User talk:Thenichi

This is my talk page.

Brief Bio
Nichole Smith Mathematics and Philosophy

Existentialism
--Thenichi (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The central idea is that existence precedes essence.
 * Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are important thinkers leading up to its rise in the 20th century.
 * Existentialism is a Humanism is an excellent short introductory text.

Do you think Kierkegaard fits within university curriculum?
I have heard many students complain about Kierkegaard when they read his works in theology based classes. Do you think he is a good fit for a liberal arts education? Why or why not? Kbraun95 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've actually not encountered Kierkegaard in any university courses, and I've taken two theology classes. His notion of the leap to faith is incredibly relevant to a lot of today's religious believers, even if not consciously as its become ingrained into our culture. Might I ask on what grounds they complain? I know the current zeitgeist in society says we need to base everything on hard, analytic evidence, but clearly there is more than that. Aside, when I took Christian Tradition, we did read Schleiermacher who could be presented as similar to but with important distinctions from Kierkegaard. --Thenichi (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unsure of the text's title, however, I had heard he was a source in a theology based course focusing on modern marriage and sexual relationship. I am unsure if it was the depth of the content itself, but many had told me that Kierkegaard was not connecting to the subject matter surrounding romantic relationships. I, too, read Schleiermacher during Christian Tradition and did not realize they were similar. Thank you for the tidbit! Kbraun95 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this an interesting question however, I am not really familiar with Kierkegaard's work. I'll have to check it out sometime Bryceg11 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could see the disconnect with modern marriage and sexual relationships. While I'm far from an expert on the guy, he's generally known for his take on how we ought to interpret the world. He seems to have an interesting take with the spheres of existence, as far as a quick skim tells me, which, if the course actually covered them, actually sounds incredibly relevant. tl;dr: Marriage and sex are better than the crude bachelor life, but not the ideal existence, which aligns with St. paul saying it's not ideal to marry, but better to marry than to burn.--Thenichi (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Thenichi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Strengths and Weaknesses

 * The lead section provides a clear overview of the topic.
 * The sections, subsections, and subsubsections are all clearly distinct and follow a reasonable order. For historical topics they are arranged chronologically. For thematic topics they start broad and narrow by section.
 * There are only two images. Both are photographs of existentialists placed in their part of the history section. Thus the images are used well, but are scarce.
 * The article is generally well-balanced, though the literature subsection is noticeably lacking compared to the theatre and film/television subsections.
 * The article generally maintains neutrality, though in the definitional issues the article does take one side of a contested issue.
 * Most of the sources are from philosophy journals and university book presses.
 * Some of the sources are primary.
 * The article is free from any apparent typographic or syntactic errors.
 * No value statements are expressed.
 * The talk page is civil and the issues brought up have been addressed.

History
The article was started on August 17, 2001. At first it was an unsourced explanation of existentialism with some explanation of various contained themes and concepts. Later early (around 2004) incarnations of the page had a brief informative lead followed by a few sections of lists of links. By 2005 edits were occurring multiple times a day. By 2006 the article had the same general outline as it does today, and over the past ten years most of the changes have been expanding the information rather than any structural changes. The article is no longer as active as it has been in the mid-00s, and most of the recent edits have been vandalism or undoing vandalism.

Talk
Looking through the archived talk pages, the talk page was used quite extensively to discuss what the content of the page should be. Arguments centered around what level to write at and what information should be included or central to the article. Many threads have been started asking for the article or at least the lead to be rewritten for readability for lay people. The conversation style now is generally clean and a little formal. In the past it has been filled with unsigned comments and all-caps shouting.

My Editing
In the article was an unsourced claim about a belief existing with no explanation of who the belief was held by. I looked through Google and Summon with some keywords and found nothing supporting it. Because of the lack of source and vagueness, as well as the citation needed tag having been there for nearly two years, I removed the claim. --Thenichi (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)