Talk:George Santayana

message: Santayana may be best known for his remark on repeating the past, but that does not mean he is known as an aphorist. His reputation is first as a philosopher and cultural critic, then as a poet, novelist, and memoirist. He never wrote aphorisms. They have all been culled from his work.
--Rmrwiki (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article as I came across it says "1925", my encyclopedia (it's mispelled, that's how you can tell it's American) says "1932", the Stanford page says "late twenties", and this bio says "1924".  I've left it as 1925 because I can't decide when it really was.  Does anyone know?  --MarkGallagher 20:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Unsigned User, what is unimportant to thee may be important to me.Lestrade (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  when did Santayana move to Rome? 

message: I, Philip Meguire, expatriate American economist employed in New Zealand, have become, by and large, the author of most of this entry. Let the brickbats come as they may. My philosophical tastes incline to logic, analysis, and scientific method. So why do I love Santayana? Nor for his philosophy, which I find impenetrable. Rather, he reminds me of my French ancestors. I also point to the editor of "Overheard in Seville" being an academic mathematician. Santayana is not hugely popular among mainstream academic philosophers nowadays, but apparently easily makes friends elsewhere. I own copies of Persons and Places and The Last Puritan, and have read McCormick's biography. I look forward to perusing the Letters one day. Most of all, once he left Harvard, Santayana was, to a remarkable extent, a free man, a shining exemple to us more modest sorts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.160.42 (talk • contribs) 20:57, November 30, 2005  (UTC)
:Lovely to hear from you.  The article is looking very good.  How do you feel about creating an account?  It's free, it makes your work easier to identify (you could be User:PhilipMeguire, instead of a bunch of numbers), lets you bung particular pages onto a "watchlist" to help you more easily keep track of them, gives you your own userpage, etc. etc.  You can create an account by clicking the "Create account / login" button in the top right of your screen, or by following this link. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Admission 

message: Does the corrent quote not end it "doomed to fulfil it"? This website suggests it is this, not 'repeat' - (It is ironic that George Santayana's statement in his "Life of Reason" about progress is so often twisted into something void of reason regarding history. You hear it most often stated in a pontifical tone that "History is the great teacher. Thus it is that those who cannot remember to past are doomed to repeat it." The message being, I suppose, is if you don't pay attention to your history teacher, you will help move the country toward World War III. Which, of course, is trite nonsense completely at odds with Santayana's overriding philosophy based on reason. What Santayana actually wrote is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness...and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.28.65.210 (talk • contribs) 03:25, January 26, 2006  (UTC)
The quote is "Progress, far from constituting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." At least that's how it is in the 1998 Prometheus-published edition. What's ironic is how that poster quoted above thought that the statement was used ironically! I'm not an expert on Santayana, but I would think that paying attention to history is pretty much the equivalent of "retentiveness". I guess there's some small disconnect in that people who state Santayana don't seem to convey the sense that rather than running or hiding from the past we CARRY THE PAST WITH US, RETAINING IT in our minds. Though I suppose that if BAD history teachers are just SENSELESSLY miming the words "Know the past or repeat it!" to their students, without really teaching them much, then that would not convey Santayana's emphasis of REASON in the desired process (not just knowing dates and names). Regardless, I don't really see the "irony".78.86.140.151 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The quote can be verified at Project Gutenberg. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Doomed to fulfill or repeat history?

message: Thanks for creating this article. I've got a question: What's the basis for claiming "Among American writers combining philosophy and letters, Ralph Waldo Emerson is his only rival"? I cast my vote for Ayn Rand, as an American that bests Santayana in terms of books sold and influence. Apparently, she's also gaining weight with academic philosophers, whom she mostly despised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer dream (talk • contribs) 21:30, June 2, 2006  (UTC)
:That sounds like original research to me.  I've put up some 'scare tags'.  Miraculouschaos 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am not a fan of Ayn Rand, I have to agree--her influence is much greater than that of Santayana. She is indeed being taught in high-grade philosophy departments, such as the University of Arizona, whereas Santayana is entirely overlooked. --MickCallaghan (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But is there a case to be made for her literary value? L. Ron Hubbard also wrote doorstops.75.7.229.214 (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivals Pursuing Both Philosophy and Letters

message: Unless I am missing something, Santayana spent 39 of his 89 years in the US and not 28 as stated in the first paragraph. I wanted to post it here before correcting it because it seemed like an obvious error and that made me suspicious. But even with his summers abroad I cannot see how one can knock off 11 years off his time in the US. Mc2000 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arithmetic

message: Unfortunately, Santayana is overlooked all too frequently in academic philosophy. With great difficulty, since most of his works are out of print, I finally obtained a copy of "The Life of Reason" and will, when I have time, read it. I would greatly appreciate an expansion of this article, to make it more detailed and make it look more like other, more mainstream philosophers. Though I compliment those who wrote what is there so far and appreciate it, Santayana deserves more! --MickCallaghan (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic philosophy is correct in ignoring Santayana. He left Harvard for a reason. His philosophy was bona fide philosophy, not intended to conform to evanescent professorial criteria.Lestrade (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more detailed information 

message: His decision to leave his profession and to move to Europe came at the age of midlife crisis. Could this strange and common urge have been the reason for his immigration? 
One of his favorite philosophers, Schopenhauer,  remained a bachelor so that he could carefully conserve his finances in order to live independently.  He claimed that a wife's haberdashery expenses would have forced him to seek academic employment. Was Santayana influenced by Schopenhauer in his decision to never marry and to live off of his savings?Lestrade (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculations looking for verification

message: I removed the designation of "Spanish" in connection with his being a philosopher. It makes little sense to call him a Spanish philosopher except for the fact that he had Spanish citizenship. This political allegiance seems a slim basis for characterizing his philosophy. Furthermore, taking scholarly commentaries, histories of philosophy, and encyclopedia articles as the standard, it seems inaccurate to label Santayana a Spanish philosopher. His philosophical concerns go beyond what one might be able to capture in a national label. It certainly makes more sense to call him an American philosopher given his education, his teachers, and his academic affiliation; except that he seems to work hard to hold himself apart from any school of thought that might be called American. And if one were to judge the matter on the basis of his idiom he might be called a British philosopher, which seems also quite misleading. If one were to insist on characterizing him as a Spanish philosopher, I think consistency would require that Aristotle be designated a Macedonian philosopher. Mc2000 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia we call someone American, Spanish etc. according to their citizenship status. If he was a Spanish citizen then you should add "Spanish" back to page. I will add Spanish-American next to his name. --Arash Eb (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. This is a well reasoned argument that I cannot refute. Mc2000 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, I can't refute the deployment of authority like in the preceding, but it seems Santayana ought to have a say in it. And I believe that in Wikipedia, as you say, we defer to citations. So according to Santayana he is to be counted as an American (Schilpp, _The Philosophy of George Santayana_, 1940, 603). I will delete the Spanish next to his name. Mc2000 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: National designation

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Egotism in German Philosophy (1916).djvu Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 28 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Reason in Common Sense (1920).djvu Nominated for Deletion

message: Santayana's identification as a pragmatist is matter of scholarly dispute. Santayana himself complained that other tried to "annex" him "to the pragmatist heresy." The reference to his pragmatism should be dropped from the lead. In later sections this dispute can be referred to with appropriate citations.Rmrwiki (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Santayana as a Pragmatist

message: "When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is
set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as
among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it". (See above for Gutenberg Project source).
In practice, this quote (or rather a small part of it) is almost invariably used to condemn anything that looks like appeasement - and to try to justify bellicose dealings with dictators. There's also the assumption on the part of users that 'history' is a firmly established, unalterable and true moral tale, beyond dispute or controversy and open to only one interpretation. I find it hard to believe that a sophisticated philosopher - especially one who stressed the importance of learning - would have agreed. The quote is misused to wag fingers. Norvo (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  That quote again 

message: I was surprised when I saw the illustration of a book cover in the section George Santayana#Philosophical work and publications. The illustration is of a plain, pale yellow book cover (or title page) with just the words, "Egotism in German Philosophy" on it. I can't believe there isn't a better illustration for this section than that. It could be another book cover or title page that is a bit more interesting. CorinneSD (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the relevant issue is not how "interesting" it is an image, but how representative the book is of Santayana's work generally. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The actual book cover (page 3) is more interesting (representative). I'll see if I can swap images. It may not be possible to do so considering the type of archive file. Coldcreation (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: "Santayana is known for famous sayings, such as "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",[2] and "Only the dead have seen the end of war."[3] Santayana, like many philosophers from the late nineteenth century, was a naturalist (that is, he denied the existence of supernatural beings, like gods and ghosts), but he found profound meaning in literary writings and in religious ideas and texts (which he regarded as fundamentally akin to literature)." 
This sounds extremely awkward and amateurish to me, like a not-very-good junior high school piece. It needs work. Can you imagine him reading this?! It is devoid of thought or style. He deserves much better. (e.g. What writer on earth doesn't 'find profound meaning in literary writings'? Whatever 'literary writings' means exactly.) Yesenadam (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you found it that bad, why didn't you rewrite it yourself ?? Clausgroi (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sentences 

message: Those who can’t remember the worthlessness of past “In Popular Culture” Wikipedia sections are condemned to see them in other Wikipedia articles.173.72.115.21 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Well said. I predict that this will one day be commonly misattributed online to Santayana, Burke or Plato. Yesenadam (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Apothegmistic Dictum

message: I think the image in George Santayana#Philosophical work and publications of the cover of one of Santayana's works is unhelpful. It is a very plain cover, in pale yellow, with only the title of the work in small print in the middle. Perhaps another image could be found of another work that has a cover that is a little more interesting, or of a different cover of this same work.  – Corinne (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a better image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on George Santayana. 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/20130928214547/http://www.secfac.wisc.edu/committees/honorarydegrees/PastRecipients.asp to http://www.secfac.wisc.edu/committees/honorarydegrees/PastRecipients.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810010943/http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/863843butler.html to http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/863843butler.html
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) 02:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Santayana. 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/20130918043433/http://www.rslit.org/benson-medal to http://www.rslit.org/benson-medal
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) 20:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on George Santayana. 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/20130725101622/http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Stevens__Wallace.html to http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Stevens__Wallace.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109083919/http://www.iupui.edu/~santedit/sant/about-the-edition/publications/ to http://www.iupui.edu/~santedit/sant/about-the-edition/publications/
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) 03:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Santayana never married. His romantic life, if any, is not well understood. Some evidence, including a comment Santayana made late in life comparing himself to A. E. Housman, and his friendships with people who were openly homosexual and bisexual, has led scholars to speculate that Santayana was perhaps homosexual or bisexual himself, but it remains unclear whether he had any actual heterosexual or homosexual relationships.
For my own crib, I revised the bolded phrase as follows: 
... but it remains unclear whether he had any active relationships of any kind.
The sentence is already top heavy, and the (original) conclusion strikes me—by the time it arrives—as a third plate of turkey dinner, complete with a formal request to obtain the gravy boat, pitched yet again at maximum etiquette (and for what reason, having already signalled social virtue in duplicate, using the same breath?) — MaxEnt 18:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Third plate of turkey dinner

message: This page is lacks inline citations. Please add them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations required