Talk:Perspectivism

message: In all morphological occurrences through the prospect of time, I believe it is unmistakeably doubtless that Friedrich Nietzsche is the first (inasmuch is to be so far considered apparent) perspectivist, which is immediately notable from his manuscripts--specifically note, The Will to Power Vintage Books Edition, September, 1968, edited by Walter Kaufmann, p. 149, subh. 259 (1884). Now, someone can very easily grasp the essence of perspectivism as a view, but it is also important to represent how Nietzsche also viewed perspectivism within its own context (viz., its tenability, wherefores, etc.), and that could thus be tied in his corresponding article. In any event, the case stands thus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.136.148.208 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the The Will to Power is not a reliable source of Nietzsche's thinking. As a chaotic collection of fragments of his writing by his sister, it has been considered unscientific by a majority of philologist. As such, i find that presenting Perspectivism through this book is quite misleading for the layman not acquainted with the work of Nietzsche and should be deleted and/or presenetd in another way. 176.179.110.38 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: I found in the Italian wikipedia a much better historical delineation of Perspectivism: "Prospettivismo è un termine che è stato coniato da Gustav Teichmüller (Die Wirkliche und die Scheinbare Welt, 1882). [...] In età moderna, con Montaigne, la scoperta del Nuovo Mondo e i conseguenti problemi etici e antropologici portano a un orientamento prospettivistico del filosofare. In seguito, Leibniz ha sottolineato come una stessa città vista da diverse angolature appaia totalmente differente, pressoché moltiplicata prospettivamente. Usando le parole di Goethe: "Nella stessa città, un evento importante sarà raccontato, alla sera, diversamente che al mattino".[1] La necessaria prospetticità è stata oggetto del pensiero gnoseologico della corrente storica dell'Illuminismo. Il prospettivismo filosofico si riafferma con Emerson nel contesto pluralistico-democratico degli Stati Uniti negli anni precedenti la seconda rivoluzione industriale. La sua scia sarà seguita, ma con precisi intenti di restaurazione gerarchico-aristocratica, da Nietzsche. Nel '900, Ortega y Gasset rilancia la difesa d'un prospettivismo storico, ossia l’idea che esistano una serie di prospettive che si possono scoprire soltanto nel corso della storia." In this sense something should be revised/added to this article. Ingrid—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.204.148.73 (talk • contribs) 
:Assuming that you know Italian and can grab similar references in English, then I would highly recommend that you do this. My modest grasp of the language tells me that it does indeed have a nice overview on the concept's history.— ignis scripta 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian article

message: After comparing & comparing I found that NickPinguin added that idiot part titled 'Interpretation' citing certain Richard Schacht that adds nothing usefull to the article, on contrary, rather confusing series of words without meaning, sorry but I can't use another expression for this than mental j. It seems the style of some people that teach philosophy and teach it (and spread the idea) in a way "if you can't understand it or prove it does not say anything, or prove that it does say the same simple thing but in a much more complicated way, then it is philosophy". (Anyway it is similar as saying that the Earth is flat but is not uniform, and his extrems are connected through hyperspace - could be, but it is much simpler to have our Earth round). How can we remove it?
:You could start by clarifying what your objection is. In theory, such sections – interpretation of the concept by eminent Nietzsche scholars – is very welcome, but of course if a section is poorly written it can be revised or removed. Are we to understand that your problem with the paragraph is its incoherence? Skomorokh 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DamnPinguin

message: In this edit you added some inline citations to a book by Alexander Nehamas. I skimmed the page range from that book that you provided, but I did not see how it supports the claims to which you attached the inline citations. In this edit I added  tags where a specific page number is needed to verify that the book supports the claims. Can you provide here on the talk page quotations from Nehamas that you think support the claims, especially in the lead paragraph?
After you provide those quotations, we can discuss whether that book by Nehamas is the best source for a current overview of perspectivism. That book is fine as a source on Nietzsche since Nehamas is (among other things) a Nietzsche scholar, but the book is not a good current overview of perspectivism, since it was published in 1998, 23 years ago, and important work on perspectivism has been published since then. Also, the subject of that book is apparently not perspectivism; its LCSHs are "Socrates" and "Conduct of life". I do not have a positive impression of the Barry Sandywell reference either (although you didn't add that one); it is very superficial. The book Understanding Perspectivism, edited by Michela Massimi and Casey McCoy, is deeper and more current, as it was published barely over a year ago. Biogeographist (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to help. Hopefully these excerpts (and the passages surronding them) help to clarify:  On its own, a matter of decades isn't enough to write off a source. However, if you think you can draw good material from Massimi/McCoy source I strongly encourage you to do so—though it does seem a bit more limited to the philosophy of science side of perspectivism (rather than broader epistemology, value theory, metaphysics etc.) but the article is also severely lacking information in this regard too (besides the mere  of perspectivism in philosophy of science). As it currently stands, this article does not have a surplus of information for cutting well-sourced material to be a serious consideration for simple contemporaneity biases—not that this isn't sometimes a good course to take. Also just keep in mind differences between secondary and tertiary sources. I think it'd be best to try growing the article with some of the sources you've added and to expand on what these sources actually say. I'm happy to discuss further though. Thanks for your work, Oeqtte[t] 23:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will look more closely at those Nehamas quotations in context. : I agree; my aim is to find better sources, which I will try to do if warranted after a closer study of the Nehamas source. Reading the quotations above, it sounds like Nehamas is summarizing Nietzschean perspectivism; if so, it would not be appropriate to cite Nehamas in the first paragraph as if his summary of Nietzschean perspectivism were sufficient to summarize all perspectivism. But I still have to think through this by comparing Nehamas to other sources. Biogeographist (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't so much disagree though I think its worth noting that the line is somewhat blurred between "Nietzschean perspectivism" and both its pre-Nietzschean forms and later developments within continental philosophy. That is to say, just because a source treats Nietzsche as the main figure of traditional perspectivism the information  be limited only to Nietzschean perspectivism. (See for example Nehamas' use of "perspectivists" in the plural.) In the cases of Heraclitus, Protagoras, and Montaigne, their perspectivism is of this form (though perhaps focusing even more on value-theory than epistemology compared to Nietzsche; see their respective sources). The newer scientific / analytical philosophy forms of perspectivism seemingly have little to do with value-theory however, and so the "evaluative [...] component of perspectivism" should be carefully portrayed to neither over- nor understate its position within perspectivist thought as a whole. The Sandywell source seems to fall very short in this regard too. Cheers, Oeqtte[t] 10:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nehamas references