Talk:Form of life (philosophy)

Philosophy: Science / Language / Analytic / Continental / Contemporary 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:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Philosophy of language
	Analytic philosophy
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Linguistics: Philosophy of language Start‑class High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Someone with some Wittgenstein background please edit this

Holy crap is this article badly written. It is an embarrassment. I implore someone with background into the topic to write a more lucid account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.87.166 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please second this comment? From the first few sentences, it's clear that this is written by someone whose first language isn't English, or who has gleaned the information from elsewhere and has assembled it hastily. It doesn't rise to the writing level necessary for this kind of philosophical topic. I apologize that I don't have time to do it now, but this one needs a WikiAlert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.207.173 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this article's subject is much more about Agamben's interpretation of Wittgenstein than any views Wittgenstein held himself. I've pared down a lot of the "continental philosophy" writing style which isn't appropriate for wikipedia. - car chasm (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]