Talk:The Matter with Things

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Matter with Things article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Mind / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of mind
	Contemporary philosophy

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Book title[edit]

There are conflicting versions of the title, with some capitalising "With" and some (including the author and copyright holder, Iain McGilchrist) using a lowercase "with" (and also some inconsistency).

Rules about things like prepositions and word length vary, as this site's "calculator" shows.

I've provisionally opted for the lowercase "with". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

@Esowteric It occurs to me that the reception section is getting very big, which seems to take the shine off some of the valid criticisms of this book. Perhaps its worth adding a separate criticism section?

Halfoftheotherteam (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good idea, though some of the reviews say both positive and negative things about McGilchrist's work.

As for my own input in that process, I'm currently 30,000 words into the first draft of a writing project, and right now I have little spare time or free head space. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. i think the very balanced reviews should remain in reception, wihle the ones with broader criticism should appear in different section. i don't know review texts as well as you so please adjust if you think my decision is off. Halfoftheotherteam (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That looks good. Much appreciated. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid criticism[edit]

The critical review cited here from Ellis is too extreme to be fair on this significant work. And given the unnotability of the 'Middle Way' society I'd strongly suggest leaving this out of the article. Too extreme an ending by a long way. Mjacoby (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]