Talk:Personalism

Old talk
Why the ? Is there a particular connection between Methodists and personalist philosophy? Some other pages I've looked at suggest most but not all personalists are theists, but I've seen no suggestion of such a connection. -- Jim Henry
 * Personalism, particularly the theistic type developed by Bowne and others, was a major force in early 20th century American Methodism. Personalist theologians dominated Boston School of Theology, a major Methodist school in the era, and personalist philosophy dominated the entire denomination until about the 1960s, when evangelicalism and traditional liberalism began their "reigns". Now, perhaps personalism is also appropriate in other categories, but it is certainly of great historic import in Methodism. KHM03 01:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Herman Van Rompuy
Hi, why do you not accept Herman Van Rompuy as a notable personalist? He defines it publicly as his way of life, makes research, gives conference on it and is a notable person. What else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.58.109 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Animals?
Are any other animals considered "persons" for the sake of Personalism? &mdash;Ashley Y 03:04, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean...are you asking if animals such as dogs, cats, horses, lions, whatever, are considered "persons" in personalist philosophy? If so, then I don't know.  Perhaps there are some personalist philosophers/theologians who have made that connection.  I really don't know for sure.  KHM03 12:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-theistic Personalism?
I've recently become a personalist. I've written a short article about personalism on my website, but I want to add some links. However, I'm also a non-theist and a libertarian. Unfortunately, most of the websites and books that I found covered personalism alongside Christianity and communitarianism. Where can I find a website or book that covers just the metaphysics of personalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! Answers and similar services may be of assistance to you. Right here, we're supposed to discuss how to make a WP article better. Wurdnurd (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article with lots of information since you asked those questions 2 years ago. As you can see there are many types of personalism now mentioned in the article. There is atheistic personalism of John M. E. Mctaggart or pantheistic personalism of William Stern both alternatives to the usual theistic personalism. If you want a book which covers all of this have a read of the book Personalism: a critical introduction By Rufus Burrow. It lists many types of personalism. When i get time i may add some more types of personalism to the article, the book is a great reference. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian personalism
Christian personalism, as developed particularly by Karol Wojtyla, deserves a section here. I have put it after Emmanuel Mounier’s Personalism.Unimpeder (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"History of Personality" strays off topic
This encyclopaedic article defining Personalism needs to focus on actual Personalists and actual Personalist points of the view. The idea that Personalism descended from this long line of philosophical reasoning did not fall out of the sky. A Personalist drew these connections between philosophers through history. Show that. Except as an influence on actual Personalists, it is off-topic to simply list Philosophers who did not identify as Personalists and who had nothing to do with Personalism directly, and not even explain how their thinking relates to Personalism. I am going to remove this section. If you wish to cannibalize parts of it, please add them under a description of an actual Personalist who was influenced by these philosophers, but also explain how they were influenced and what exactly it became. Otherwise, this section is not only original research, but only hypothetically connected to the topic. 66.192.33.51 (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the history section seems like it's pulled from someone's (uncited!) history of personalism without much of the narrative which would make it relevant. I think virtually the entire history section should be removed. This article should only contain self-identified personalists, although it can obviously mention in that context the philosophical traditions from which they derived their beliefs. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing needs improvement
Hello, I am reviewing the sourcing of the section "Notable personalists". Many of those inserted have no associated source to prove that they adhere to personalism of one form or another. Furthermore, not even their articles hint at this! So for the likes of Edith Stein and Martin Luther King, Jr., I have removed them from the rolls, and I shall insist on solid sourcing for future additions here. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is mainly about monohumanocentricity, not personocentricity
Not all persons are humans. The term person is a hypernym. You claim: "Personalism is an intellectual stance that emphasizes the importance of human persons."

Some Christians occupy the definitions of crucial nouns, to hide the personocentricity of god himself; thus they avoid to analyze if personhood:
 * 1) (personhood) is one out of many other natural phenomena; a process
 * 2) (personhood) has more fundamental components (for example memories); thus the person as a whole isn't outmost fundamental being not a simple (philosophy)
 * 3) (personhood) has anything to do with cosmomechanics (how the universe works)
 * 4) (personhood) can evolve without an environment; other persons, object and interactions (god cannot exist metalogically because didn't brew social awareness within an environment; theists respond neurotically without being analytical; their fallacies belong to them, not to god or to a book (we are responsible for our reasoning; no other person or book is an excuse for our personal fallacies)

Persons or human persons
"Personalism is an intellectual stance that emphasizes the importance of human persons" Many personalists give much importance to the fact that God is personal (or, in the case of Christian faith, three persons). They emphasize the importance of the "personhood", not only human persons. In this sense, I think the introductory sentence of this article is not correct. I am considering changing it, and making some changes in the article that reflect this fact. --2001:B011:1003:3504:519F:84AA:20DC:E74C (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

They claim:

 * personalism = (h)umanocentricity
 * hypernymous personalism = avoid subject

Most Muslim countries have a different approach. Immediate execution. Allah doesn't have a face, is not human; but still is a person (emotions, ideas, speech, teaching, killing etc.). Islam is anti-Islamic, because the notion of personhood requires thought and empathy which in turn require many components (not a simple (philosophy). Islam supposedly promotes the mereologically pure ideas. A true Muslim, is strictly and atheist. Strictly! Yes, Islam is closer to mereological purity (if they allow you to think and don't murder you.)

Personocentricity (a theistic bias)

 * 1) the belief that at least one person created and controls the universe
 * 2) the belief that any action inside the universe serves a planned purpose which fulfils the urges of persons (of god or other persons)
 * 3) the belief that personhood (and the criteria of personhood) are metalogically and mereologically superior and rigorously logical than the fields of physics
 * 4) the belief that personhood might occur in the precosmic nothingness, without an environment, other persons or interactions


 * (pseudo-entry/sub-entry) the belief that the opinions and the emotions of persons dictate facts, and that measurement and non-emotional and non-personocentric mathematical theories are unimportant


 * criteria of personhood ➡ make page because it is a field of study


 * Cosmological personocracy (cosmopersonocracy) is more descriptive. It is also the ultimate hypernym of personocentricity/personocentrality/personocentrism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411E:3700:64EF:167C:54A9:7E40 (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Valentin Tomberg
The writings of Valentin Tomberg on this topic are worth a look and may be worthy of some reference. His magnum opus, "Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey Into Christian Hermeticsm" is a truly extraordinary book. Not only has it been a blessing to thousands of Christians– Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox alike –it has generally been met with great enthusiasm by readers outside (and on the margins) of the institutional church, as well. And with apparent links to at least two of the last three Popes (to John Paul II via Hans Urs von Balthasar; and to Benedict XVI via Robert Spaemann), it has also generated some very positive reviews among high-ranking clerics and churchmen (a forward by Balthasar appears in the English edition and one by Spaemann in the German edition; Fr. Thomas Keating also gave it a very positive review). Here are some relevant excerpts:

". . . can we do without nominalism? No, for nominalism is a vision of the world consisting of individual, unique and irreplaceable beings. It is a vision of the world as a great community of entities, instead of a world of laws, principles and ideas. It is the vision of a world where Father, Son and Holy Spirit, true and living persons, united by the eternal bonds of paternity, filiality and fraternity, reign —surrounded by Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, Angels, human beings and beings of Nature, visible and invisible. How can one say, with all sincerity of the heart, in prayer addressed to the Father in heaven: "Hallowed be thy name", without believing that it is the unique and holy name of a living being —unique and holy, and not a designation for the supreme idea or the "first cause" or the "absolute principle"? Can one love an invisible world of impersonal "first causes", a world populated by laws and principles? If general intellectual knowledge of the world as such (i.e. science) and as the work of God (i.e. philosophy) is not possible without idealistic realism, intuitive individual knowledge —through love —of particular beings (i.e. mysticism, gnosis and magic) is no more so without realistic nominalism.

Now, one can neither embrace idealistic realism or realistic nominalism without reserve, nor dispense with one or the other. For love (which demands realistic nominalism) as well as the intellect (which demands idealistic realism) are structural faculties of human nature. Human nature itself is realist, in so far as thought is concerned, and it is nominalist, in so far as social communion or love is concerned."

[...]

"Are laws, principles and ideas therefore not real?

They are certainly real, but their reality is not that of an existence separate from beings, i.e. that of metaphysical entities populating a world or plane —a world of laws, principles and ideas—proper to themselves. The spiritual world is not a world of laws, principles and ideas; it is a world of spiritual beings —human souls, Angels, Archangels, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim and the Holy Trinity: the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Father.

What, then, is the reality of laws, principles and ideas?

It is in their structural kinship — spiritual, psychic and corporeal. All beings manifest a universal kinship and bear witness to their common origin and their common archetype. Now, this common archetype — that the Cabbala calls "Adam Kadmon"— is the law, the principle and idea of all beings. "The image and likeness of God" in Adam is the law by virtue of which God "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (Genesis i, 26). Adam is the law, the principle and the idea of all the beings of Nature, because he is their prototype-synthesis.

Realism is right when it affirms the reality of universals, for they are the structural features of the archetype for all particular beings. Also, nominalism is right when it teaches that there are no other realities in the world than individual beings and that universals are not to be found amongst these beings.

Hermeticism regards the Logos who became man as the archetypal universal become the perfect particular being. The controversy between realism and nominalism does not exist for Christian Hermeticism.

~ "Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism", Letter 9, "The Hermit", page 207, 209

http://tarothermeneutics.com/tarotliterature/MOTT/Meditations-on-the-Tarot.pdf

https://corjesusacratissimum.org/2013/12/meditations-on-the-tarot-and-the-vatican/

https://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Wojtyla&Tarot.htm

Hazratio (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)