Talk:Philosophy of matter

Won't do
This page really won't do. In philosophy, "matter" is usually taken to mean just what it means in physics. Gene Ward Smith 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not very familiar with philosophy, but I know that philosophers have said a lot of things about time and space, so I bet they've said a lot about matter too. If nothing else, this page could be a historical look at what they've said.  --Strait 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers have used "matter" is many different ways, and this article I think has serious problems. I will try to address them in the coming weeks. JEN9841 (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do expanded
Hi. With regard to the first comment, I suppose it depends on what philosophy, as philosophy has a very long history. For most of it matter does NOT mean what it does in modern physics. However, as the commenter senses almost by intuition, today's concepts descend with some continuity from the previous. We are still looking for the ultimate "substance" that explains the physical universe. Now we are down to the structure of matter-energy and the "theory of everything". We have reached the limits of understanding in quantum physics.

I suppose the commenter means matter in a Newtonian Universe. "Roads? Whe needs roads?" The theorists have gone way beyond that from the turn of the 19th century into the 20th, starting with the discovery of the quantum and Einstein's hypothesis that there is no distinction between matter and energy.

With regard to the second comment, "I don't know anything about music, but I know what I like." Considering the various theories of matter it is hard to see how anything else but the history of the concept could go in here, with ample links to other main topics for specialized topics. I would carry the thing right up through to modern times, with the details in the article on physical matter. An article of this scope must be very general, but there are plenty of examples in Wikipedia. Being blessed with links, Wikipedia is rather good at that.

Accordingly I suggest the following outline, which you can mull and alter. This is a very big topic so don't rush to hasty generalization. Do some homework before you leap in.

The Quest for the Mother Substance
 * Milesians
 * Pluralists
 * Atomists
 * Hylomorphs
 * The manifestation of nothing

Roman Cosmologists
 * Lucretius
 * The cloud of atoms
 * The swerve

The Search for the Golden Process The Rebirth of Atomism
 * Elements
 * Bodies

Beyond atoms Beyond the limits of the knowable Beyond particle physics
 * string theory

Plato
I request someone add more information on Plato. Kurlton (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matter_(philosophy)&diff=284151661&oldid=283965818 Don't know yet what to say about this.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.221.190 (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-notable and nigh-meaningless quotes are irrelevant. Quotes should be uploaded to wikiquote.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Matter - Basic Concept of Dialectical Materialism
Deleted - without explanation (rv Walmei by WP: SYNTH) Ignorance or malice! I ask for an appreciation of the sources. Do you need more sources? Look please fundamental question of philosophy and Dialectical materialism. --Walmei (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollback without appreciation of the sources!
Hi DVdm, what is your problem? Notes Kosing, A .: Marxist Dictionary of Philosophy. -Verlag am Park, Berlin.- 2015 Werner Heisenberg: Physics and Philosophy. - 6th edition, - Stuttgart: Hirzel, 2000. - p. 224 W.I. Lenin: materialism and empirio-criticism. Dietz Verlag Berlin 1971 Written in May 1908 p. 124 Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels - Works. Dietz publishing house, Berlin. Volume 21, 5th edition 1975, unchanged reprint of the 1st edition 1962, Berlin / GDR. Pp. 259-307. External link Dritte Auflage, englische Ausgabe – bei The Free Dictionary Many internal links in the text. Additionally Philosophical Dictionary. 2 volumes. 12. compared to the 10, revised and revised edition, VEB Bibliographic Institute, Leipzig 1976 (481.-530th thousand). What am I doing wrong? --Walmei (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * See wp:synthesis. Not everything you added to the article was backed by the source. It was also undone by user . The only thing that you added to your previous edit of 1 July, is a pointer to a "free encyclopedy" (http://encyclopedia2.tfd.com), which as a wp:tertiary source is not reliable. If you can add book sources to each individual claim in your edit, it could be ok. - DVdm (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)