Talk:Ontological turn

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal 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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayakrause7. Peer reviewers: Win2121, KathrynPeters.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X

Hi! We saw this in class.--129.59.230.197 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review comments

From User:Carwil

Before everything else, a comment on scope. There is, apparently, an "Ontological turn" in philosophy (per this), but I would argue on first glance that it's not the same thing as the ongoing turn in anthropology. Since it doesn't help readers to know them both, I would recommend keeping the scope to anthropology for now, and consider renaming it Ontological turn (anthropology).

That said, this is a well-developed article that lays out several major texts and related ideas.

Some suggestions:

This is the kind of sentence that is necessary for a dictionary, but inappropriate for an encyclopedia, since dictionaries are where you look up words (and phrases), while encyclopedias are where you look up topics: "Many different intellectual movements have been associated with the "ontological turn", although the term itself first appeared in 1606 in the work Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard, a German philosopher."
You can't cite other Wikipedia articles, but you can follow their trail of references to find a relevant external citation.
"most associated with scholars at the University of Cambridge": please give us a couple examples; people rarely know which scholars are at which universities.
"Critiques" should name names and directly attribute critical viewpoints. It's also acceptable (maybe even preferred, see Wikipedia:Criticism) to have a "reception" section rather than a critique section. Marshall Sahlins' enthusiastic praise for the turn (quoted in Bessire and Bond, I believe) might be a good candidate here.

Good luck!--Carwil (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving the sentence "Critics of the ontological turn argue that claims of different worlds tend towards essentialism." from the last part of the "Turns in Anthropology" section into the specific "Critiques" section - and citing the sentence too. KathrynPeters (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger References

In this article Heidegger is referenced several times in this article uncited, and what is said about him is wrong. I don't have the time to fix it right now, but I think it needs to be addressed. ~~~ Mennonitischer Metaphysiker (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]