User:Preciousg11/sandbox

Article evaluation:
Everything within the Wikipedia article Natural law is relevant to the topic of discussion. Ultimately, the article is quite explanatory but each section of the article should express some connection to each other and to the overall topic of discussion. Although each subcategory is related in some way, a sense of what connects them to the topic is extremely important. This article is definitely neutral with no claims that can be evaluated as bias in any way. Although some parts of the article consists of more information than others, it is all relevant and necessary information. On the other hand, the ethical aspect pertaining to natural law could have been represented much more. The links work and the sources for each citation support the article. Each fact is indeed referenced from a reliable source, whether it be academic article that is peer reviewed or from the original source pertaining to this topic itself. On the talk page for this article, many people have commented on the need for examples, article vandalism, reorganization of the page in relation to which category should be addressed before another, etc. This article is however a part of WikiProjects (WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Human Rights, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Christianity / Theology, WikiProject Conservatism) with a rating ranging B-class to C-class and from mid-importance to top-importance. On Wikipedia, the topic about natural law is of course an overview with instances of deeper explanation but, in class each subcategory, including many others, are much more focused and connected than those in this article.

Article Selection:

 * 1) Fallacy
 * 2) Logical Positivism
 * 3) Problem of Universals

Each of these articles share the same characteristics; they are all "start-class" articles. (1) The article Fallacy is a part of Wikipedia: WikiProject Philosophy as well as Wikipedia: WikiProject Skepticism with a rating of high-importance. Choosing to edit this article is not only due to its level of importance and being a part of a WikiProject but, because the topic holds so much weight in regard to critical thinking and its relationship to philosophy. Everything within this article is relevant to the topic of discussion but there should be further explanation in each subcategory. Additional information about the new perspective and conceptualizations of what counts as an actual fallacy, how they are used in terms of being unintentional or intentional, etc. In reference to notability, this article may be only lacking significant coverage of the entire essence of a fallacy. Using information from the scholarly source cited, the additional information that this article may be lacking can now be included. (2) The article Logical Positivism is quite different from the first article addressed. Although this article is of importance to the WikiProject Philosophy, it has be rated as C-class on the quality scale. The article is uncategorized and has some grammatical incorrect sentences. All in all, this article is described as being written too much like a research paper and does not conform to the encyclopedic format that Wikipedia itself follows. In this case, this lends way for insightful and Wikipedia standard editing. Using the scholarly source cited, a more in depth and proper explanation of what logical positivism and other aspects that this concept may include, while keeping in mind the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia promotes will help improve this article. (3) The article Problem of universals is once again in relation to the WikiProject Philosophy but has been considered of mid-importance. This article lacks a general account as to what exactly the problem of universals is before breaking it down into philosophical historical subcategories. Some information and sources relevant to the topic are lacking and therefore make way for the editing of this article. Using the scholarly source cited, further discussion and explanation of what the problem of universals is exactly, including continued reference of the historical background along aside detailed connection to metaphysics will be addressed.

Problem Of Universals
In metaphysics, the problem of universals refers to the question of whether properties exist, and if so, what they are and how to explain them.

Properties are qualities or relations that two or more entities have in common. The various kinds of properties, such as qualities and relations, are referred to as universals. For instance, one can imagine three cup holders on a table that have in common the quality of being circular or exemplifying circularity, or two daughters that have in common being the female offsprings of Frank. There are many such properties, such as being human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father of, etc. While philosophers agree that human beings talk and think about properties, they disagree on whether these universals exist in reality or merely in thought and speech.

(Updated/Edited)

The problem of universals relates to a number of questions in close relation to not only metaphysics, but to logic and epistemology in efforts to understand how the thought of universals has a connection to those of singular properties. An example best used to explain this, is the question of the Pythagorean theorem. How does one know that this formula will be true universally at all times for all triangles?

(Updated/Edited)

Realism
Main article: Metaphysical realism

The school of realism makes the claim that universals are real and that they exist distinctly from the particulars that instantiate them. Two major forms metaphysical realism are Platonic realism (universalia ante res), meaning "'universal in the thing'" and Aristotelian realism (universalia in rebus), meaning "'universals in things'". Realists tend to argue that universals must be posited as distinct entities in order to account for various phenomena. A common realist argument said to be found in Plato's writings, is that universals are required for certain general words to have meaning and for the sentences in which they occur to be true or false. Take the sentence "Djivan Gasparyan is a musician" for instance. The realist may claim that this sentence is only meaningful and expresses a truth because there is an individual, Djivan Gasparyan, who possesses a certain quality: musicianship. Therefore, it is assumed that the property is a universal which is distinct from the particular individual who has the property.

(Updated/Edited)

Nominalism
Main article: Nominalism

Nominalists assert that only individuals or particulars exist and deny that universals are real (i.e. that they exist as entities or beings; universalia post res). The term nominalism comes from the Latin nomen, meaning "name". Four major forms of nominalism are predicate nominalism, resemblance nominalism, trope nominalism, and conceptualism. One with a nominalist view claims that we predicate the same property of/to multiple entities, but argues that the entities only share a name and not have a real quality in common.

Nominalism has been endorsed or defended by many, including Chrysippus, William of Ockham, Rudolf Carnap, Nelson Goodman, David Lewis, H. H. Price, and D. C. Williams.

(Updated/Edited)

Transcendental idealism
Main article: Transcendental idealism

See also: German idealism

Transcendental idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant posited that universals are not real, but are ideas in the mind of rational beings. Transcendental idealists do not reject universals as arbitrary names; rather, they treat universals as fundamental categories of pure reason (or as secondary concepts derived from those fundamental categories). Universals, in transcendental idealism, are intrinsically tied to the rationality of the subject making the judgment.

Thus, for transcendental idealists, the problem of universals is only tangentially a metaphysical problem; it is more of a problem of psychology and epistemology. Kant's position has been interpreted as a conceptualist one.

Positions
(Updated/Edited)

There are many philosophical positions regarding universals.


 * 1) Platonic realism (also called "extreme realism"  ) is the view that universals or forms in this sense, are the causal explanation behind the notion of what things exactly are; (the view that universals are real entities existing independent of particulars).
 * 2) Aristotelian realism (also called "strong realism" ) is the rejection of extreme realism. This position establishes the view of a universal being that of the quality within a thing and every other thing individual to it; (the view that universals are real entities, but their existence is dependent on the particulars that exemplify them).
 * 3) Anti-realism is the objection to both positions. Anti-realism is divided into two subcategories; (1) Nominalism and (2) Conceptualism.

Taking "beauty" as example, each of these positions will state the following:


 * Beauty is a property that exists in an ideal form independently of any mind or description.
 * Beauty is a property that exists only when beautiful things exist.
 * Beauty is a property constructed in the mind, so exists only in descriptions of things.

Extreme realism and strong realism are also known as exaggerated realism and moderate realism respectively.

Notes:
After careful consideration, the article that seemed to need more attention and therefore editing, is that of the "Problem of universals." The information presented within the article that already exists deserves further explanation. In efforts to do so, the source being used to add to this article is in some sense, essentially a basis. Within the source, an overview of the differentiation between the problem of universals in relation to being a metaphysical problem, rather than a pseudo problem is discussed. Secondly, the source considers what established the problem originally, and how this provides a reason to make a connection to the verifiability of realism regarding universals, even with the ideology of God's existence.

Peer Review Response
Thank you so very much for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated!

Suggested Edits and Response

 * Correction to a few small grammatical mistakes: Thank you for reviewing my work and noticing such mistakes. I will go ahead and re-read my edits as well as the information that I added to the article in efforts to correct these mistakes.
 * Switch up the positioning of the positions section (moving the positions section after the historical philosophy section): I absolutely agree with this edit suggestion, thank you for pointing this out. It will absolutely improve the flow of the article by presenting the historical basis of the topic in a chronological order while next, accompanying it with the philosophical positions. Having the positions section coming after the historical section creates not only a better flow of the article, but also serves best as a conclusion to the topic.
 * Concerns of eurocentricity and lack of information on non-western approaches to the problem of universals: I did see this concern on the talk page of the article but I was not too sure if this particular section was necessary to the overall topic. But, since it is mentioned once again, I will definitely look into it.
 * Using conceptualism: Conceptualism is indeed quite similar to realism, but nevertheless can connect nicely and effortlessly to the overall article. Will do!

All in all, I will definitely take all of the suggested edits into consideration in efforts to improve my contributions. Thank you once again!