Talk:Praxis (process)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Praxis (process) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political High‑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

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Possible spelling mistake?

In the explanation of the origins of Praxis the following is said: "theoretical, to which the end goal was truth; poietical, to which the end goal was production; and practical, to which the end goal was action." Shouldn't "poietical" be poetical? Or am I just unaware of something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:1185:CF00:B580:53F1:4899:6BA8 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the tag?

This article actually seems quite good and can't see why it merits a cleanup flag.

While could use some improvement, it seem unjustified to just go around flagging everything that isn't perfect - especially with no explanation.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 21:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be expanded on

This article also does not discuss definitions of the word Praxis, and as there are several definitions, some with differences, this definition stated here should be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.174.33 (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is not necessarily wrong, but it is lacking. Praxis is a word rich in history and theory and it should be explored more thoroughly in this article. For instance, the origins of the word are not described and its applications (which are many and complex) are somewhat glossed over. 142.58.123.6 19:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Still the case. And as agreed on wiktionary, praxis is a synthesis of theory and practice not a mere application of theory. The article is wrong, in its inception. Bard गीता 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub, no?

I agree with the commenter just before me, hence I think this article should be tagged as a stub rather than as a candidate for cleanup. Some of what is there should be reworked for greater clarity and elegance, and the over-emphasis on educators' particular usage of praxis should be corrected. The more serious problem, however, is that the article is far, far too spare to adequately address the concept of praxis.

Franziska 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a reference or link to Dyspraxia in the context of motor planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyspraxia

"...The word "dyspraxia" comes from the Greek words "dys" meaning bad and "praxis", meaning action or deed"

more specifically to Praxis as defined in the sense of a function of the brain and organization of self.

http://spectrumcenter.net/dyspraxia.html http://www.listenandlearn.com.au/type/dyspraxia.htm

KevinGomez 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement "Praxis is the process" is untrue in phenomenology: praxis is the deliberate or directed action; process is what we describe after the fact & usually glossing over the particulars of the praxis. BubbleDine (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

put it in a few sentences

Showing "praxis" used correctly in a few sentences would make it more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.232.114 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arendt and Marx

Recently there was added this unsourced statement "Arendt's gave praxis a distinctly political interpretation, in contrast to Marx's emphasis on practaical [sic] interaction with nature [my emphasis]." This is a gross misrepresentation of the differences in the way the two thinkers use this term. Such comments are not found in the relevant literature. Their differences are explained in books such as The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt, 2003, p. 199 (where contrasts are made and the relation of Arendt's work with the philosophy of phronesis is explored), The Political Humanism of Hannah Arendt (2012), p. 211–2 (on Arendt's criticism of Marx's reductive anthropology and deterministic conception of politics), Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis (2005), p. 1 (praxis as a central category of Marxist philosophy expressing "the revolutionary action and social transformation"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praxis

a Matthew Fox quote is used to illustrate the Eastern Orthodox perspective on praxis. Matthew Fox is Episcopalian not Eastern Orthodox, according to the wikipedia article about him. Jamifecher (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)jamifecher[reply]

Thesaurus corner

User:66.44.114.72 is pushing for enacted, embodied, realized, applied, or put into practice in the definitional WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, where the article previously only used the first three of those verbs. But aren't these all basically synonyms? Belbury (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]