User:Ekayeanders/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Ludwig Wittgenstein


 * In the end of the second paragraph in the introduction, there is commentary about some seeminly irrelevant information in Wittgenstein's life (e.g. his telling patients not to take their medicine). While his participation in both of the world wars is helpful for readers to understand Wittgenstein's context in his own writing and could be beneficial in helping readers to hypothesize about Wittgenstein's influence, some of the commentary felt out of place and a bit distracting.
 * The article seems to have a neutral tone. Significantly, the authors of the text managed to present the information in a neutral tone despite the contention around Wittgenstein's early and later works as they sometimes function in opposition to one another (as recognized by Wittgenstein himself). It would be easy to make commentary that valued one Wittgenstenian period over another, but the authors presented both philosophies comprehensively and neutrally while also addressing the presence of the tension between the two.
 * The links that I tested did work and provided neutral information about either the life of Wittgenstein or his philosophy. Wittgenstein's texts themselves were also often sorted throughout the article. It seems important to note that the inclusion of primary source as a citation, while helpful, also leaves room for the article authors' interpretations of these primary source texts, especially considering Wittgenstein's commentary on the frequency with which his work is misinterpreted. I don't aim to make any particular value judgements about the interpretations (nor did I read anything problematic), but the nature of summarizing someone's work is to leave room for interpretation (which is fascinating considering this is Philosophy of Language).
 * The conversations around this article concern greatly Wittgenstein's life outside of his explicit philosophy because of its inevitable influence on his texts. It is a part of the WikiProjects "20th Century Philosophy", "Philosophy", "Contemporary Philosophy", and "Ludwig Wittgenstein". The conversation about the Wittgenstein differs from my engagement with his work in the classroom because my work has always been focused on analyzing his philosophy and its influence on contemporary America (which is my purpose for choosing this article; the societal influences of Wittgenstein's work in Contemporary America are significant).

Potential Articles for Editing:

- While the article does provide a variety of different philosophers who were significant to philosophy of education, particularly in the 20th century, there is not a significant amount of information about many of these thinkers. My contributions would be an elaboration on the information about works of 20th century philosophers in light of their work in Philosophy of Education. The article currently seems to primarily define terms and I would like to elaborate to provide information on the work of particular philosophers and the influences they had on 20th century education. - This article has almost no information. It attempts to define philosophical logic and outline its functions in a few sentences, but philosophical logic is a complex topic that spans all of philosophy. My contribution to this article would primarily be around 20th century philosophical logicians, primarily Saul Kripke, an American logician who introduced a new type of logic into the philosophical world in the 20th century. This addition contributed to the philosophical world and to the function of thought at large. The article currently has a few references and I would like to expand the article in many different functions, especially in terms of 20th century logic and its influence. - Practice Inserting a Citation: 20th Century Philosophy
 * Philosophy of Education
 * Philosophical Logic
 * Saul Kripke
 * Continental Philosophy
 * 20th Century Philosophy

Existentialism: Sometimes coined the Father of existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard introduced the concerns of the existentialist from a theistic perspective as a Christian philosopher concerned with the individual's understanding of God and the resulting implications for the human condition. The individual's life gains significance only in relation to the love of God.

My Article for editing: 20th-century philosophy

- change title to capitals

- look at Wittgenstein's Poker as a source.

Thinking about Wikipedia:


 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"? My exposure to philosophical consideration of the human condition has lead me to believe that objectivity does not exist; the human condition is such that one is always shaped and, as a result, acting in terms of their particularity and condition. The idea of neutrality is a hard for me to grasp, although I understand that Wikipedia's aim is for writers to do what they can to write without exposing opinion. While it does seem sensible in terms of the general educative experience, there is also value in the opinions of those who have spent a significant amount of time with a particular topic and so the opinions of other people are often helpful. It seems like people often talk about "neutrality" as a positive attribute of something, but I'm unclear about why the rejection of one's particularity, knowledge, etc. is a necessarily positive situation.
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? The impacts of Wikipedia are to provide an educative experience for people who may not have access to one; those who are not in proximity to a library, don't have the free time to invest significant amounts of time in learning, etc. have an accessible way to interact with topics (through reading and editing pages) in which they are interested and/or are significant to a variety of things. Resources like Wikipedia are helpful in terms of human equality as they provide a source of learning and knowledge to those who may not otherwise have access. The limits of Wikipedia are that it requires computer/internet access and it is probable to find incorrect information by nature of open editing.
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create? This excludes websites, blogs, and other sorts of more casual record or writing. It prevents some more conversational aspects of academia, including interviews or conversations with experts, from being accessible to other people via Wikipedia.
 * If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now? I am uncertain about what this question might be asking because Wikipedia is entirely contingent on contemporary particularities. The information we have about events that have happened, people who have lived, books that have been written, etc. would not have been written about (and certainly not from the same perspectives with which they are being discussed currently), and these things will change radically in the next 100 years. Contemporary technology for research and then developing Wikipedia did not exist 100 years ago and will not exist in 100 years. The ambiguity of this question makes it difficult to answer because so many details of the human condition are entirely different within the span of 200 years.