Philosophy: Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Epistemology Mid‑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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Metaphysics
	Epistemology

Older discussions from before the page was split have been archived at Talk:Irrealism/Archive2.

Even older discussions from before the page was split have been archived at Talk:Irrealism/Archive.

Please also see the discussion at Talk:Irrealism (the arts).

Disambiguated page. --cfp 11:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup[edit]

My title for a first section sucks horribly. But please rename it. I had to try something to shrink down or give a first paragraph. (wiki style stuff) Lsjzl 15:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is only slightly better. If I think of something else, I'll addJoseane 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random deletions[edit]

Please don't make deletions without asking permission - let's agree on changes! Joseane 05:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the line that required a citation as I felt it didn't really add anything to the text. Anyone upset? 4us 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the paragraph on ontology. This is essential for any possible understanding of Goodman's irrealism. He is not talking about a single reality that looks different. He follows Kant in that there is no raw reality. All actual realities, whether one or many, are constructed using symbol systems. BlueMist (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

SHOULDNT THIS PAGE BE MERGED WITH ANTI-REALISM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenMan (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - I think Goodman was trying to take a middle position... not unlike Putnam and Bunge... Realism sometimes... Anti-realism sometimes... I'd have to look for a source but I think it's fairly clear by from his account of Realism in Languages of Art.Joseane (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to explain what irrealism actually is[edit]

The lede merely states that "Irrealism is a philosophical position first advanced by Nelson Goodman. . ." while failing to actually explain what this philosophical position actually is. Likewise, the first section begins by stating what the philosophical position was motivated by and then that it is distinct from anti-realism—all while again failing to explain in clear terms what this philosophical position is. We are asked to get a sense for what it is in a roundabout way. This article needs to be revised for clarity. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]