Talk:Cosmology (metaphysics)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Religion: Interfaith

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
	This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

.

I'm just starting to expand this page, explaining presocratic cosmology. It will start off with a lot of cut & paste from the articles of different individual philosophers, but should grow from there. Any help is always welcome. WhiteC 01:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged with Ionian School, which is a stub. I'm not sure what the eventual title will be yet, but I have copied some things across from there. WhiteC 20:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved it all except for the lead paragraph across to Ionian School. If there are any other noteworthy (Eastern?) philosophers who dealt with cosmology, they should be referenced here. WhiteC 18:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to this page. This is the comment Larry Sanger made on the original cosmology article -- now moved to physical cosmology -- which inspired me to create this page:

Any notion that cosmology is limited to the branch of physics called 'cosmology' belies an ignorance of the millennia-long traditions of cosmology in religion and philosophy which in turn belies a lack of grounding in the liberal arts.

Please see these web pages: cosmology cosmogony

Probably, we will want separate articles, "cosmology (physics)" (if 'cosmology' is indeed the usual, most technical, hip, and up-to-date term for the study of the origins of the universe) and "cosmology (religion and philosophy)."

—Larry

Bellicosity aside, I'm one of those buffoons with no grounding in the liberal arts, so I haven't been able to add much. My mediocre contribution can be found at (the new) cosmology article, which was largely gleaned from the links Larry provided. If someone could expand this, I for one would appreciate it, and probably learn something. –Joke137 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I thought I'd add an "expert needed" tag - no disrespect meant to the work already done, but I'd love to see some of the great work out there find its way into this page. Unfortunately I'm not the one to summarize it. --Spetey 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POVvyness

Last statement in Atheistic cosmologies hides an extraordinarily non-WP POVvy attitude behind seemingly neutral formulations:

atheism is weakly associated with nihilism which is an antithesis to cosmology or properly with teleology in its rejection of meaning and value.

sounds neutral but is a piece of sh*t (the formulator should be ashamed, indeed!), because it proceeds followingly:

atheism -->¹ nihilism -->² (not cosmology) and (not teleology)

Let's just ignore teleology which is generally impopular and not used, except in some cases in evolution biology, but then not expressed as "teleology". First implication says atheism --> nihilism weakly, which is not true unless one have the preconception that values aren't derived from the existence, but given by some supernatural force. Nihilism is some explicit rejection of all values, so the association of atheism with nihilism seems very far fetched, and actually malintended, especially considering that most non-religious ethicans adher to some kind of natural values or evolutionary derived values. The implication nihilism --> not cosmology seems to be an error. I cannot understand what the writer thought. I actually don't understand nihilism, I was an atheist and I am religious now, but I remember having as much moral pathos before as afterward so called "conversion". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien Reference

The assertion that Tolkien's universe is dualist is false. Melkor was one of many "Ainur" (basically an angel) created by Eru. In the first chapter of the book, Eru proposes his "themes" to the Ainur and they play a sort of symphony based on the themes. Melkor does his best to subvert Eru's themes and tries to throw the song into Chaos: but as it happens, the other Ainur play in such a way that Melkor's cacophony is woven back into the fabric of the song, and his attempts to subvert the themes only ends up reinforcing them. And the Eru creates the universe, and says it's history will unfold as a reflection of their music. So basically, Tolkein's universe is just a slight variation on the Christian view of theology, which is not surprising as he was a devoted Catholic. You can listen to the first chapter of the Silmarillion at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRFGz-3hhIU if you need to check this. Corbmobile (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]