User talk:Kripkenstein/Sandbox

Rewriting started

I have started writing the historical overview by the section on Descartes and Cartesians, which borrowed some material from Cartesian dualism (hence we can say the merge has happened). I copied the content of Substance dualism into the subsection it belongs, but I will add some more lines there. Overall Dualism (philosophy of mind) has some good material, I think. What I think we can do to improve it is get it a nice "historical overview" section, merge all parallel articles, improve its sections and organize it so it doesn't become redundant, to say the least. --Kripkenstein 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good start. We have plenty of time. There is no deadline for Wikipedai articles!! Don't let all of this interfere with more important matters like schoolwork and so on. Also, each article can always be improved. Don't move too quickly from one artcile to another. We need to get some really strong artciles out there that meet, at least, Good Article status and try tp get some fetaures artciles (of which there are very few on the Ebglish philosophy wiki as compared to the German wiki)as well. --Lacatosias 07:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some furhter progess. I think if we really really focus on getting this thing perfect (structurally it's fine, illustration is pretty good for a philopshy article, content is being worked on but it's gettin there, refernces can be left for laast), it might even be an FAC.--Lacatosias 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work so far, Lacatosias! Currently I'm on vacation and so I'll try to make the best of this time off (classes begin in March 6th). I too think that if we do our best we can make this a FAC. Maybe we can be a little more academic than usual and start making footnotes/references, too. --Kripkenstein 12:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the type who leaves note and references to the last-minute even in my academic writing. But I'll staring adding some in now, since I'm tired of writing. At some point, we will have to take the best parts of the arguments pro and contra fromn the other page and stick them in here. The part on interactionism was basicallt empty, so I started writing it myself. --Lacatosias 14:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've just pasted the current article's section "Arguments for dualism" here on the sandbox. That and "arguments against dualism" are now the sections which need more work: "Arguments for" needs some expansion and maybe organization, and "Arguments against" needs to be divided in sections and expanded. I think I will start working on the latter. --Kripkenstein 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'm going to put the subjective qualia argument on the top (inlcuding Frank Jackson's extremele important knowldege argument as part of it some how or other) and then see what I can make out the other rather bizarre argument from religion and untuition )I might rword them or just dumo them completely and replace them with more standard arguments in my own words.--Lacatosias 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went on to read the section "Arguments against dualism" in the current article and was utterly amazed at the lack of quality right in the first lines. I think I will start writing that section from scratch. --Kripkenstein 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, the whole thing was an abomination, as I pointed on the artciles talk page. The weakest parts, howvere, is not, as you indicated in your outline, the section on interaction dualism; that wa atcually pretyy decent and concise. tne arguments section (both for and against) have to be cmpletely redone from scratch. Intuitive and religious erguments?? I don't think so. Out. 90% of the argument for section containted a discussion of the arguments againts epiphenomanlism. Out. Knowledge argument, modal argument, zombie arguemnt, any philophical/logical agument againts physicalism (of which there are probably hundreds in the litertaure) are slightly more appropriate.--Lacatosias 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in the article

I took the liberty of pasting the new header and the section on historical overview, which is all brand new as you know, to the article. It looks so revolting in its current form. I also added the bibliography section which will probably still undergo some changes over time, and the new links.

I will now replace the all the other sections done (maybe if they will be further improved they beat the hell out of what's there) on the article and I suggest we start editing the article itself since the major re-structuring that I intended we'd do here on the sandbox seems to be already done. Of course we still have the "arguments against" section to write and then replace the current awful thing present there, but as soon as we have some paragraphs we can delete the current section (or we can delete already and then go writing it there, since what's there is worthless). --Kripkenstein 01:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done replacing the sections. It already looks much better and is now a readable article except for the "arguments against" section. Further developments on the article can be done in the article itself from now on (hopefully someone else in the Philosophy Project will take a look and revise it too, and who knows it might even be "peer-reviewed".) --Kripkenstein 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know some of the brighter and more professional minds around here very well yet. But hopefull we can recruit people like Banno, Seth Mahoney and other people who seem to be serious about the quality of the philosophy articles on Wikipedia to help hold back the onrush of people who are going to, I imagine, want to reintrouce bizarre and irrevelent arguments into those last two sections . I'll go over and take a look at the current state of it and see what can be improved directly on the page then.--Lacatosias 09:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]