Talk:T. H. Green

Untitled
I've added the technical and confusing tags to this article. The whole style to me is a problem. It may be appropriate for a degree level essay but not for a general encyclopedia. e.g.

 By reducing the human mind to a series of unrelated atomic sensations, this teaching destroyed the possibility of knowledge, and further, by representing man as a "being who is simply the result of natural forces," it made conduct, or any theory of conduct, unmeaning; for life in any human, intelligible sense implies a personal self which (1) knows what to do, (2) has power to do it.

First of all the sentance is horribly long. Then the following terms are completely unclear to someone without a background in philosphy:


 * atomic sensations - what have Oxygen, Nitrogen etc got to do with it?
 * theory of conduct

I hope these comments are taken in the spirit in which they are intended - I am sure this guy is an important philospher but at present it doesn't communicate that fact well to a non-specialist.--NHSavage 12:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In regard to atomic sensations, the word "atomic" has nothing to do with the useful fiction that physicists meant when they appropriated that word. It means the simplest, most basic sensation that results from contact between one of the body's sense organs with one object that is external to that body. The sensation is atomic in that it cannot be analyzed, broken down, or separated into more simple, basic sensations. Atomic = simple, or not compound.Lestrade 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The Seciton, "What Is Man" is not written in an encyclopaedic style and is very abrupt, especially with the change of voice into the 1st person. It seems out of place and doesn't seem especially relevant to Green specifically. It almost seems like a quote from him, but it is not marked as such.--MDesiree13 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Meat & potatoes
It might be the case that Green's main motivation was to salvage the concept of "God." Like many other 19th century writers, he tried to reverse the growing disbelief that occurred among a population that was becoming more educated and cosmopolitan. He found two ways to accomplish his goal. First, he appropriated Berkeley's notion of a God who sustains existence by perceiving everything everywhere, at all times. Then, he made use of Hegel's Absolute Geist, which is a kind of eternal, ubiquitous, omniscient, omnipotent Mind or Spirit. If this is true, then it would seem to be one of the most important characteristics of Green's mental activities and possibly the main motivation in his life. What if such an explanation cannot be found in citable published works? Is there no place in a Wikipedia article for such speculation? How can such psychological guesswork be included in an encyclopedia article?Lestrade (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Even though such an explanation of Green's essential motivation would be very true and explain much of his thought, it has no place in a Wikipedia article. It would be considered to be mere subjective opinion unless it could be cited as being previously published in an existing printed medium. 108.24.200.163 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)D'Antwan Williams

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Hill Green. 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/20071104065835/http://individual.utoronto.ca/alex_klein/Scholarship.htm to http://individual.utoronto.ca/alex_klein/Scholarship.htm

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) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)