Talk:Idea

Idealism vs materialism
Sorry, it has been a few years since I have thought about the conventions of wikipedia article editing and talk pages, so this is likely not how I'm supposed to do it, but shouldn't this passage be given a qualifier, considering it is not fact, but rather the the definition of idealism as opposed to materialism?

"Ideas embody the prototypes of objects and concepts of reality, driving civilization and governing the institutions of social life support, culture, spirituality, ideas carry a semantic weight, thus filling and motivating the purpose of the personality's existence with a special meaning." Alex parsimoniae (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Idea
Ideas generate from a human body’s brain from what he receives inputs from his six senses.in all the senses images (sight sence) plays an important role in his ideas. Then the area he belongs,his life views, his thearies.. all becomes ideas.ideas are classified into two. 1) good ideas Ideas that are harmful to him /her and to the other living beings 2) bad ideas Ideas that are harmless to him/she and to other living beings Anooj v a (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Should I ax the "adventitious v innate" and "semantics" after salvaging Sam Johnson by moving it into philosophy?
If I hear no objection, I'm slimming down the section on adventitious v. innate, adding it as a postscript to the Kant section (since "adventitious v. innate ideas" are a minor riff on Kant's "concept v. idea" that do not appear to be part of a major current and appear to derive from ephemeral secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to philosophical primary sources). Also I think we should ax the semantics section, and--even though he's not a major I don't personally mind--move Samuel Johnson up into the Philosophers section. Be back in a few days to see if there are any dissenters on this rearrangement.ThomasMikael (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)