Talk:De Motu (Berkeley's essay)

Philosophy: Literature / Science / Modern Low‑importance

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of science
	Modern philosophy

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Relativity

Berkeley's claim that objects exist as they are only in relation to an observing subject is the fundamental claim of relativity.Lestrade 18:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Style of article

The following box has been attached to the article:

The article, however, does not deserve this box, because the article was purposely written as a paraphrase of Berkeley's essay. That is why it reads like an essay. If this is unacceptable, then the words "The essay says," "Berkeley says," or "The essay asserts," etc., will have to be inserted throughout the article. In this way, unwary readers will be reminded that the Wikipedia article itself is not making claims and declarations. Instead, the Wikipedia article is merely communicating Berkeley's claims and declarations.Lestrade (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

The original title was in Latin, so I added a correction. It seems to be conveyed a little differently in different sources, though, so it should be checked from the original publication. Also, the article could mention the translations in English and other languages - there aren't actually too many to account for. --Fatio de Duillier (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't this title belong to Galileo's work of that nane>

Galileo wrote a work by this name, should not this be the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.44.235 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Newton also wrote a work by this name. There should be a distinction between the works entitled De Motu by Galileo, Newton, and Berkeley.Lestrade (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

These pages are all listed on the disambiguation page linked at the top of this article. Tkbrett (✉) 22:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English translation

The work referenced in Footnote 1 of the article contains an English language translation by A. A. Luce. The reference is to Berkeley's Philosophical Writings, New York: Collier, 1974, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-22680Lestrade (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]