Talk:Praxis (process)

message: In the explanation of the origins of Praxis the following is said: "theoretical, to which the end goal was truth; poietical, to which the end goal was production; and practical, to which the end goal was action." Shouldn't "poietical" be poetical? Or am I just unaware of something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1185:CF00:B580:53F1:4899:6BA8 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible spelling mistake?

message: This article actually seems quite good and can't see why it merits a cleanup flag. 
While could use some improvement, it seem unjustified to just go around flagging everything that isn't perfect - especially with no explanation. 
Hans Joseph Solbrig 21:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the tag?

message: This article also does not discuss definitions of the word Praxis, and as there are several definitions, some with differences, this definition stated here should be referenced.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.174.33 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be expanded on 

message: I agree with the commenter just before me, hence I think this article should be tagged as a stub rather than as a candidate for cleanup. Some of what is there should be reworked for greater clarity and elegance, and the over-emphasis on educators' particular usage of praxis should be corrected. The more serious problem, however, is that the article is far, far too spare to adequately address the concept of praxis.
Franziska 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening statement "Praxis is the process" is untrue in phenomenology: praxis is the deliberate or directed action; process is what we describe after the fact & usually glossing over the particulars of the praxis. BubbleDine (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a stub, no? 

message: Showing "praxis" used correctly in a few sentences would make it more accessible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.232.114 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  put it in a few sentences 

message: Recently there was added this unsourced statement "Arendt's gave praxis a distinctly political interpretation, in contrast to Marx's emphasis on practaical [sic] interaction with nature [my emphasis]." This is a gross misrepresentation of the differences in the way the two thinkers use this term. Such comments are not found in the relevant literature. Their differences are explained in books such as The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt, 2003, p. 199 (where contrasts are made and the relation of Arendt's work with the philosophy of phronesis is  explored), The Political Humanism of Hannah Arendt (2012), p. 211–2 (on Arendt's criticism of Marx's reductive anthropology and deterministic conception of politics),  Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis (2005), p. 1 (praxis as a central category of Marxist philosophy expressing "the revolutionary action and social transformation"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arendt and Marx 

message: a Matthew Fox quote is used to illustrate the Eastern Orthodox perspective on praxis. Matthew Fox is Episcopalian not Eastern Orthodox, according to the wikipedia article about him.  Jamifecher (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praxis 

message: User:66.44.114.72 is pushing for  in the definitional WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, where the article previously only used the first three of those verbs. But aren't these all basically synonyms? Belbury (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesaurus corner