Talk:Weimar Classicism

Multiple issues
1) It is written by a single author with poor English skills but who loves dense, abstruse language. An author who probably continues to police the article.

2) It makes huge unfounded claims, such as this gem:

"The inability of this common-sense outlook convincingly to bridge "feeling" and "thought", "body" and "mind", led to Immanuel Kant's epochal "critical" philosophy."

You would need several noted authors to expound on this, instead there are none. I would contend it is gibberish, but is to anyone original research. There are many similarly unfounded claims.

3) It is written like a work of German literary criticism, using ridiculous descriptors and esoteric terms which are useless for the general reader. I could see it standing as an example of the problems of Wemar Classicism perhaps, i.e., arrogant self belief coupled by a love of clever sounding phraseology with no meaning (ouside a small clique of like minded brethren). --Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)