Talk:Maxim (philosophy)

Rewrite
There's a comment on the page saying that the article is a copy? If someone thinks that that's the case, I can rewrite the content. If I do so, it probably won't be as eloquent, but it wouldn't be a copyright infringment, partially because I haven't read that entry. Also, FYI, I'm not watching this page, so ping my talk page if you'd like me to do so. McKay (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

2010
It would seem nothing has been done with this for a very long time. That is why I would like to propose the following change:

Maxime (Philosophy)

A maxim is a groundrule or subjective principle of action. In that sense a maxim is a thought that can motivate individuals. As such it is used in ethics, but also in the military for example. An example of military maxims might be the 'Military maxims of Napoleon Bonaparte".


 * Maxim - Generally any simple and memorable rule or guide for living: 'neither a borrower or a lender be', etc. Tennyson speaks of 'a little hoard of maxims preaching down a daughter's heart (Locksley Hall), and maxims have generally been associated with a 'folksy' or 'copy-book' approach to morality .

Oxford dictionary of Philosophy, 2008

Maxime in de deontologische ethiek

In deontological ethics maxims are understood as a subjective principle of action. An act is called moral if it has a certain universal value. In Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, for instance, the maxime is combined with a certain intention to become moral. The moral intent is that one can will the subjective principle of action to become a universal law.


 * "Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde" .

External links
 * The Military Maxims of Napoleon, translated by from French by Lieut.General Sir G.C. D'Aguilar, C.B., and published by David McKay of Philadelphia in 1902.
 * Online works of Immanuel Kant

Note: I do not know why the references do not show up. This might be a consequence of this being the discussion page and not the article. Anyway, I would like some feedback on this. If I hear nothing I will proceed to editing the article in a couple of days.


 * Hey Faust. Go ahead and be bold and add that content in. For stubs like this, it's unlikely anyone is watching the page... so you probably won't get any replies on the talk page. In any case, you only have to discuss controversial edits. 99% of the time your edits can be put right into the article, and if someone has a problem with them, then they'll bring it up here! Also, don't forget your sig ;) Jess talk cs 17:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jess, I have now edited the page. I have also deleted the 'stub' template. I hope that is the right idea. Since you said that because this article was a stub I should just go ahead and change it. I wouldn't want that to happen with this version you see.
 * --Faust (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's looking a lot better. Thanks for that improvement! I've made some copyedit changes, and moved a few things around. I re-added the stub template... I'm not sure there's quite enough information there yet to consider it otherwise. Being a stub is a good thing, as it attracts others to add new content. A couple things I'm noticing:
 * We probably want to reconsider the quotes and references. The first one we probably want somewhere other than the lead, and the second one we definitely want in English. For both, it would be good to properly attribute them in the text, so we can see their source without checking the references (this also adds cohesion to the article).
 * We need a lot more references. We should also try to link the references we do have to any online versions of them we can find. The cite template is useful for doing that.


 * Other than that, it's looking good! Feel free to expand on it more if you're inclined to :) Jess talk cs 03:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jess, thanks for the positive feedback. I am unsure what kinds of online references you would want. If I would know I just might be able to find some.
 * 1) Why would we want the first quote somewhere else than in the lead?
 * 2) The econd quote is already translated into English directly above the quote: To handle only in such a way that one can, at the same time, will the subjective principle of action to become a universal law.


 * Allright, let me know waht you think.
 * --Faust (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Faust!
 * There are two reasons:
 * Simplicity: The lead is for describing the topic in general, but specifics (such as history, etymology, culture, etc) should be covered in the body. If we can get enough content for, say, a History section, then this would be a good quote to begin it. The lead, however, should be kept as simple and short as possible.
 * Format: There isn't really enough content in the lead to warrant a quote at this time. It is sometimes okay to include, but we don't really want to end the lead with one, as it makes things look visually sloppy. We also don't want to use a quote which as long as (or longer) than our content. In this case it would be better to paraphrase the quote in the lead, and use it as a reference at the end of the sentence.
 * Okay, I see. In that case, we don't want to repeat information. What we would want to do here is use the English translation as the quote instead, and use the original French as a reference. (Non-English sources are okay per WP:NONENG, but we don't want non-English content in the articles if we can help it!)


 * Generally speaking, the rule of thumb with quotations is that we want to avoid them if we can for our main content. They should really be accents to an existing article, sort of like pictures. We wouldn't want an article to be described primarily by pictures, and similarly with quotations. For cases like this, we would generally want to paraphrase the quote in accessible language instead of quoting it directly. If a quotation is just written so well that we can't paraphrase it without losing something, then it belongs in. WP:MOSQUOTE talks about formatting and placement a bit from a policy-standpoint. It's 2:00am here, so I'm a little tired. But does all that make sense? :) Jess talk cs 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think it understand now. I thought the quotes nicely illustrated my remarks. Apart from that I do not have enough historical material on this. From my perspective it is merely an ethical term. That is why I am citing Kant and giving an example like Napoleon. There are more strategists that used the term ofcourse. Sun TZu for instance, in is 'Art of War', but I am uncertain how to expand on this article.
 * The GERMAN quote of Immanuel Kant seemed a good idea because it illustrates the general idea I am trying to get across. It seemed prudent to separate between the normal maxim and the moral maxim as Kant used it. I might expand on his theories though.
 * My general problem is that I am uncertain how to make a longer article out of ths because I think it will not add to the information, but will only be static (so to speak). I am willing to rewrite the whole thing. Maxims are always principles of action though. I am wondering how prudent it is to elaborate on certain specific usages andwhat the content should be of the entire article, then.
 * --Faust (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't comment too much on the actual topic, as I (embarrassingly) know very little about it. I'm also in the middle of content disputes on a couple of other articles which are absorbing time researching... so I won't be of much help here. The best I can recommend is to:
 * Find sources for the topic. Some google searching might help out there. Paraphrase the content you find, and add the sources inside tags. This will help add more content to the article.
 * Some common types of content you might look for would include: History, In Culture, Etymology, Philosophy and Popular Works. Check Good Articles and Featured Articles for other ideas.
 * After there's some more content on the page, find some free images to add. Pictures of relevant philosophers, books, etc would be good
 * After you've done all that... repeat ;) Jess talk cs 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll see what I can do. --Faust, formerly Arjen (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

scraps
I had considered this one for a quote, but I have decided against it. I have used it as a referral instead. I have left it here because it is a surce none the less.

''Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the seperation 'moral' considerations. The scholarly issues are complex, with some writers seeing Kant as more Aristotelian, and Aristotle as more involved with a separate sphere of responsibility and duty, than the simple contrast suggests.''

German quote?
Are quotes in other languages okay? Is there any value at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meitme (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maxim (philosophy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415174847/http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html to http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/2161.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)