Talk:Human/Archive 12

Intense sunbathing
Did "intense sun" kill off Africans with pale skin? I've been to Africa. It's hot, but I can't see how it would kill you, so long as you had water. Would Rednblu mind explaining the mechanism for this, and would he mind explaining why the same sun has not exterminated paler people in other places at the same latitude? Grace Note 22:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good questions, Grace. I have these thoughts.


 * 1) According to Jablonski and Chaplin the correlation of skin color is with the Average Annual UV radiation that strikes the ground, not with the latitude.  That is, for example, people whose ancestors have lived in the Amazon rainforest for thousands of years and seldom have direct sunlight strike their skin have much paler skin in their underarm area where there is little tanning than do people whose ancestors have lived for thousands of years in a lot of sunlight in Africa at the same latitude.  There is a nice little formula-fit to the empirical data that Jablonski and Chaplin discovered-- W=70-AUV/10  (coefficients rounded) where W is whiteness measured in percentage of light reflected from upper inner arm skin and AUV is the average annual UV striking the ground as measured by satellite measurements of light reflected from the ground--not from treetops and not from clouds--in all those billions of square centimeters of the earth.
 * 2)  Jablonski (at 61) and others have made the argument that the evolutionary constraint that forces black skin in Africa -- over generations, not over individuals -- is that, without the melanin in black skin, the intense sun depletes the mother's body of folic acid, which is destroyed by sunlight and decimated by intense sunlight on the mother's skin.  Folic acid deficiency leads to increased danger of fetal neural tube defects which result in birth defects of the brain and spinal column.  Folic acid is essential to the fetus's synthesis of DNA and RNA.  If the mother has a folic acid deficiency, the fetus takes what little folic acid the mother has, and the mother develops anemia because the mother is not left with enough folic acid to construct red blood cells.  Ouch!  Ouch.  ---Rednblu | Talk 01:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting! This leaves me with a question for future research: if black skin is advantageous in the african sun and the human race was originally all black, then what is the "advantage" of white, yellow, or red skin that led to the spread of different skin colors once we left africa?  surely black skin would not be a disadvantage in colder climes -- so why did the other colors develop and spread?  what selection pressure caused the color change away from black?  Also, noting again that the sun is damaging to the skin and thick hair protects the skin from sun as well as cold, what selection pressure caused the shift from hairy to virtually hairless?  (as i sidebar, i note that their observations regarding the advantages of black skin would explain the races if humanity started out with the genetic capacity to be black, white, red, and yellow, and the black skinned folks would have survived best in africa, while the other races could simply have been the result of genetic drift without any selection pressure at all).  but in your model, where did the whiteness come from?  Ungtss 14:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The advantage is that the paler the skin in those areas, the more D-vitamin it can produce. I am sceptical about the "became white then killed them of" then "became white then they migrated to scandinavia where they survived", if its anything, its "migrated from africa then became paler to take in more sun to synthetize vitamin D." Because of this little error in the article I would remove it entirley, because it also leans towards racism or races, such subjets, as this, should be in the racism or race article, a simple "see also" towrads that would suffice. Foant 12:10, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
 * it seems there are studies linking black skin in northern areas through vitamin D deficiency all the way to prostate cancer and breast cancer ... there's the disadvantage ... thanks for clearing that up for me:). Ungtss 14:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd question several claims made in this section of the article: Perhaps a less detailed, more general description, with links to the corresponding articles (skin color, natural selection, human evolution, etc.) would help clear this up. --Rikurzhen 22:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) there are 18 different mutations in the MC1R protein The large number of mutations in the non-coding region that regulates the expression of MRC1 are important too
 * 2) the intense African sun has killed off the descendants of those who stayed in Africa we don't have evidence for lethality, all we know is that lightly pigmented hominds were replaced by darkly pigmented ones; change cannot happen that quickly, it would take a few generations at the very least; more likely hair was lost and skin darkened simultaneously
 * 3) all indigenous Africans tested have exactly the same MC1R protein are you sure? most of all human genetic varaition is found within africa; mrc1 may be one of the many exceptions to that pattern, but I doubt we can make such a strong statement


 * Hi Rikurzhen, that's very helpful, thank you. If you have any time to begin such a section, that would be much appreciated, but if not, don't worry; your input here is already invalable. In the meantime, I've made that section invisible until we figure out whether we should keep any of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. :) If we cant make that then I suggest a simple See also, racism (skin color), natural selection and so forht. Foant

---


 * <

Original and personal research may be praiseworthy in some endeavors. ;)  But I suggest that this original and personal research is out of place in Wikipedia; for Wikipedia supposedly is governed by a NPOV policy that requires quoting, paraphrasing, and citing actual published scholars.  If you wish to compare your personal and original research with the actual published scholars, you might start by reading Harding, Rosalind M., Eugene Healy, Amanda J. Ray, Nichola S. Ellis, Niamh Flanagan, Carol Todd, Craig Dixon, Antti Sajantila, Ian J. Jackson, Mark A. Birch-Machin, and Jonathan L. Rees.  2000.  "Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R."  American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 1351-1361.  :))  For example, if you actually consult the Harding chart, Figure 1 on page 1353, you might have good reason to replace the phrase "18 different mutations in the MC1R protein" with "16 different mutations in the MC1R protein"--if you ignore the several variations where there are two successive mutations in the protein. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Rebnblu, my criticisms arise from two sources: (1) I did a precursory literature search for papers on mc1r and found discussion of considerably greater variation than 18 mutations in the coding region (mutations that affect the expression of the gene are also important, and ignoring them would be misleading) and (2) my personal/professional knowledge of genetics. What I'm suggesting is that the paragraph in question seems insufficiently researched and that it makes claims that are prima facia dubious (e.g. UV "killing" light skined hominds as a powerful selective pressure that operates within a single generation). Then I suggested that a smaller paragraph that makes fewer claims that are possibly false or misleading would be appropriate, with a link to a larger article to fully discuss human skin color. --Rikurzhen 06:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * For a recent review see Jonathan L. Rees "GENETICS OF HAIR AND SKIN COLOR" Annual Review of Genetics 2003 37, 67-90. for example, "Studies have shown that the MC1R coding region is highly polymorphic, with over 35 segregating sites identified to date" --Rikurzhen 06:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

---


 * <>

!! What specific text are you distorting to get this strawman conclusion? I suggest that the underlying upset here and the cause of the current censorship of the research in this paragraph is that white people--the censors--find it very difficult to deal with the empirical evidence that their ancient ancestors were black, black, black--as black as the blackest noble Africans are today. ---Rednblu | Talk 15:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * hm, what? he was only saying that sunlight "killing off" pale skinned people is suggestive of a single-generation selection mechanism. Also, of course everybody's ancestors were black. But how does that make them "noble"?? Everybody's yet earlier ancestors were just hairy, with "white" skin under their hair. dab (&#5839;) 15:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I believe that I and many others commenting in this section got that impression from the text. For example <> started this comment thread. I hope you can see how the text might lead us to that conclusion. I think it would be best if we kept the discussion in the article to a small number of easy to understand facts, and leave the specific details for the main article. For example, we should mention here:


 * 1) other African apes have dense body hair coverage and pale skin
 * 2) both prominent theories of human evolution suggest that our ancestors ultamately originated from Africa
 * 3) most or all of the "modern" ancestors of contemporary humans originated in Africa (trying not to favor the single origin over multiregional hypothesis)
 * 4) contemporary humans have widely varying skin and hair color
 * 5) Africans have dark skin color, which is probably an adaptation to protect against UV that is associated with the loss of body hair
 * 6) humans who left Africa for environments with less intense UV became more pale
 * 7) the MC1R gene is currently the best understood regulator or skin and hair color (in humans and other mammals), but it is not the only gene involved
 * I would like to suggest that we also need a section on human evolution, where points like 2 and 3 can be described in slightly more detail as background for other sections in this article that indirectly discuss human evolution. --Rikurzhen 18:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that, Rikurzhen. Thanks for putting so much time into this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

what about this?
what about a section near the top entitled. (forgive me for my loose and off-the cuff definitions -- they can do with refinement).

What a human is
There are a number of views regarding the nature of humanity.
 * Materialism holds that a human is matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a certain set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature.
 * Abrahamic religion holds that is a spiritual being which was deliberately created in the image of God.
 * Pantheism holds that a human is a spiritual being interwoven into a spiritual universe which ultimately reflects an all-encompassing immanent God.

??? Ungtss 22:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would make a good second section, actually. I really like your summary of pantheism, btw (as a pantheist ;) Sam Spade 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks, man:). what does everybody else think?  Ungtss 01:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. How can I live with myself if I don't exclude the views of half the earth's population from this article? --goethean 02:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * for my part, i don't know a single person in the world who would disagree with anything in the intro -- it's certainly not complete, but it's factual. wouldn't our mutual goal of including the major views about human nature be met by putting it in a second section which explores them?  Ungtss 02:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support a new section underneath the introduction that outlines these views. Good idea, Ungtss. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks:). I'll put her up and see if she flies:).  Ungtss 02:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to check with the others and discuss the wording. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * oops:(. Ungtss 03:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No way. These are not distinctions between views. It's perfectly possible to hold all three or none of these views. Can't you stick to the creationist pages for this nonsense? Mischaracterising the views of people who don't agree with you is fine for talk pages but not in the actual documents. I will not support any attempt to insert that POV here, nor to polarise the discussion.Grace Note 03:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * whoa. do you have any suggestions for wording changes, or is it your position that it should be deleted entirely?  Ungtss 03:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's entirely unacceptable. The distinctions are not real and they're not accurate. You could easily hold all three views and many people do. It would be far more accurate to say that most views of humans are composite. Hold on though! We already do. The introduction says that.Grace Note 03:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * you didn't answer my question. is it your position that the section should be fixed and remain, or be deleted entirely?  Ungtss 03:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think "I think it's entirely unacceptable" quite clearly says that I think it has no place in this article. Grace Note 11:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * well, "it" could mean either "the idea of the section is totally unacceptable" or "the section as you wrote it is totally unacceptable." all the arguments you made went to the quality of the writing, not to the idea of the section.  why is it inappropriate to have the section itself?  i think the section will benefit the page as follows:
 * 1) provide mention of the major understandings regarding human nature itself.
 * 2) this will prevent the objection that the article takes a "materialistic" pov to the exclusion of other povs -- by allowing that not all thinkers about humanity are materialists.
 * 3) many many people have expressed concern about that aspect of this article -- most want the issue addressed in the intro. i'm trying to get the issue covered in a second section, to end the perennial pov conflict that's been raging here for months.
 * 4) if it's the quality of the distinctions i made, those can be refined and corrected without deleting it entirely. for instance, we could clarify that "these views are not necessarily mutually exclusive," and add any other pertinent views you might know of.  the inadequacy of my stub version is cause for improvement, not deletion.  what do you think?  Ungtss 14:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the entire section is inappropriate. I don't think "materialist" is a word I would use for the POV that opposes it. None of it was actually explanatory. Did you read the article I have mentioned now four, five times?Grace Note 14:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * your arguments still go to the content and quality of the section, rather than the idea of the section itself. if i used the wrong word, fix the word.  if it's not explanatory, make it so.  i'm not sure what article you're referring to.  why is the idea of the section itself a bad idea, insofar as it may serve to resolve this endless edit conflict if it is properly executed?  Ungtss 14:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Until you turned up with this section, Ungtss, the only conflict was between Goethean, who wants to insert that Buddhists believe everything is maya, and the rest of the editors on this page. Your insertion does not describe humans from any viewpoint. It just wiffles about three "views", none of which is accurate, not of which explains what a human is by the lights of the people you mention. A section that did might conceivably be of some value. Maybe somewhere down the track I'll write it. Frankly, though, I think the value it would add over the introduction is so little that it's not worth the effort doing it. Neither for that matter is talking about it. You're welcome to add whatever you like. I'll de-watch and come back when it's quiet and the "conflict" has disappeared. Grace Note 14:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * if you read the archives, you'll find that a number of editors have recently boycotted the page as a result of the conflict. goethean and rednblu stuck around.  slimvirgin, sam spade, and i expressed support for a section something like the one i added, although it will certainly need adjustments.  Ungtss 15:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ungtss, just for the record, the claim that six editors are boycotting this page came only from Rednblu with no evidence to support the claim. Some editors may be fed up with it (on both sides) but that's not a boycott. I know I'm fed up and have contributed much less than I otherwise would have. My guess is that Mel and FM are fed up. Grace Note appears now to have taken it off his/her watchlist probably for the same reason. It has been a somewhat toxic talk page because of the religious issue or, more accurately, because of the circular arguments about it. People get worn down. The thing that's most unacceptable is that, while we spend our time arguing about that one issue, the article itself is a mess. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:50, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grace Note. Another point to be considered is that Ungtss' argument and justification is a special pleading. FeloniousMonk 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * characterizations like that require some rationale. how is my argument that "these views exist, are held by a significant number of people, and have caused a persistent edit war on this page" a special pleading?  Ungtss 15:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Many of the anti-religious editors on this page subscribe to an outdated, pre-Kantian, purely Enlightenment philosophy that was expounded by David Hume in the 1700s and popularized by Ayn Rand in the 20th century. Today it is known as naive empiricism, and is one of many, many viable epistemologies, or theories of knowledge. The basic idea is that only science provides knowledge and everything else is bullshit. They like to dress it up with big words, but nowadays only the most conservative, indeed, reactionary philosophers accept this view. Like religious fundamentalism, it appeals to people who want to reduce this complicated world to very simple terms. And there's certainly no reason why anyone else should feel bound to accept this extremely narrow, elitist, outdated view if it doesn't fit in with their experience. Furthermore, their anti-religious advocacy is explicitly condemned by Wikipedia guidelines. They know this. It all boils down to power. If this article accurately, comprehensively, and neutrally reflects what people think about human beings, they will revert it. Because they stick together, and insist on the same version, they win. In the schoolyard, it was called bullying. In the wider world, it's called politics. --goethean 15:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And here that sort of rhetoric is called a straw man. I see you still choose remain willfully obtuse on the topic or insist on misrepresenting me and my views. Both Mel Etitis and I have pointed out to you in the past several times that no one here, particularly not I, hold to any form of naive empiricism. Claiming that we do is either a straw man or a clear indication that you are misinformed. Which is it? If you must pigeon-hole me, I'm a rationalist. And as for whether or not anyone else needs to be rational, I would say consider the alternative, but I see you already have... FeloniousMonk 16:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Human nature
There are a number of views regarding what, exactly fundamentally, comprises a human being. These views are general, and are not mutually exclusive. In Materialism, a human is viewed as matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a particular set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature. In Abrahamic religion, humans are seen as being biological organisms which have a spiritual component, and seen as having been created in the image of God. In pantheism, humans are seen as spiritual beings interwoven into a spiritual universe which ultimately reflects an all-encompassing, immanent God. Add other views at will. Ungtss 15:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I prefer the original list format. And don't bother waiting for uniminity before editing, just make sure to discuss objections in the talk page periodically. Sam Spade 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite Sam's claims to the contrary, consensus is necessary in this instance, considering the disputed nature of the article. FeloniousMonk 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds good. in the name of preventing edit wars, however, FM, if i put this up, will it get reverted?  if so, can it be fixed to accord with your wishes?  Ungtss 16:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not final arbiter here. Ask the other participants here; that's why consensus is necessary. FeloniousMonk 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * sam spade, goethean, slimvirgin, and ungtss have expressed support. you and grace note expressed concerns, but grace note has apparently withdrawn, so i'm looking to edit the section to conform with your wishes in order to achieve consensus.  Ungtss 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've expressed support for the principle of a second section, but this one as it stands is deeply problematic. I'm not even sure I understand the materialism part, and there are other perspectives that would need to be included before it could go on the page. As it stands, it isn't encyclopedic; and yet if we extend it, it becomes the article. I think it should be taken down and discussed before going up in any form. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * that's certainly reasonable. we can definitely take it down until we have consensus.  But also, feel free to correct, refine, or rename the "materialism" point to accord better with the reality ... i'm trying to describe views i don't hold, but i'm not perfect at it yet:).  Ungtss 16:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to remove the section. It doesn't assert untruths. Its content is appropriate to the article. It can be edited on the page. History has shown that removal of perspectives other than that of the so-called rationalist is permanent. --goethean 17:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Materialism
Would SV like to express materialism is a more effective manner? I'd be glad to see her version, or that of anothers. Or maybe we should just quote from the materialism article? So long as it is NPOV in its expression and of reasonably short length I'm sure their will be no trouble. Waiting to edit until concensus occurs has nothing to do w why the wiki is successful BTW, and having been here nearly 2 years now, I can confidently say its no way to get things done. It is a good way to fill up the talk page archives tho, as I'm sure many here can attest to ;) Sam Spade 20:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See below. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Humanism does not equal materialism, Sam. I've corrected the article. FeloniousMonk 20:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What were discussing here

 * Materialism holds that a human is matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a certain set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature.

vrs.


 * Humanism is a philosophical view emphasizing Materialism. It can perhaps be best understood in emphasis on human cultural values (Moral relativism), rather than what is objective or absolute.

vrs.


 * Humanism is a philosophy that is centered on human interests or values. As a philosophy, it generally rejects supernaturalism and emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual and the capacity for self-realization through reason.

The first is what was there, the second is my version, and the last is what is there now. Why anyone might think I was confusing materialism and and humanism is not the subject for debate, but rather the reasoning behind our preferences for these 3. New suggestions or mergers of these passages are of course welcome. I find the 3rd to be redundant and POV. For example, nearly all views of humanity emphasize dignity and the capacity for self-realization through reason. Sam Spade 21:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade 20:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The entire 'Beliefs about human nature' subsection, despite whatever content is settled upon, is misplaced where it now resides. It belongs in the Culture section of the article. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for section two
Just throwing out some ideas below for section two. It may be too long and personal-essay like, and the first two paragraphs could perhaps be scrapped entirely, or just the second; also, it could be argued that, instead of outlining these positions in this article, we should just link to them. We could also just lift the materialist section, and insert it into Ungtss's suggestion, if others agree with it.

My intention with what I've written below was (a) to provide an explanation as to why we're starting the article (after the intro) with this debate; (b) to summarize the debate that has taken place on this talk page for months; (c) to indicate that no side of the debate has a monopoly on truth, and (d) by describing the dispute fairly, hopefully to bring an end to it (at least for this article)! ;-) I've also written it in ordinary language, avoiding -isms, though there are a few, and I could add references to make it more encyclopedic. However, if others think the whole section is inappropriate, no matter; it's intended only as a suggestion.  SlimVirgin (talk)  21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The controversy over the nature of humankind
Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to describe the nature or essence of humankind. Every human being has access to information about human nature through introspection and by observing others, and all have formed beliefs about what we regard as the essential qualities of humankind, how we expect individuals to treat us, and what might happen to us after death. We see ourselves as infinitely complex beings: evil, stupid, cruel, arrogant, hopeless, disloyal; but also proud, sensitive, kind, brave, intelligent, fiercely loyal, heroic, and capable of great self-sacrifice. It is in these positive qualities of humankind that many human beings feel they sense the presence of something divine.

Philosophers, scientists, theologians, and poets have tried in various ways to describe and even to categorize these qualities, but the terms of the debate have not changed much since the writings of the early Greeks. Even the concepts we use to conduct the debate about who and what we are &mdash; knowledge, reason, evidence, belief, faith, desire &mdash; are themselves obscure to us.

Although there are many different approaches to the question of what human beings are, the debate can be crudely divided into two camps:

The materialist or physicalist position is that we are animals like any other, and that like all animals, our births, lives, and deaths have no meaning or higher purpose. We are genetic accidents that have evolved over time as a result of random mutation and natural selection, driven by hunger, sex, and fear, like everything else that lives, and any sense that we are special is merely a consequence of human arrogance and our terror of death. The human mind is barely capable of grasping its own insignificance or imagining its own end, when arguably the existence and contents of our own minds may seem to be the only reality we can trust. This sense that we must be something more than bodies and brains gives rise to religion, the materialist argues, which is nothing more than a product of our refusal to accept how tenuous, brief, and unimportant our existence is, as individuals and perhaps as a species.

In contrast to materialism, there is the Platonic or idealist position. It can be expressed in many ways, but in essence it is the view that there is a distinction between appearance and reality, and that the world we see around us is simply a reflection of some higher, divine existence, of which the human (and perhaps also the animal) soul, spirit, or mind may be part. In his Republic, Book VII, Plato represents humankind as prisoners chained from birth inside an underground cave, unable to move their heads, and therefore able to see only the shadows on the walls created by a fire outside the cave, shadows that, in their ignorance, the cave dwellers mistake for reality. The idealist position can take many forms: for example, it can be expressed as religious belief in a separate deity who created humankind in his own image; or as pantheism, the belief that a deity is in some way present throughout the natural world; or as the view that the universe is suffused with will, mind, or consciousness, which the human mind is part of.

Some religious positions about the nature of humankind are: (list a few by name with a brief description of their view of human nature. Or we could say at this point, see Human: and point to the religion section.) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can agree to this. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * i think this is very good -- i think, tho, that we'd do better to simply describe the views rather than give the narrative in the first two paragraphs -- the narrative as it stands gives a materialist explanation -- that these views arise from our ponderings. the religious narrative is very different -- "god told us, straight up."  if we delete the first two paragraphs, tho, and just let the views stand on their own, i think we're well on our way.  excellent work, SlimVirgin:).  Ungtss 02:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent exposition, SlimVirgin. I would support this wholeheartedly "as is", without a specific paragraph about "some religious perspectives" at the end. I would simply add links to sections such as "The religious perspective", "Consciousness" and "Self Reflection". Let these sections expand the subject rather than trying to summarize these right there.  &asymp; jossi &asymp; 03:07, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thomism added by Ungtss, as follows (to follow the materialism versus idealism paragraphs):


 * Between materialism and idealism lies Thomism, which is, in essence, a synthesis of Christian theology and the philosophy of Aristotle. Thomism holds that empiricism and philosophy, when properly exercised, lead inevitably to reasonable belief in God, the human soul, and moral objectivism.  Thus, unlike idealism, the universe is seen as fully real, rather than a mere shadow of a higher reality of God.  Unlike materialism, however, thomism admits the existence of God, the supernatural, and the soul on the basis of evidence and analysis, or a posteriori argument.  The Thomistic duality between human reason and divine purpose was summarized by G.K. Chesterton in the phrase, "Daughter in my mother's house, but mistress of my own."  In essence, humans are seen as having real freedom, purpose, and responsibility in managing our affairs on Earth, but also seen as subject to the divine and benevolent will and purposes of God. Ungtss


 * Ungtss, I took your Thomism paragraph above out of the first suggestion for section two because I believe FM said he agreed to the suggestion before he saw that paragraph, so I've separated them for clarity's sake, and FM might want to say again whether he still agrees.


 * I'm fine with the first two paragraphs not being used, though I'm surprised you see them as representing a materialist perspective. I see them as just a list of our good and bad attributes and how we see ourselves as emotionally and behaviorally complex. I thought you'd like this sentence: "It is in these positive qualities of humankind that many human beings feel they sense the presence of something divine." I wanted to add a sentence after that (but didn't because of length) about Arland D. Williams Jr., the Air Florida Flight 90 passenger who died in January 1982 while saving other passengers, as an example of the type of self-sacrifice for strangers that is arguably a distinguishing feature of human beings. This is what a clergyman said of Williams: "His heroism was not rash. Aware that his own strength was fading, he deliberately handed hope to someone else, and he did so repeatedly. On that cold and tragic day, Arland D. Williams Jr. exemplified one of the best attributes of human nature, specifically that some people are capable of doing anything for total strangers." In saying human beings see the influence of something divine in acts of extreme courage, I wasn't trying to explain away religious belief, but to point to the source for many people (even some materialists) of religious experience. Whether there really is anything divine is left entirely open. SlimVirgin (talk)  16:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * i didn't mean to criticize your intro at all -- i think it's fantastic:). and your latest additions confirm what a strong and vibrant humanism underlies your writing and thought -- a humanism which we share:).  in recommending the deletion of the narrative, i'm simply trying to avoid the pov complaints that have been rolling around -- and the intro provides a narrative of the development of ideas about human nature that conflicts with the traditionally religious view.  picture a fundamentalist muslim reading that text.  He'd likely say, "Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to describe the nature or essence of humankind!?!?!"  WHAT!?  Allah TOLD us what the nature and essence of humankind is in the Quran!  And anyone who denies those facts is deceiving themselves."  To the strongly religious, belief about God and human nature is not a result of "human pondering" -- it is a result of divine revelation.  Now i PERSONALLY agree with your perspective -- i think that we're all humans trying to figure out what's going on in a variety of ways -- but the religious perspective holds otherwise, and in the name of npov, i think we'd do well to dodge the issue:).  Ungtss 16:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Ungtss, by the way, when I respond to a point, I don't mean to imply you shouldn't criticize what I've written. On the contrary, you should, and I want you to, and that goes for anything I write, but particularly this as I was bit unsure of it myself (mainly because of the wordiness).


 * About the Quran: religious texts are studied by scholars precisely to interpret the message, so even if you believe that divine messages have been delivered, it is still the case that humans have struggled to interpret them. So within the tradition of religious scholarship, as well the tradition of philosophical study in general, it is a demonstrable fact that human beings have "struggled for thousands of years to describe the nature or essence of humankind." We have the ancient and the modern texts to prove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * With regard to the first point, point taken, i simply have no criticism to supply:). with regard to the second, i personally agree with you that it's a demonstrable fact -- but there are many many people who don't see it as so.  martin luther, for instance: "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."  He didn't allow for reason, thought, pondering, or anything.  "Truth" was to come straight from the Bible.  Now personally, i think Martin Luther was pretty much insane in most respects.  But don't tell that to a Lutheran:(.  Ungtss 16:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But religious people don't believe that that is the origin of their beliefs. They believe that it was handed down to them, even prior to their wondering about the nature of human beings. Many of them were listening to the doctrines as toddlers. For many people, the answers preceded the questions. And they believe that the doctrines preceded the creation of humanity. --goethean 16:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind throughout this discussion, though, that Neutral point of view and No original research (both policy, not just guidelnes) state that we must represent majority and significant-minority reputable or credible published opinion. This is crucial, and I feel it has been overlooked many times on this talk page. What is believed by people whose views have not been published in reputable or credible publications is not what this article is about, according to Wikipedia policy. We are here to summarize the views of scholars, reputable writers and researchers, journalists, and other mainstream commentators; and, without question, it is true (and all of the above would agree) that for thousands of years human beings have struggled to define and describe the nature and essence of humanity. This is a hard, cold fact with no implications whatsoever for the validity or otherwise of any particular set of religous beliefs. Even if you firmly believe that what is written in, for example, the Christian Bible is true, you still have to read and study it to understand what it says and what the implications of it are for who we are, and for how we ought to live. SlimVirgin (talk)  19:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * i agree with you entirely. i simply think that if we don't give a narrative one way or the other, but simply present the views themselves, we can dodge any complaints on this topic, without reducing article quality at all.  what do you think?  Ungtss 20:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way. I think as I wrote it, it should probably be for the rest of you to decide what, if anything, to do with it. I would probably prefer it as a coherent whole, but then again, it could be too long, and as you say, some parts may not meet with agreement, so please feel free to edit it down to whatever size most editors can agree on. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do appreciate the fact you are trying to come up with a compromise solution. But this passage does not accomplish that.
 * The choices of materialism, idealism and Thomism do not exhaust the major metaphysical views. There is also, at least, holism, dualism, vitalism, skepticism, and nondualism. You can dismiss these as minor, but that's not right.
 * And, of course, Ungtss is correct that it is a naturalistic explanation and, as such, implies that religions are fictions.
 * The section on Thomism needs to be re-written to including Hindu and Buddhist positions that essentially agree with Thomism.
 * Few non-philosophical people consider themselves materialists, and fewer call themselves idealists. So I find it extremely odd that this group of editors would rather use the artificial (and quite Western) distinction between materialism and idealism, rather than the distictions into which human beings readily divide themselves &mdash; the major world religions. --goethean 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Goethean, I see your point, but your assertion (world religions being a better way to describe the disctinction instead of idealism/materialism) could develop into another huge and never ending discussion. I would suggest keeping to the task of completing SlimVirgin's excellent attempt at describing the controversy, rather than opening another can of worms. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 19:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Adhering to a neutral point of view is absolute and non-negotiable. --goethean 19:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should do this right in another article (i see Human nature exists, but takes a largely materialist perspective), and link to it from the top of this one? Ungtss 15:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats definitely going to be the final result, but that involves editing the article. The purpose of this talk page on the other hand appears to be endless debate ;) Sam Spade 21:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The editors involved seem to have completely lost sight of this being the page about humans and not interpretations of what humans have said about life, the universe and everything from anyone who feels they can convey it in three paras or less.

This is why I support the intro and do not support the further digression that Ungtss, Slim and Goethean are so keen on: the intro discusses what essentially distinguishes humans. It does so in general and broadly acceptable terms. The human nature stuff digresses into discussions of what (some few) areas of thought have had to say about human nature. It's entirely out of place. It doesn't either reflect most views on the subject. Most people simply don't have a view. They certainly wouldn't describe themselves as "materalist" or "Platonist" because they have no idea what those things mean. They are not completely distinct as we make out anyway, certainly not in most people's minds. To some extent, Ungtss is right: although there has been a struggle over the millennia to describe man and eis relation to the universe, most people don't reinvent the wheel. They accept that Allah revealed the nature of man to Muhammad, or that the Buddha explained it, or that what their dad told them was roughly right. I support the intro because it is broadly acceptable to any and all of the above. Goethean, you are wanting to discuss comparative religion and I suggest you go to an appropriate page to do so. Ungtss and Slim, you are writing a whole different article. I commend your efforts but I suggest you write that article and not this one. Grace Note 01:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the "other article" is currently well underway. Human nature.  Ungtss 01:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Goethean, you are wanting to discuss comparative religion and I suggest you go to an appropriate page to do so.
 * Mischaracterize me all you want. I am trying to make this page have a neutral point of view &mdash; nothing else. We currently have an introduction that presents a naturalistic explanation of the origin of religion as fact. That is not neutral. It directly contradicts the beliefs of conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus. They do not believe that their belief in God is a result of their "curious and introspect nature". They believe in God because they have experienced God's presence, or for other equally incorrigible reasons. This article cooly informs them that they are wrong about that. My proposal, flawed as it is, allows the beliefs of billions of people to be presented as their beliefs. I maintain that for that reason it is an improvement. --goethean 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Quick question
What's with the skin color map? At the moment it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the content of the article. But even beyond that, it is a pre-World War II map compiled using the long-discredited von Luschan scale and features a number of imaginary features on it (such as the white streak across Morroco and Algeria). I'm aware in general that the "to-do" list seems to include something on race, but even then, I'm not sure why a very outdated map would be the way to display that information anyway (I think the picture of the two little girls does it in a fine and more subtle way, one which doesn't priviledge one view of race or another). I don't think it helps the article, I don't think it's a very good image anyway, except for historical purposes. It certainly doesn't represent any current understanding of human diversity; it's a throwback to 19th century racial mapping projects (i.e. William Z. Ripley's The Races of Europe) and this sort of representation of "native populations" is always based on questionable methodology. Anybody else feel otherwise? --Fastfission 03:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I offered the map in leiu of the recently deleted section of human skin color. I deliberately avoided any discussion of race, because the point of the map was merely to highlight the data on human skin color variability along with its geographical distribution (which is what the paragraph discussed). You are quite right that a contemporary analysis of race would find skin color insufficient as a defintion (a conclusion that can even seen in this map). Becuase skin (and also hair) color is so strikingly variable in humans (e.g., as compared to other primates) some discussion or exhbition of human skin color seems necessary. --Rikurzhen 06:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * So how useful is the map? I find it to be somewhat not useful. I also think -- and I've not been privvy to the discussions on this issue which seem to have gone on at some length here -- that any discussions relating to human appearance not focus simply on skin color and hair texture but also mention stature and other non-racialized characteristics when differentiating from other primates. I think it is a little too clear that when one says "color" people are going to just think "race". --Fastfission 23:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It doesn't seem to hurt. Take a look at it in the latest context. --Rikurzhen 01:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

rm "The life of the individual begins at conception"
I think the article would be better without this sentence. Depending on how you read it, it is either (1) uninteresting in that it doesn't distinguish humans from other sexually reproducing species, or (2) a hotly contestable point. I can't think of an easy way to phrase it to comply with NPOV policy without considerably exposition, so it seems easier to just delete the sentence. --Rikurzhen 19:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true though, which is not to make a pro-life point, but simply to say that it's a demonstrable fact. Lots of other points we make about humans could be made about other forms of life too; if we were to delete them all, the page would be decimated, and so only to delete this one would be POV. The hotly contested point is that personhood begins (or ought to begin in the view of some) at conception. The way this section is written states clearly that only some jurisdictions award personhood to foetuses. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you really dig into the topic, the question is about more than just personhood. When does the life of any animals begin? Both sperm and oocyte are alive, and until a certain time during development, any number of clones (e.g. twins) may be produced from that original zygote. So its not 100% clear to say that an "individual" life begins at conception, even if you leave out the difficulty of human personhood. That was my concern. --Rikurzhen 19:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't remember exactly what I wrote, and haven't looked, but I believe I wrote "the life of the individual begins" and did so very deliberately to skirt around the problems you are raising. The life of the individual who ends up being born does begin at conception; or are you saying that formulation is wrong? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * But it's not yet distinctly one individual, because it might be any number of individuals. Quite often it is two individuals (twins). --Rikurzhen 20:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

See my additional edits to that section. --Rikurzhen 19:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think I agree with your changes. I had: "The life of the individual begins at conception," which I can't see anyone objecting to. You've changed it to (your changes in bold): "New human life is created at conception." "Created" might imply a creator. "Human life" is something pro-choice activists might object to. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for splitting your text but I thought it would be easier to read. First, can you see the point I was trying to avoid with the term "individual"? Various philosophical theories of personal identity and material constitution may give different answers about whether an "individual" is created by conception or whether an individual is only recognizable after twinning (in the philosophical literature there is discussion of "personal fission" such as a Star Trek transporter accident might cause; there is also enormous debate about how an "individual" survives over time). So in essence I'm trying to avoid talk about individuals if possible. --Rikurzhen 20:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The use of the word "created" was from the philosophical literature, I didn't mean to imply something theistic; more like objects have persitance conditions and they can be created or destroyed under certain conditions. --Rikurzhen 20:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The change to "many cultures" I don't see the benefit of and it may not be accurate. I wrote: "At birth, the fully grown fetus, now called a baby, is expelled from the female's body and breathes independently for the first time, at which point the baby is recognized as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus."


 * You've changed it to (your changes in bold): "At this point, many cultures recognized the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus."


 * Regarding many cultures: which cultures don't recognize a baby as a person entitled to the protection of the law, and is there a reason for the past tense? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am thinking of cultures where infants are not truly treated as persons until a certain time after birth. If my memory is correct, some as late as 1 or 2 years of age (naming ceremonies at late ages reflect this). But moreover, in many aboriginal cultures the practice and acceptance of infanticide is seen by some as a sign that they don't see newborn infants as persons. The past tense was a slip. I was thinking of how this notion was more common in "western" cultures in the past. --Rikurzhen 20:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * for what it's worth, i think slimvirgin's formulation is the best so far. Ungtss 20:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See infanticide for more on the "many cultures" part --Rikurzhen 20:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reference there to babies not being protected by law is the Solomon Islands where it says infanticide is still routinely practised, which is not referenced, and it doesn't say it's legal. I think you'll have to find a reputable reference showing that there are modern cultures/states in which babies do not have the protection of the law. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are still many cultures where there is no "law" in the modern sense, e.g. hunter-gatherer aboriginal societies. --Rikurzhen 20:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * But can you produce a reputable reference showing that babies, once born, are not recognized as persons, or do not have the protection of the law? We need an actual reference. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, social anthropologists try not to "interfere" with the societies they study, such that they are unlikely to interrogate their subjects direclty on this subject, but instead try to report neutrally that infanticide is common. I can try to find a paper if you insist, but it seems faily clear to me that permissive infanticide implies different notions of infant personhood than modern societies have. An analogous example would be the implication of slavery on personhood. --Rikurzhen 21:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate an academic paper (or good piece of journalism) showing that these practices continue, and aren't just tiny fringe movements not accepted within their own cultures, which we can then link to if it's online. The WP article on infanticide, for example, mentions the Solomon Islands with no reference, no indication whether it's current, and no mention of how widespread it is. It's best to cite a good source if we're going to make a claim like this. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll look, but the sentence as written is neutral about the existence of infanticide, and merely says that most modern societies treat newborns (if not fetuses) as people. (The alternative I'm rejecting is that all societies do so.) I'm just trying to leave room for the existence of non-modern societies which seemingly acted and may continue to act differently. --Rikurzhen 21:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

What definition of "individual" and what definition of "personhood" are you talking about? The answer to the question will depend heavily on this. If "personhood" is defined as autonomy, then the United States only recognizes a limited form of personhood before the age of 18, for example. --Fastfission 23:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is the revised paragraph as it currently stands. --Rikurzhen 00:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The human life cycle is fundamentally similar to that of other placental mammals. New human life develops from conception. An egg is usually fertilized inside the female by the male through sexual intercourse, though in vitro fertilization methods are also used. The developing individual is first called a zygote; as it grows through successive stages inside the female's uterus over a period of 38 weeks, it is called an embryo, then a fetus. At birth, the fully grown fetus, now called a baby, is expelled from the female's body and breathes independently for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

Scope and detail level of this article
"this article is about human beings of the last 30,000 years" -- what was the "full protection of the law" back in the Ice Age? I say, move this discussion to mammal. It is uninteresting for an article on homo sapiens in particular, since it applies equally to all mammals. dab (&#5839;) 20:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would agree in general. I was going to suggest that we should rearrange the "biology" section to include a section on the "human lifecycle" (i.e. reproductive physiology and devlopement) and "human anatomy" (which is now labeled "physiology"). But it would be nice to discuss the social aspects of this biology in parallel. --Rikurzhen 20:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favor of that. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring
I don't know what has happened to this talk page, but some sections are now doubled, and others have posts missing. I'm in the process of restoring. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done, I think. I also at one point saw my own talk page headers halfway down this page: weird edit glitch. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Solomon Islands infanticide
Just as an aside, infanticide is forbidden by section 206 of the Solomon Islands Penal Code. Here's someone being tried for it. Grace Note 09:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * illegal but not substantively enforced, i'd say. $50 fine.  i pay more for speeding tickets.  i doubt this ruling is consistent with a view of infants as persons.  No admitted murderer of an adult could get off with a $50 fine because of "emotional strain," being a member of a youth group, and having six stitches.  i think the differential treatment implies some difference in the view of infants as persons. at the very least, the baby was not afforded "the full protection of the law." Ungtss 15:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Write brief section on Race
Done. Check it out. --Rikurzhen 16:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Conception
Riz, your answers have split the discussion above, so I'm reproducing this here:


 * But it's not yet distinctly one individual, because it might be any number of individuals. Quite often it is two individuals (twins). --Rikurzhen 20:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * And each twin is distinctly one individual. The life of each individual (that grows to embryo/fetus/baby stage) begins at conception. I'm familiar with the philosophical problems of individuality and personhood. They're not relevant to this sentence. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:58, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

To recap:
 * original = The life of the individual begins at conception
 * current = New human life develops from conception

I'm inclined to think that the "new/develop" coupling has fewer potential unneeded implications than "begin/individual". The current seems to speak strictly of biology, while the original may have implications for non-natural philosophies of human nature. Criticisms appreciated --Rikurzhen 20:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

word choice: materialism vs naturalism
We should make an editorial judgment about the usage of the terms materialism and naturalism. Materialism is more commonly known. However, naturalism is a slightly more general philosophical position. For example, there are dualist who are nonetheless naturalist (ontologically and epistemologically). Also, naturalism covers the wide variety of views within materialism. Likewise, naturalism is more directly opposite of the term supernaturalism. However, naturalism may be confusing and less widely recognized. reference Suggestions? --Rikurzhen 21:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

human nature: humanism vs materialism
I would suggest this: "Materialism is the view that humans are physical beings with no spiritual component. Materialists generally ascribes to naturalism and reject supernaturalism." I think the use of humanism here is inappropriate. the issue here is "are humans more than the sum of their biological parts?" humanism doesn't address that question: humanism is an emphasis on human dignity in the forms of secular humanism and Christian humanism. But Christian humanism is part of Abrahamic religion. So why are we placing humanism in contrast to Abrahamic religion? Materialism addresses the issue of material vs. spirit directly, so it is placed in proper contrast with abrahamic religion and pantheism. then naturalism and supernaturalism can be placed in proper opposition later in the sentence. what do you think? Ungtss 00:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "So why are we placing humanism in contrast to Abrahamic religion?" That was Sam Spade's edit. He also mis-defined humanism, which I corrected. I'd suggest dumping humanism and going back to materialism in that instance. FeloniousMonk 00:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Ungtss 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Should I take your answer as an endorsement of listing materialism more prominently than naturalism? --Rikurzhen 05:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

announcing a policy proposal of general interest
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical part of summary
I've kept away from the article for a while, but on my return I discovered that my attempt to get clear about the philosophical issues had been removed. I've again tried to clear up the conflation of distinct positions (such as dualism and supernaturalism), as well as the central distinction between the human being and the person; it's now accurate, but probably needs polishing. I did have a reference to Kant as well as a more specific refernce to Locke; if it's felt that they're needed, I'll try to find them in the history of the article. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam Spade reverted your good efforts here citing "materialism and dualism don't deserve this level of emphasis, not does locke, etc." My questions are who is Sam to say what level emphasis they do deserve, and what is his justification for this rather wholesale, sweeping justification? I've reverted his attempt at deletionism pending satifactory answers. FeloniousMonk 21:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

proposed intro's
The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings has led to innumerable attempts to explain their consciousness and intelectual abilities, and has given rise to two broad metaphysical approaches: physicalism and dualism. The former is the view that there is no reality beyond the physical or material, and thus that persons are purely physical; the latter is the view that the world contains (at least) two sorts of thing, mind and body, and that a person is a combination of the two. Note that philosophy has traditionally distinguished between the biological (or "forensic", as John Locke expressed it) notion of a human, and the notion of a person; it is the latter rather than the former which is the subject of the debate between dualists and physicalists.

Largely unrelated to this metaphysical distinction is a further difference between naturalism, which holds that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and supernaturalism, which may include belief in a god or gods, or in other supernatural entities, or that humans have a soul (through most of the history of Western thought, however, the terms "soul" and "mind" have been used interchangeably). (See also methodological naturalism.)

Physicalism, dualism, naturalism, and supernaturalism can be found in the earliest human historical records.


 * was:

The curious and introspective nature of human beings has led to innumerable attempts to explain their consciousness, and has given rise to both materialist and spiritual terms to describe the human condition. The former is an ontological, or metaphysical view that there is no reality beyond the physical or material. The latter emphasizes a spiritual or non-physical dimension to life, and may include belief in God, gods or other supernatural entities, and the belief that humans are have a soul. Such self-reflection is the basis of philosophy and is present in the earliest historical records.

Discussion
The above was left by Sam Spade at 21:18, 20 May 2005 (FeloniousMonk 21:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC))

Sam, you're all assertion and no reason here. What's your point? FeloniousMonk 21:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * P1. If the introduction is going to talk about the long philosophical tradition concerning different metaphysical accounts, then it needs to get it right.
 * P2. Getting it right takes more space than getting it wrong.
 * C1. Therefore: if the introduction is going to talk about the philosophical distinctions, it needs to be longer. (by P1 and P2; hypothetical syllogism)
 * P3. The introduction shouldn't be longer (SS's claim)
 * C2. Therefore: the introduction shouldn't talk about the philosophical distinctions. (by C1 &amp; P3; modus tollens)


 * So SS has a choice. The introduction can:


 * 1) mention dualism, naturalism, the mind, the soul, etc., and be longer,
 * 2) not mention them at all and be shorter,
 * 3) mention them, be shorter, and be inaccurate.

Assuming that he doesn't want to give up P1 or P3, then his only option is to deny P2 &mdash; in which case he simply has to provide an accurate account that's shorter. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * P2. Getting it right takes more space than getting it wrong. inaccurate


 * P3. The introduction shouldn't be longer (SS's claim) inaccurate

Conclusion: he simply has to provide an accurate account that's shorter. accurate (scroll up to see it)

Sam Spade 23:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Er... that's what I said &mdash; you have to deny P2 (you haven't denied P3, so I'm unclear why you say that it's inaccurate). Unfortunately, merely denying it isn't enough; the version to which you point (which looks like the one I replaced) is not only inaccurate, conflating as it does a number of very different distinctions and positions, but uses English that's ambiguous at best. Rather than merely criticisng without argument, and gesturing vaguely at what might be better without actually explaining what or why it is, you need actually to do some work and provide a version that's short and accurate. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * SS has again reverted my edit, this time with the illuminating &amp; collaborative edit summary "rv, obviously". Until he (or someone with a more Wikipedian spirit) replies to my points, and explains why the conflation of importantly different positions and distinctions is perfectly OK in the summary (and why the ambiguity of "curious" doesn't matter), I'll defend my change. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You mean your will continually revert to your concensus flauting version, bringing back the never-ending intro debate, for the sole purpose of inflicting your will? I'll let someone else fuss with you endlessly here, and will check in periodically to clean up the mess on the article, and archive the talk page. Sam Spade 10:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How dare you &mdash; I've never played the flute in my life, and nor has my will. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess its too late to use a spell checker, eh? Would someone else like to weigh in on this, i think we could use a fresh perspective. Sam Spade 15:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've indicated before, Mel's recent edits are factually accurate and more informative, not to mention his justification is better reasoned. And for the record, the word you're struggling with above is "flout." FeloniousMonk 16:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually Mr. Spade’s version is much more succinct. In essence the two entries are saying the same things. Too bad you two can’t collaborate on this effectively. I will give no vote to either version, however. They are both good. Wjbean 17:42, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


 * Quite so. There are several proportional voting systems for resolving this unreasonable contest of wills.  And at a later date when we all have more time, :)) we can work on a solution to this "obvious" problem.  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see that they're saying the same thing. One important difference is that my version distinguishes between the metaphysical debate between physicalists and dualists and that between naturalists and suupernaturalists.  Those who (like me) are philosophical dualists in the Cartesisan tradition are mainly naturalists about the mind (even those who are religious, and who are supernaturalists about god, etc.), and many supernaturalists have been physicalists about the mind.  To conflate the two is to misrepresent the debate, and to encourage the common misconception that belief in non-physical minds is necessarily bound up with religious beliefs of one sort or another. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm perplexed. I've explained the reason for my edit in detail (some might think that it was nauseating detail), yet Rednblu reduces it to "an unreasonable contest of wills"? What do you require for it to count as a rational discussion? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis is correct that the proper contrasts are physicalism/dualism and naturalism/supernaturalism. Anything else is inaccurate. --Rikurzhen 19:07, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

False dichotomy
Physicalism / Dualism is NOT a "proper" contrast. I, and many hindus, believe in monism. A great many persons (including arguably the majority, who give it little if any thought) are pluralists. Further, Philosophical naturalism may stand in contrast to supernaturalism, but not to metaphysics. A great many theists place little if any emphasis on supernaturalism, and this is an unneccessary discussion for the intro of this article. Mels intro is not accurate, and is by no means equilvelant to what I had. I intentionally failed to take a stand on these and other issues in my version, and if he insists on his version I will be forced to dispute the artilce due to its factual inaccuracy. Sam Spade 08:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove reference to gods and spirits and the rest, then the reference to supernaturalism can of course go (your insistence on making the link to cryptozoology is extremely peculiar). Non-physicalist monism is unusual, but a reference can of course be included. If your claim is that my distinctions are not sufficiently articulated, I don't understand why you're championing a version that's even less articulated. (Your use of "metaphysics" is puzzling and non-standard, and I'm not sure what you mean by it; naturalism and supernaturalism are both metaphysical positions.) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And he reverted again without bothering to reply. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Non-physicalist monism is unusual, but a reference can of course be included.
 * Spade is correct that many Hindus are accurately described as monists. They may believe in a physical dimension or realm, but they do not generally believe that the physical is primary.
 * Is the game now that you assert patent untruths and it is up to others to hunt for references to correct you? --goethean &#2384; 17:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the pointlessly aggressive final point, of the six classical darshanas, for example, Nyaya and Vaisheshika (and to a certain extent Mimamsa) share an ontology that's best described as "pluralistic realism" (including seven ontological categories, one of which – substance – divides into nine kinds: air, water, fire, aether, space, time, self, and mind). Yoga and Samkhya, on the other hand, share a radically dualist ontology. (Even advaita, of course, isn't straightforwardly monist in the usual sense, being more akin to Kant's transcendental idealism plus empirical realism.) How many ordinary Hindu's have positions on this? I don't know, but I'm told that these metaphysical speculations are largely irrelevant to most adherents of whatever branch of induism, as they're concerned with ritual, worship, etc., not with abstruse questions of ontology.

There's always room for disagreement in such matters, but this sort of sledgehammer treatment of complex areas is what was wrong with the summary in the first place. It seems clear that SS  and others want the summary to reflect just their vague ideas about "spirituality", but object when the metaphysical questions are taken seriously.

The key point is that physicalism is not opposed to supernaturalism &mdash; I know of no genuine philosophical system in which that has ever been true. Many very well-known physicalists have been religious (Thomas Hobbes and Pierre Gassendi, for example),and some dualists have been atheists (perhaps the best known being Karl Popper and A. J. Ayer, but count me in there too). The best-known anti-physicalists have also often been religious, but they've made a clear distinction between the two metaphysical distinctions: between dualism and monism (the latter predominantly of the physicalist kind, but sometimes different sorts of idealism), and between naturalism and supernaturalism (the former including both dualist and monist threads).

The summary fails to make these distinctions, as is thus inaccurate. If you think that it should make more finely detailed distinctions, that's OK by me, but I tried to produce something that balanced accuracy and concision. What I replaced preferred concision to accuracy. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that a distinct article exists to cover the topic of human nature and this article should not fully repeat that content. --Rikurzhen 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * The existence of another article would be a reason for omitting this discussion from the summary altogether (I've said that I'd be happy with that), but not for keeping an inaccurate summary. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Once again Sam's reverted to the flawed version. I've corrected this. FeloniousMonk 22:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've listed this on RfC. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Although SS  has made no attempt to respond to my arguments, he's added an hysterical "totally disputed" template to the article.  His usual approach to arguments &mdash; ignore them (he's even admitted doing this in the past), stubbornly revert, and if all fails, start flailing about in the hope that other editors will turn away in embarrassment, thus letting him get his own way.  I'm not going to turn away; I no longer feel embarrassed on his behalf, as he apparently lacks the self-respect to feel embarrassed on his own behalf.
 * In this case, in fact, as he's offered no justification for the template – his only objections to my version of the summary being that it's longer than his (and an afterthought that it shares with his version the omission of explicit mention of non-physicalist monism) – I'm removing the template. If someone can explain what the "total dispute" is, it can go back. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Concision
I've been watching the reversion wars with interest... it seems to me that neither version is especially appropriate for the opening paragraphs of this article - not because they are not well written or because they do not address important aspects of human experience, but simply for the sake of a concise intro.

Look at the topics and links brought up in the first two paragraphs: primate, reasoning, speech, introspection, nations, cultures, beliefs, social norms. They are general; they are appropriate for a brief overview of humanity.

The distinctions between monism and dualism, and the like, are better addressed deeper in the article. They are far too specific to be hashed about in such a brief introduction. The intro does well to take on the basic scientific and sociological distinctives of human beings in a very concise manner. It suffers when burdened with philosophical matters like these. While the article as a whole probably benefits from the discussion (although I'm not convinced these debates properly belong in the human article as opposed to their entries of their own), the introduction does not benefit from their presence, IMHO. --Bob Schaefer 19:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree, of course. Sam Spade 20:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dualism and materialism is a debate within atheism
neither have any signifigance within the vast majority of human thought. Please read monism and qi, Taoism, etc... Also, the idea of john locke being the only human mentioned by name in the intro is offensively POV within a western context, and eurocentric in the extreme on an international encyclopedia. Sam Spade 20:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So add lots more from different cultures. Or are you saying that I shouldn't have cited a source?  The comment is wrong, in any case; an encyclop&aelig; mentions those who are relevant, and Locke was relevant there.  Are you going to squeal that the article's PoV again?  Or revert to your version of the summary (despite your agreeing above that neither version is appropriate) just because John Locke is mentioned?


 * Also, the claim that dualism and materialism have no significance within the vast majority of human thought would be astonishing from any other source. There have been and still are debates beteen dualists and (especially physicalist) monists in every major system of thought.  But why am I bothering?  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
Would this do as a compromise between the disputed paragraphs?

"The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the view that there is no reality beyond the physical; or that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There is also the view that the world, including human beings, is all that there is; or, on the other hand, that there may be also be a God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of philosophy and is present in the earliest historical records. SlimVirgin <sup style='color:purple;'>(talk) 20:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)"

I believe that is fine. But again we need to decide if this material belongs in human or human nature. --Rikurzhen 21:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * My preference would be not to have it at all, but the existence of this paragraph was agreed upon to stop a several-months-long dispute about the extent to which the intro should have a reference to God or souls. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Two words on god don't necessitate an(other) entire paragraph on naturalism. goethean &#2384; 22:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be a god, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records."

Would these minor changes be acceptable? Inclusion seems to demand "and" rather than "or", and the use of the indefinite article makes the use of the capital for "god" inappropriate. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) "These include the view that there is no reality beyond the physical, and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body ..." suggests the sentence is describing one view: that these are two views needs to be clarified.
 * (2) I'm fine with adding theology.
 * (3) God. The indefinite article doesn't really make use of the capital inappropriate. (There will always be an England.) I have no preference myself, but I suspect other editors would prefer God; if you have a strong preference, I'm fine with god. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC


 * I think SlimVirgin's proposal is good... it introduces the topic of spirituality in humans without delving deeper than is necessary for an introduction. --Bob Schaefer 02:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "view" to "views"; does that help? I'm also worried at the inaccurate claim that anyone thinks that a human being (rather than a person) is a combination of mind and body. Most dualists whose views I know in detail hold that the body on its own is still a human body, but no longer a person, while many hold the same about a mind on its own (if such a thing is possible). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * those are exactly the sort of existential musings we need to keep out of the intro. I have done my best to include all positions, while refraining from taking a position within the narrative wherever possible. Sam Spade 09:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Following Sam's change, my reply is perhaps irrelevant now, but here it is anyway. I agree with you, Mel, but I was trying to keep "person" out of the intro, only because we haven't defined or introduced it. But I'd also say that the way "human being" is used throughout the article, we mean "person" a lot of the time anyway. By all means change it back to "person," if you prefer, depending on whose version ends up on the page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as usual  SS   can't wait for consensus, but has placed a rather odd version in the article which he claims has consensus. I've tidied it a little, (removing, for exaple, the peculiar pipe from "entities" to "cryptozoology"...). His reference to existential musings demonstrates yet again his dislike for and lack of understanding of sustained argument. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to understand what your on about, nor do I perceive much accuracy in what little I do grok, but you seem to be winding down, on this page at least, which is good. Shall we move on to something else? Sam Spade 15:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, in fairness, several editors agreed to the compromise I wrote out: Rikurzhen, Mel Etitis (with slight changes), Bob Schaefer, and myself. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Quite. A number of editors were discussing a proposed compromise, but  SS   replaced the passage in the article unilaterally with a completely different version which he labelled "compromise". An attitude to consensus that's par for the course. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with either version that we're currently going back and forth between (a) because of the surfeit of -isms, which my version avoided, and which I feel we ought to avoid in the intro; (b) we're back to "curious and introspective nature," which, from memory, started life as a mistake; and (c) I'm not sure how we're distinguishing between spiritual and theological differences. I think the compromise version above is easier to understand. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree. --Rikurzhen 18:12, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Fine; I've replaced the paragraph with our consensus version. (I'm actually unsure about the last sentence, by the way; or, to put it another way, I'm pretty certain that it's false. What's the basis for it?  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel's consensus version is as dry as a piece of stale bread and too slanted towards a POV that is already assumed in previous paragraphs: human = brain + body. &asymp; jossi &asymp; 21:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I can see no difference in dryness between your suggestion and the consensus version. Secondly, the consensus version isn't mine, but SlimVirgin's with a couple of my alterations. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What about this version (merging SlimVirgin's with SS's; "The introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the view that there is no reality beyond the physical; the belief in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and the concept of soul, qi or atman as the true essence of man. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.&asymp; jossi &asymp;"


 * The main problem is that, again, it conflates naturalist non-physicalist views with religious views (in fact, more accurately, it ignores the former, as though the key distinction is between physicalism and supernaturalism; I've argued above that ti isn't), but it adds the implication that "soul", "qi", and "atman" mean more or the less the same, whereas they're nowhere near synonymous. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not come across an explanation of self-reflection and/or consciousness by naturalists. If there is one, you could add it. The argument about "soul", "qi", and "atman" can be easily displelled by stating something such as: "..[...] soul or similar concepts such as atman or qi as the true essence of man." &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jossi, I must admit that the dryness of one and wetness of the other are not immediately apparent to me. ;-) Can you say specifically what you don't like about the compromise version? Is it just the qi/atman omission? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * The "dryness" of that sentence will be a very obvious metaphor to anyone who believes that we are more than bone, cartilage, fluids and a cortex. :) &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The soul sentence? We could insert something simpler into the paragraph, like: "Many human beings say they are not simply flesh and blood, but that they also have eternal souls." It's not as fancy, but it's true, and everyone understands it. I see the paragraph has been changed again. We can't keep merging these versions, because it gets to the point of meaninglessness and contradiction, though I haven't read this latest one closely yet. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Again, this conflates very different notions. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this straightforwardly true point (which a glance at the philosophical literature will confirm), but the new arrivals seem not to have read the discussion (even after their arrival): naturalism includes most dualists. I'm a dualist &mdash; I believe that a person is complex combination of a mind and a body. I don't think that the mind is eternal (actually, that's an unusual position even amongst supernaturalists), nor do I think that it's spooky, or supernatural, or anything to do with any god or gods, etc. The physicalist/dualist distinction is different from the naturalist/supernaturalist distinction.

As for all this stuff about "qi" and !atman" (and why not the vital spark, or orgone, or prana, or ki, or animal magnetism, or the elan vital, etc., etc.?) &mdash; from saying that the summary went into too much detail,  SS   and friends now want more detail (because it's detail that they like, I suppose). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel, can you clarify, are you stating most dualists do believe in the naturalistic interpretation, that consciousness is created by the brain, as opposed to being a separate substance, but that it is still useful to deal with the mind, as opposed to only dealing with the brain? --Nectarflowed T 00:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Pursuit of happiness
I would like to get started on the "Pursuit of happiness" as per the To Do list. What would be the best section to place this under? I would say that "Consciousness" could be the best section as one cannot be happy without being conscious (well, that is only my POV...). &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the contrary!!! SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens? Discussion? --Rikurzhen 22:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved it back. I don't know who did it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Merging the intros
Sam, can I ask you please to leave the intro as it is, because the new combination has introduced other problems. I'll say more in a minute. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I will sleep on it. I insist on inclusion of qi, atman and other eastern concepts, and reject the aggressive eurocentric materialism of some. As always, I appreciate your healing touch, slim. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sam. I personally have no objection to having qi and atman added. Maybe you could say what you feel the other eurocentric or overly materialist bits are, and we could soften or expand them. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Could someone else revert the anon IP's deletion of the paragraph, please? I've reverted three times already. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, FM. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to qi and atman, the main problem is that they're very different concepts, performing very different r&ocirc;les, and developed in very different ways for different purposes (purposes very different from this mentioned in the paragraph &mdash; that is, not to explain consciousness and existence). With regard to the rest, Big SS is talking nonsense again; the paragraph that has been added contains no "aggressive eurocentric materialism" (uunsurprisingly, given that I played a part in it, and am not a materialist &mdash; though Big SS's failure to grasp the complexity of non-Western thought means that all this hand-waving about eurocentrism is pretty empty. I notice that he and Goethean clammed up after I posted some actual details of Hindu thought). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that he and Goethean clammed up after I posted some actual details of Hindu thought). 
 * Right. Transcendental idealism is not a monism "in the ordinary sense"? What are you talking about? --goethean &#2384; 22:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume that "Right" means that you acknowledge this (I can't see any grounds for its use in a sarcastic way, as I can't see any response from anyone to what I said. Whan I get responses to my points, we can move on to your questions. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel, you wrote aboove that: "With regard to qi and atman, the main problem is that they're very different concepts ... and developed in very different ways for different purposes (purposes very different from this mentioned in the paragraph — that is, not to explain consciousness and existence)."


 * Our paragraph says that the motivation, if you like, for the development of these different ideologies was the search for an explanation of human consciousness and existence. But that doesn't mean that ideas that fail to address those issues couldn't have developed out of the same set of questions, so I wouldn't see it as a problem in that regard if we were to include qi and atman. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that qi, for example, has meant so many different things, including its use in a materialist sense by philosophers such as Wang fu-zi, that its presence in the summary is at best vague. Atman, too, is far from simple, and it's not at all clear that either concept arose out the search for an explanation of human consciousness and existence. Certainly, no citations have been offered to back up this claim. The idea that we can include these terms because they might have developed out of the same set of questions is surely not acceptable? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that qi, for example, has meant so many different things...that its presence in the summary is at best vague.
 * The article on Christianity starts like this:
 * Christianity is an Abrahamic religion based on the life, teachings, death by crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament. Although Christians are monotheistic, the one God is thought, by most Christians, to exist in three divine persons (Greek Hypostasis), called the Trinity. Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah of the Jews as prophesied in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible).
 * What does "resurrection" mean? Lots of different things to lots of different people. What about "persons"? Ditto. "Son of God"? Quite problematic. By your arguments, these are invalid terms to use in the intro, in spite of the fact &mdash; or perhaps because of the fact &mdash; that those are the terms by which Christians have traditionally defined themselves. There is going to be wide divergence on what any major philosophical term means. --goethean &#2384; 01:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) The Jesus summary is in flux at the moment, and at least one of the terms to which you point ("Son of God") is the subject of disagreement. While it's fine to use a non-controversial article as evidence, using one that's just as controversial as this one is less helpful.
 * 2) At least in the "Jesus" article, the terms are central to the topic's title; the terms "qi" and "atman" aren't. They're generally not regarded as being unique to humans, for a start.
 * 3) response to a more general claim made by others) If we were going to represent all traditions in the summary, we'd have to add a good deal about ethics, because the main focus of Chinese discussions of what it is to be human is ethical (are human beings naturally evil, naturally good, or neutral, etc.). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whan I get responses to my points, we can move on to your questions.
 * Since your preferred defintion of monism clearly and directly contradicts the Wikipedia article on monism, I am entitled to ask what you are talking about. --goethean &#2384; 02:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As I haven't given a definition of monism, I am entitled to ask the same. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * At least in the "Jesus" article, the terms are central to the topic's title; the terms "qi" and "atman" aren't.
 * They aren't to you. But that shouldn't disqualify them from being used in this article. If (and only if) they are an essential part of how major groups of people have defined human beings, then the terms should probably be included in the intro, and certainly in the body. Do you disagree with this criterion? --goethean &#2384; 14:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I know of no-one who has defined human beings in these terms, and at least some of the comments I make above indicate the unlikelihood of anyone doing so; can you give citations? (Not general claims like "Hindus say it", etc., but genuine citations.) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)