بحث ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/فیلسوفان بدکردار

message: اين نوشتار بشدت واقعيت را مورد تحريف قرار داده است.
در هيچ يك از منابع انگليسي زبان و زندگي نامه هاي اين افراد چنين نوشته هايي بطور دقيق موجود نيست. 
نوشتار به هيچ عنوان بي طرفانه نيست. 
به عنوان مثال در مورد راسل گفته شده است : "راسل بر زنان تسلط عجیبی داشت و حتی با عروسش هم ارتباط داشت که این مسئله باعث جنون فرزندش جان شد" 
درصورتي كه پسر راسل قبل ازدواج مبتلا به اسکیزوفرنیا بوده و زمان ازدواج با همسرش، برتراند راسل هفتاد و چهار سال سن داشته است ! 
در بخشي ديگر گفته شده : "وقتی از راسل پرسیدند چرا بعد از مبانی ریاضیات و مبادی ریاضیات دیگر کتاب مهمی در مورد فلسفه ننوشته، پاسخ داد چون زمین زدن دخترها از فلسفه خوشتر است."
اين نوشتار داراي هيچگونه منبعي نيست ، 
ادعاهاي بزرگ نياز به منابع بزرگ دارند - درحالي كه در پژوهش مشخص ميگردد كه بجز همان منبع نشر اكاذيب مشخص شده ، آنهم ترجمه تحريف شده فارسي آن، چيز ديگري يافت نمي‌گردد.
دوستان دقت فرماييد كه مطالبي از يك كتاب كه در آن نويسنده شروع دروغگويي كرده و به همين علت واكنش تند تمامي جامعه فرهيختگان جهان را در پي داشته است، نميتواند منبع درستي براي يك سخن بزرگ باشد و اين سخن باتوجه به اين منبع بارها و بارها در همه جاي ويكي پديا تكرار شود واز آن به عنوان حقيقت برداشت شود.
سخن دقيق راسل در زير آورده شده است : 
تا چهل سالگي كه مغزم خوب كار مي كرد، به رياضيات و پژوهش پرداختم. از چهل تا شصت سالگي كه ذهنم ضعيف شده بود به فلسفه روي آوردم و در اواخر كه به كلي مغزم كار نمي كرد به سياست
در تقسیم بندی آثار راسل را به 3 دوره تقسیم کرده اند: 1- دوره جوانی که راسل خود را وقف پژوهش های منطقی و ریاضی کرده است. 2- دوره میانسالی که به موضوعات فلسفی پرداخته است. 3- دوران پیری که به مسائل اجتماعی و سیاسی توجه بیشتری کرده است.
قابل به ذكر است كه در صفحه فارسي برتراند_راسل "بخش زندگي نامه" اين دروغ تكرار گشته كه اعتراضي به آن نكردم.
باز هم تكرار ميكنم :
"ادعاهاي بزرگ نياز به اثبات هاي بزرگ دارد."
Shahani (بحث) ‏۱۲ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۱۵، ساعت ۲۲:۴۴ (UTC)

message: ما در فلسفه مغالطه اي داريم با نام حمله به شخصيت.
زماني كه شخص مجادله كننده پاسخ و حرفهاي يك فيلسوف را منطقي مي بيند و ميفهمد نميتواند آنها را رد كند.
جايگاه خود را در حد يك جدل كننده خياباني پايين كشيده و بجاي نقد نظرات آن فيلسوف به شخصيت وي حمله ور مي شود.
از اين صفحه براي بكاربردن اين سفسطه استفاده ميگردد.
اين كه فيلسوفان در زندگي شخصي خود چه بوده اند ، به هيچ عنوان دليلي بر رد نظريات آنان نيست.
كتاب فيلسوفان بدكردار همانطور كه در صفحه انگليسي اين كتاب[| Philosophers Behaving Badly] آورده شده است ، مورد انتقاد شديد جامعه دانشگاهي و غير دانشگاهي شده است.http://www.dead-philosophers.com/?p=469
اين كتاب داراي ديدگاه هاي شخصي نويسندگان است و مدركي براي زندگينامه اين فيلسوفان نيست.
درمورد كتاب :
One should always ask of a philosopher whether he actually lived, or tried to live, what he propounded. As William James said, ideas are only worth their "cash values," their daily and empirical utility, and if you're not willing to act on an idea, then you don't really believe it. Thus, despite the book's silly cover, I anticipated that it might contain a useful investigation into exactly this question - how well did eight of the most important philosophers of past centuries measure up to their ideals?
The book definitely has its good points, and is at its best when pointing out that the philosophers in question often, rather hypocritically, committed the same errors for which they chastised others. Particularly worth reading are the chapters on Rousseau (who, despite his disdain for the wealthy, consistently sought the financial aid of aristocrats) and Sartre (who, despite his claims to be living an exemplary and authentic life, clearly exhibited "bad faith" in his relations with Camus and with the Soviet Union).
However, I'm still hesitant to praise the book as a whole. Partially for aesthetic reasons: bland and simplistic writing and stylistic tropes that should have been weeded out in a freshman composition class permeate the book, and the authors and editors missed out on several incoherent sentences and grammatical slip-ups. Partially for structural reasons: certain paragraphs come out of the blue and lead to nowhere, and some sentences appear at random and bear no significant relation to the argument at hand. And partially for what might be called "personal" reasons: the authors put on a very noticeable air of superiority, often tossing in sentences that display their erudition and their ability to superficially reference a broad range of events and ideas, even if they have no bearing on the subject matter. Finally, their jokes usually aren't funny, even when they try to spice them up with exclamation points!
It is this final issue, or rather a matter tangential to it, that bothered me the most. The authors constantly, if subtly, ridicule and deprecate qualities of these men without adequately explaining why they are doing so. This is especially true in discussions of sexuality. Whether Foucault's deviancy or Sartre's prolific love life is the subject, the authors often make use of quick quips (and exclamation points, as noted above) in order to degrade the philosophers without too much serious argument. They never explicitly state the standard of conduct which allows them to state that Foucault should not have participated in the 1970s San Francisco bathhouse culture. Thus, I found the book to be largely anti-philosophical, always accepting common-sense notions of good and bad and right and wrong, even while discussing philosophers who so greatly opposed such facile evaluations.
The book has other problems, as well. Its arguments about and explanations of the philosophers' "bad" behavior often rest on crude and un-nuanced psychological theory (to my knowledge, neither author has a degree in psychology). It's possible that the authors have correctly interpreted the actions of these philosophers; but they do so without going into much detail, happy to proclaim that Sartre could not maintain healthy relations with women because his father died while he was young. This sort of overly vague causality usually has little explanatory power and fails to add much to our understanding of the philosophers.
Finally, despite the presence of a somewhat apologetic postscript in which the authors try to rescue the men discussed by reaffirming their importance to the western philosophical tradition, the authors, for the most part, avoid any evaluation of the ideas offered by their subjects. In part, this is understandable, for, as the title implies, the book is about the men and not their ideas. However, the authors spend a fair amount of time presenting succinct and superficial summaries of the philosophies, mostly in order to later reduce them to some sort of manifestation of psychological troubles; they appear more interested in the way that philosophy can generate good gossip than in the way that philosophy can guide lives. Though the authors end the book claiming that "an appreciation of their fallibility may encourage us - however aware we may be of our own follies and limitations - to dare to think beyond ourselves," the overwhelming bulk of the book seems to be geared, not toward developing a greater honesty or authenticity within philosophy, but toward exposing the social ineptitude and deviancy of these intellectual giants. Exposing hypocrisy and inconsistency are noble and worthwhile motives; chattering about those who refused to fit in, on the other hand, amounts to much less. Unfortunately, in its attempt at the former, the book often falls into the latter.
A decent read if you want to know more about the lives of some very important thinkers, and especially good for details that might not come out in more adulating biographies. Don't expect any particularly enlightening insights or observations, though, and beware the authors' (perhaps unintentional) psychologically reductive take on philosophy. 
Shahani (بحث) ‏۱۳ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۱۵، ساعت ۱۰:۲۳ (UTC)
حذف شود. نسخه انگليسي تنها داري توضيحاتي در مورد اين كتاب است و در انتهاي آن ذكر شده است اين كتاب مورد اعتراض جامعه دانشگاهي قرار گرفته است، اما در نوشتار فارسي اين صفحه بي طرفي ديده نميشود و نوشتار اعتراض با گفتن تمجيد از كتاب خنثي گشته است ، علاوه برآن در نسخه انگليسي مطالبي از اين كتاب بدون منبع نقل قول نشده است اما در نسخه فارسي اكاذيب بدون منبع از قول اين كتاب انتشار يافته است. Shahani (بحث) ‏۱۳ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۱۵، ساعت ۱۰:۴۱ (UTC)
thread_title:  سفسطه حمله به شخصيت