Talk:Scottish Enlightenment

message: Would Thomas Ruddiman be properly considered a Scottish Enlightenment figure? --Dpr 08:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One paper sees it in terms of "three generations, overlapping and closely related," with Ruddiman among the early precursor figures, and  a bibliography says his publications place him in it.  (Ruddiman lived 1674-1757; the span of the Scottish Enlightment is given variously as 1740s-1800, 1730-1800, etc.)  — Athaenara  ✉  06:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruddiman 

message: Would it be appropriate to add to this article a section listing the various philosophers and other writers who comprise the Scottish Enlightenment?  If so, could someone who knows this subject (I don't) essay the task?  I could start by clicking on "what links here" and finding articles about persons so identified, but I cannot add others, if any exist. Michael Hardy 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added rudimentary descriptions and a baker's dozen or so more listees this morning.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Scottish Enlightenment philsophers and other writers

message: Firslty sorry about the poor formating im new to this, but i've noticed that in the article John Locke is listed as a scotish enlightenment figure, to my knowledge he was wholely anglo-saxon being born outside of bristol, allthough he probally had quite a lot of influence on scotlish liberal thinkers, i think its unfair to consider him a member of the scotish enlightenment. - Thefranzkafkafront 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Locke lived (1632-1704) elsewhere some two generations before the Scottish Enlightenment and was not a member of it.  A statement in the Locke article, that his writings "along with those of many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers" influenced the American Revolution, clearly places him outside the SE as well.  I have removed Locke from the list in the SE article; I will be interested to learn what SE thinkers considered his role, if any, to have been.  — Athaenara  ✉  03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Locke 

message: Urgh. After finding this paragraph, I wonder about the rest of this article.
"The first major figure of the Scottish Enlightenment was Francis Hutcheson, who held the Chair of Philosophy at the University of Glasgow from 1729 to 1746. A moral philosopher with alternatives to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, he founded one of the major branches of Scottish thinking, and opposed Hobbes' disciple David Hume. Hutcheson's major contribution to world thought was the utilitarian and consequentialist principle that virtue is that which brought the greatest good to the most people."
To some extent, David Hume was utilitarian as well. He was certainly NOT a disciple of Hobbes. I've cut out the sections which give this impression.--Nydas(Talk) 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: The overemphasis on Hume, especially the outrageous claim that he was "largely responsible for giving the Scottish Enlightenment its practical hue," is a very obvious problem.  Even a merely cursory scan of the still incomplete list of Edinburgh luminaries who included chemists, botanists, geologists, farmers, engineers, etc. reveals that the claim simply isn't true.  — Athaenara  ✉  08:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overemphasis on Hume

message: Slightly strange that this article says Hutcheson, as the first enlightend Scot, invented the consequentialist principle, but the Consequentialism article makes no mention of Hutcheson.  Will add this to that discussion too.  And add Hutcheson to that page somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequentialist inconsistency 

message: Could we have a group picture (these people were a close group, didn't they come together for some social act?)? 
Or some collective work or meeting place or monument representing them?
--84.20.17.84 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, there weren't that many cameras around in those days :p Tpacw (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: After the Act of Union 1707 is very muddled and poorly cited. Both its paragraphs are jumbles. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about the 18th Century Scottish Enlightenment period. Thomas Carlyle was born in 1795, with his most early notable writings in the 1820's, making him a 19th century writer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section re Act of Union

message: I can't see what the New School for Social Research has to do with Scottish Enlightenment. It seems that there is no such "introduction". The link is wrong (mayme it was right centuries ago... ;) ) --13Peewit (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weblink 

message: I am thinking medium term about a clean up and expansion of this article, providing sources and correcting errors, removing repetition etc, but also probably a reorganisation and expansion. I think it would be best to have the listed people mentioned in the text and either remove the list or make it into a list article. I should also say I am not a fan of undigested long quotes in Wikipedia articles. I had in mind splitting the sections after the introductory into perhaps three main areas: Philosophy, Economics and Science. There remains an issue over what to do with the cultural stuff. There were obviously big changes in art, music and architecture, etc., but we don't tend to think in terms of Enlightenment art, music and architecture in the way we do for movements like the Renaissance - so perhaps one general section that mentions these, rather than a major sub-heading for each? Any views or suggestions for subjects that should be here, but which I missed are welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: The introduction is very misleading from the point of view of any summation of the Scottish Enlightenment's outlook that I've ever seen. Smith, for instance, is scathing about the over-valorisation, as he sees it, of reason that leads to government intervention, supposedly directed towards the well-being of the people. His point is that if people are left alone from the dictates of a universal reason, he/she will be better off. Hume, also, is famous for approximately the phrase: "man isn't rational, he is rationalising." That is, that reason is only a tool used by man to secure a priori desires, rather than a route to a true-for-all-people-at-all-times deduction. Moreover, the difference between the Scottish and general Enlightenment is not made at all clear; to me, it appears that the description, particularly the association with rationalism, which is much more complex than described here, is more in line with continental thought. Descartes had been removed from the Scottish University curriculum some years previously (see Berry, Social Theory of the SE). Bacon and his materialism/empiricism was much more in vogue (hence the "Baconian project"). In all, this is a very poor article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.129.148 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason 

message: I think that I. Hont and M. Ignatieff Wealth and Virtue: the Shaping of Classical and Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge UP, Cambridge 1983) may be interesting for those who read this article. --13Peewit (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More further reading 

message: The article has format problems.
The thing about a history of scotland displays on top of the article's content.
108.219.39.17 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this. Not sure why the last edit did that, but I reverted it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting problems 

message: Having started trying to expand this article I am unsure as to what exactly to do with the list of major figures (currently at the foot of the article). It seems clear to me that more about the individuals, explaining their roles, should be built into the main text and I will be trying to do that over the next few weeks, but what do we do with the list once (or as) that is done? We could remove it on the grounds that it is no longer needed; keep it because it provides a useful means of reference; or move it to its own article with a "see also" link here. Any thoughts are welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A list here will be very useful to readers--they will explore the names and perhaps focus on one or two they would otherwise not know about. The list also will give an immediate impression of the wide range of the Scottish Enlightenment. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The list of major figures

message: Why is Benjamin Franklin in the list of Key Figures? He may have corresponded with some well known Scottish figures, but beyond that what special influence did he have on Scottish Enlightenment to be listed as a key figure? He was born in Boston; his father was English, not Scots, so he didn't have a Scottish family background. --NoahSpurrier (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He did visit Scotland and met with most of the leading figures of the Scottish Enlightenment. However, not a Scot.--SabreBD (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Franklin 

message: Although the Hunters were Scots--and William Hunter's bequest to the University of Glasgow provided a useful teaching collection, both brothers made their careers as teachers in London, not in Scotland. William was only in Edinburgh for about a year as a student; John's medical education was obtained in England. Both died in England after spending most of their lives there. Thus, they did nothing "to make Edinburgh a major centre of medical teaching and research."71.59.243.146 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  John and William Hunter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scottish Enlightenment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120329124427/http://www.newstatesman.com/200311100040 to http://www.newstatesman.com/200311100040
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813192035/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/history/scothist/hons/4111.shtml to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/academic/history/scothist/hons/4111.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scottish Enlightenment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041026080117/http://cepa.newschool.edu:80/het/schools/scottish.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/scottish.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 14:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem