) instead of "dominamini" (dominion). "dominamini" is then used two verses later in the exact same context.  While it is true that Catholics believe in stewardship of the Earth (and that mankind should thus have an environmentally friendly mindset), I don't see how the word "præsit" (if that's what this citation is even referencing) suggests that "dominion" would be a flawed translation; nor that having jurisdiction of the Earth would suggest that mankind is no "better" (depends what you mean by "better") than other forms of life. I guess I'd like to see a few citations in this area: one that establishes that there is indeed controversy over the word "dominion"; a second to show something authoritative from the Catholic church that contests the translation of dominion in Genesis; and a third that clarifies the Catholic position on mankind's relationship with other life--if we're really "not inherently better than any other form of life".  I think actual Catholic teaching is perhaps being misrepresented here, but I'm not the pope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.62.160 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: in any case if the text is going to claim something about the Latin Vulgate bible, it should give us the Latin text.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominion 

message: Should it be "Judeo-Christian" instead? Genesis is also a major part of Judaism and is not just exclusively Christian.Satanstorm (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: I tried bringing this up with Macropneuma. But he deleted my comment on his/her talk page. So I'll bring it up. Now the reason I've made those edits are for two reasons: 1) the perspective of people like William Grey is highly relevant to the lead. 2) Without this balance in the lead, and with the language of 'debunked' - that's NPOV presenting the idea that anthropocentricism is wrong. My edits present both, fairly, neutrally, not implicitly siding with either.  Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not waste my time. Do not take me for the fool you see, as that is in the eye of the beholder. –quotation from: myself. --macropneuma 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're not going to address my concerns don't blindly revert my edits. Re: "can't possibly have even read the dead link that they’ve aggressively tried to frame as and pretend as an equal source part of a false dichotomy balance. Representative weight of sources leaves Grey 1994 as a very poor quality scholarship source". For the record, I never added the Grey link, but with the pre-existing information on Grey, as well as external proponents of which I am aware; I'm not concerned with the sources for their page, I'm concerned with NPOV and balance: you have to acknowledge Grey and others (even if they need to be sourced) as highly relevant: their perspective that anthropocentricism requires sustainability is a huge counterpoint that you can't dismiss through exclusion from the lead and blatantly biased language of 'debunked' to describe those views. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 01:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about - where did this 'uni student' 'lecturer opinion' come from? I didn't have to read the source to see biased language: e.g. debunked and exclusion from lead. I've cited reliable sources that reveal lots of people that could be cited that your edits exclude. You're the one adding a personal opinion by presenting the sides of the debate in a biased way. None of my edits tried to say Grey was right or wrong. You're the one inserting that (aka your edits say Grey is "debunked" I never say the opposite, just that debunked is biased).  Sb101 (talk|contribs) 02:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

text: My goodness, you're insufferable. How have I added my opinion? It's not my opinion that to call Grey debunked is biased against Grey (whom I have not tried to say is correct or not); it's not my opinion that there are many anthropocentrists who think that entails sustainability. It is you're opinion that they're wrong. THAT is inadmissible. NPOV inclusion and balance is what I'm concerned with. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: factually wrong again. again, uninformed, emotionally interpreting words, personal opinions. again politely saying what was said three times since 01:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you're just name calling. Suffice it to say that, as quoted above, you should not exclude relevant opinions such as: Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8), Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), Passmore 1974, Bookchin 1990, Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, and Maple (eds.) 1995), Blackstone, 1972; O’Neill, 1997; Gewirth, 2001, etc.  Sb101 (talk|contribs) 08:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Where's the criticism section? 71.215.77.22 (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I'm curious on what basis the name anthropocentrism has been chosen, over human exceptionalism, that I see it has been merged with, or human supremacy? Personally I'm of the opinion that the latter name, human supremacy accurately describes the phenomenon, as well as making it align more clearly with the supremacism article, as a basis for discrimination. Should it be renamed?
Interstates (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for naming 

message: A paragraph has just been deleted on the grounds that it does not have a neutral point of view. As I read the paragraph, it was a summary of history. Whether we like what has happened or not, to say that a summary of history should be removed for "obviously POV" seems like a pretty strong POV edit itself. We are all allowed to edit topics we are interested in, but we do not have the right to mold the articles to align with our view of history, or the present.Pete unseth (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV claims 

message: This is a topic to which I have given a lot of attention recently. It also is complicated in the same way as any time we reflect upon our fundamental nature, seeking to bring deep background into the foreground. We are the ones lifting out what we believe are special traits and abilities; all of this is done from our own perspective.  In so doing, we also separate ourselves from the rest of all living entities as either implicitly or explicitly superior.  Working against this bias, J. Panksepp, U of Washington, has shown the mammalian neurocircuitry for 7 innate emotions all mammals share. This means we can understand what our fellow creatures are or may be subjectively experiencing.  
The section on Human Rights again reveals an implicit anthropocentrism and a limited understanding of mental processes limited to the rational, analytical functioning of the left hemisphere.  As Iain McGilchrist in The Master and His Emissary has pointed out, the experience of connection to the totality is mediated by the right hemisphere.  This could include the experiences of empathy and compassion, for example; they provide the foundation for an implicit morality that is guided by what we sense others are experiencing at our hands.  The irony of Adler's words is that everything he names human beings have done and continue to do to each other as a matter of course.
Soulfulpsy (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an Important Topic that Needs Further Thought & Development 

message: The "Part of a series on Discrimination" box, being so prominently placed, seems to imply that the subject is discrimination in its nature.  The rest of the article has a few issues, but a close reading shows it to be reasonably neutral.  I wonder if there's a way to reduce or eliminate the unpleasant POV aroma made by that big "Discrimination" box.
Does an article have to display such a box when it's "Part of a series on Something"?  If no, then maybe we can just remove the box?  Just an idea.
Associating anthropocentrism with discrimination is problematic because it seems to give support to an animal-rights view of the world.  It suggests that seeing humans (and tribe/family/self) as more important than an animal or animals is somehow discrimination -- discrimination against animals.  That's a bizarro way of seeing the world in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter.  It might actually just be my own bizarro way of interpreting.  Anyway, what matters is that it appears non-neutral.  The big ol' "Discrimination" box, just by being there the as it is, conveys a pro-animal-rights POV, I think.
67.248.17.85 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part of a series on Discrimination" ''looks'' like POV? 

message: This section has major problems. Maimonides is credited with being against Anthropocentrism, but his arguments were not about humans as opposed to other species. He opposed a Anthropocentrism in opposition to Theocentrism. Also, the section credits him with a quote from Saadia Gaon. (Lamm, Norman. "Man's Position in the Universe. A Comparative Study of the Views of Saadia Gaon and Maimonides." The Jewish Quarterly Review 55, no. 3 (1965): 208-234.) Pete unseth (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish and Christian traditions 

message: Per WP:NOR, I've trimmed the following content based exclusively on non-specific quotations from primary sources of ancient texts:86.186.155.210 (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confucian traditions 

message: — Assignment last updated by Maplestoryman (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing