Talk:The World (book)

Physics: Publications / History Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

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.

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.

Untitled

I've seen this book referred to as "Treatise on the World," but never as simply "The World." Does anyone have a good reference as to which is proper? uriah923^(talk) 00:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was published as "The World" in French, with the subtitle "Treatise on light." Sometimes the two get confused, but the article title is correct. I have added short coverage of contents, partly cribbed from "atomism" article, and a table of contents. I know the capitalization of the latter looks wacky, but that's the way it is in the English translation. Please nobody try to "fix" it! Maestlin 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State what has been disputed

I think it would really help to state the various ideas he suggested that have now been disputed by science. For example his ideas on why things fall etc... Kendirangu 10:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensations and what creates them

According to the article, Descartes "introduces the reader to the idea that there is no relationship to our sensations and what creates these sensations." This sentence makes no grammatical sense. Could someone familiar with the work please correct it, and perhaps cite a source for the interpretation? --Trevor Burnham 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, the sentence "there is no relationship to our sensations and what creates these sensations" is a bit awkward. When I wrote this sentence, I was attempting to emulate the subtitle of the first chapter of The World, as published and translated by Stephen Gaukroger (see third reference in the main article), which reads "On the difference between our sensations and the things that produce them". As for grammatical correctness I believe the sentence, while awkward, is grammatically correct. To illustrate and perhaps help to clarify the sentence, I will put the subjects in bold.

"there is no relationship to our sensations and what creates these sensations"

If you have any suggestions to ways I could make the sentence less awkward while maintaining brevity, please let me know. Zawausen (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "there is no relationship between our sensations and what creates these sensations" I'm no gramatician but that sounds better to me. I have changed it as such but in the context it might be a little confusing still. PatxiG (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]