Talk:Innate idea
This looks like a personal essay of some kind. ⟳ausa کui × 02:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should be VFD'd. Alr 02:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- You shouldn't vfd it because it's a good topic that needs explanation. Unfortunately I don't feel that I know enough about this to write an article I would be happy with. ⟳ausa کui × 20:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard of it before. Google only gets 3,810 hits. I still say, if it's original research or a personal essay, you should put it up for VFD and create a new article with the same name later. Alr 03:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- There's the makings of a decent article in here. The argument over innate ideas is an important part of the rationalist vs. empiricist debate. The presence of Leibniz and Locke is at least a step in the right direction. I don't think it warrants being VFD just yet. This article has also been tagged for a major overhaul in the Wiki philosophy project, so hopefully it can be cleaned up soon. --- Skubicki 04:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is a modern (last 30 years) report on the debate. It in no way counts as original research but copies what is said in many contemporary introductory philosophy courses, especially in North America. The objectors show only their ignorance of current ideas. ---- JDsisson 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think the objectors are rightly pointing out that the "article" is shoddily written. A)It hardly even defines what 'innate idea' means, and B) it skims over a few thousand years of philosophical debate on the subject, choosing to focus instead on Noam Chomsky(?). I don't think this article should be deleted, but we pretty much need to start from scratch. The article needs to focus on the history of the concept of innate ideas and its evolution, starting with Plato and the other Greek philosophers, up through Descarte, the opposition from the empiricists, and into the modern period. ---- Ccj 22:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is a modern (last 30 years) report on the debate. It in no way counts as original research but copies what is said in many contemporary introductory philosophy courses, especially in North America. The objectors show only their ignorance of current ideas. ---- JDsisson 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's the makings of a decent article in here. The argument over innate ideas is an important part of the rationalist vs. empiricist debate. The presence of Leibniz and Locke is at least a step in the right direction. I don't think it warrants being VFD just yet. This article has also been tagged for a major overhaul in the Wiki philosophy project, so hopefully it can be cleaned up soon. --- Skubicki 04:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard of it before. Google only gets 3,810 hits. I still say, if it's original research or a personal essay, you should put it up for VFD and create a new article with the same name later. Alr 03:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- You shouldn't vfd it because it's a good topic that needs explanation. Unfortunately I don't feel that I know enough about this to write an article I would be happy with. ⟳ausa کui × 20:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Overhaul[edit]
Ok, so I reworked the lead paragraph. Now it's a bit more objective, defines what an innate idea actually is, and no longer references Chomsky (I think we could save him for a later part of the article, but he doesn't belong in the lead). Hopefully it's better than the last one. What do you guys think? Too long? Just plain bad? --- Ccj 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
some changes[edit]
I changed two (I think) of the sentences in the lead because I basically found them incomprensible. One of them was this: "For example, ....theorized that knowledge of god is innate through reason"
as I am not exactly sure was innatenes through reasoning means (if it can mean anything), I changed it to the following:
"For example, the philosopher Rene Descartes theorized that knowledge of god is innate in everybody as a product of the faculty of reasoning."
This more clearly explains, IMO, that Descartes beleive in the innatenss of a faulty of reasining which permitted humans to know god, among other things.
There were some other small tweaks. I hope this is helpful and not taken provocatively or something.--Lacatosias 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I want to try to go through this carefully, analysing it sentence by sentence. But without being rude in the process. --Lacatosias 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, it's Wikipedia. Go for it. Ccj 21:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Alright then. This article is certainly salvagable, IMO. Haven't really found that many serious probelms as one would expect from all the warning templates. I have added some references and some more about Chomsky and slightly touched on the very modern debates about the innateness or not of behavior/morality, etc.. Those sections might be expanded perhaps.--Lacatosias 08:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Possible rename[edit]
Just to throw the idea out there: since the contrasting article is named Empirical knowledge and the term "knowledge" is a bit broader and more general than the term "idea", maybe this article should be renamed "Innate knowledge". Then again, the term "Innate idea" is far more used. So, as I said, I'm just throwing the idea out there. 24.126.199.129 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)