Talk:Friedrich Schleiermacher/Archive 1

Suggestion
This page is in need of revision. The text is very challenging; looks like it is lifted out of a doctoral dissertation. I'm not sure anyone without either a strong grounding in philosophy or an advanced degree will understand it. Also, the religious/theological aspects of Schleiermacher, which should be the most prominent, are given short shrift. I suspect Schleiermacher has had a far greater role in the history of Christian theology than in philosophy, ethics or any other field. hippohoppo 4 April 2013

Untitled
Yes... this page is too long for my little mind. Should read it someday and make it understandable (-: Gerrit CUTEDH 21:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Or is this Wikibooks material? Gerrit CUTEDH 21:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The second section is most important so should be completed first if possible. --- Skubicki 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This really needs to be trimmed back. Here's a proposed structure for the article:
 * 1) Life and work (needs to be much briefer than it is). This would include his being influenced by Kant, Leibniz, Jacobi, Spinoza, etc.
 * 2) Philosophy of language, mind, and hermeneutics. Arguably Schleiermacher's greatest contribution. This may need to be split into sub-sections.
 * 3) Ethics/Political philosophy.
 * 4) Theology/Philosophy of religion.
 * 5) Connection with post-analytic philosophy (Davidson, Quine, esp.).
 * 6) Bibliography, external links, etc.


 * Whenever this is done, I would suggest the Theology/Philosophy of religion section be moved up--either before or just after Philosophy of language / mind / hermeneutics. Schleiermacher's impact on Christian theology has been massive; he's studied far more for this than for ethics, and perhaps more for this than philosophy of language, mind, etc.  When this is done, his influence on Protestant 'liberal theology' ought to be noted, and perhaps his relationship with Barth... Makrina 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Explaining my deletion of paragraphs and sections
It is a long article. I deleted all the paragraphs and entire sections which content was of no explained or evident relation to Schleiermacher. Here is an example:


 * The idea of the world as the totality of being is, like the correlative idea of God, only of regulative value; it is transcendent, as we never do more than make approaches to a knowledge of the sum of being.

The editor(s) who contributed this and several other similar statements and assertions, never even cared to attribute these notions to Schleiermacher in plain language, such as: "Schleiermacher thought, said, or believed this and that, ...etc.". This could be only a problem of Tone (and I have added the "cleanup tone" template). But it could also be non-sense (and it really sometimes sound as such, especially for the reader who's reading about Schleiermacher for the first time). At best, these are reproductions to Schleiermacher's thought. But then this is a problem, since this is not a paper in a philosophy journal or magazine; it is an encyclopedia article.

Anyway, there is certainly a great lack in referencing and citation. I added the templates as well.

So if someone is going to revert, it will be better to do away with the subjective and reproductive tone before reverting .. OR ELSE! :-) ... That's all. Thank you, __Maysara 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The previous tagging as unreferenced, unverified, and unencyclopedic is not warranted. Most of this article was taken directly from the 1911 public domain version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and this is clearly indicated.  By definition, it is encyclopedic, although it may not meet contemporary expectations.  The editors you objected to were the original Britannica editors.  It would be appropriate to recast their observations in a more modern style, and update the entry with modern scholarship, but wholesale deletion should be considered more carefully. I have added a template to the top of this talk page to identify the article source & requested update. --Blainster 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * SO WHAT .. yes, that was precisely what I objected about; it was too long, too boring, and too perplexing; had it been the Gods who wrote it I still would have objected. No "recasting"! That it appears in an encyclopedia does not guarantee its encyclopedicness, it simply isn't encyclopedic in my POV, and here, there is no Npov my friend; the "by definition" is merely a matter of spirit, or, self-unconscious submission to some obscured (1911!) authority or another! __Maysara 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)