Talk:Cosmic pluralism

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.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Indians[edit]

indians have documented this, known for 1000s of years

whats new here?

Attention[edit]

This page has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Some adult editing is badly needed here. (Wetman 19:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I entered some material tracing the development of the idea of a plurality of worlds and extraterrestrial life, which I supported by 17th and 18th-century quotes, at Extraterrestrial life, an article that has been continually beset by User:Marskell to judge from its Page history, who deleted this material with the pert comment "this isn't poetry class" (4 February 2006), and again 11 February 2006. To avoid further confrontation, I moved the information here, and this User has pursued it, reverting the material here as well, with the comment (Rv "Cut and paste from Extraterrestrial life"). The concept of "cosmic pluralism' has a history, that is part of the history of ideas. Those of us who are interested in adult culture and its history should be permitted to develop this material without abusive interruptions. If there is any further vandalism, I shall have to report this cultural naif. --Wetman 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the material in full to Extraterrestrial life in popular culture; dealing as it did with poetry it seemed to make more sense there. It doesn't need to be duplicated in two places. Again, please cease the personal attacks. Marskell 08:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seventeenth and eighteenth century culture is not by any stretch "popular culture", which concerns the contemporary culture of comic books and anime that produces the likes of Marskell . Vandalism is the intentional disfigurement of Wikipedia pages and the deletion of relevant, sourced content. A vandal is a vandal. --Wetman 19:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take this to mean you won't cease attacking me personally? You have taken block text and simply slapped it into the middle of this article. No attempt to segue properly. As I have said repeatedly, my problem is not the addition as such but the fact that it totally throws off due weight and balance as it did in the main article. A sentence or two on the atomists, a mention of Aristotle, a sentence or two on the scholastics and then...three hundred-odd words on poetry including full block quotations. Do you see what I mean about due weight?

Yes, of course "popular culture" is imperfect for what you wish to add but it's a better fit than this as it treats of these ideas in cultural context rather than in-themselves. Perhaps rename that page "Extraterrestrials in culture." I'm reverting--call me a vandal as you like, but this is a legitimate content argument I'm presenting. Marskell 10:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression upon reading the page is that the article would be bettered by finding authoritative sources to back up its contents. Further, by doing this, quotes directly related to the subject at hand, and which serve to demonstrate the concept at hand. Having never seen the quotes in question, I cannot say whether these quotes were acceptable to me in their inclusion; I encourage Wetman to post a sample of these quotes on this talk page. Ultimaga 02:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The text is here. The issue is not that the text is unsourced, but that Marskell objected to the modest number of examples embedded in this information. --Wetman 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information seems reasonable to me, but it needs to be organized with headings to make the article easier to navigate and read prior to its reintroduction in any case. I welcome any specific criticisms of the material in question by Marskell or others. Ultimaga 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Historical ideas section at Extraterrestrials in culture. Yes, this needs sourcing. Marskell 08:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Extraterrestrials in culture ought to be linked to from this page in that case. Ultimaga 11:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a See also. You can link from the body if you feel that more appropriate. Marskell 10:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the redundancy in the opening sentence "numerous other worlds beyond the Earth which harbour extraterrestrial life" can be removed. extraterrestrial means beyond the Earth.

Regarding open paragraph[edit]

I agree with the comment above about "beyond the earth" and "e.t. life". Seems kinda redundant. FYI, using sections in a talk page is a good thing. --Rockfang (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge from Exotheology[edit]

I would propose that this article cover all philosophical speculation about the "plurality of worlds", both religious and secular. It's not really possible to separate these two modes of thought, especially for the period predating modern science. Of course the modern scientific studies would continue to be discussed at Extraterrestrial life.--Pharos (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Exotheology. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's Anaximander's role?[edit]

The lead currently states: "The debate over pluralism began as early as the time of Anaximander (c. 610 – c. 546 BC) as an abstract metaphysical argument." The source given is Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle's Physics, 1121, 5–9. I tried to verify it with the original text, to see what it exactly was about, but I did not find anything helpful, neither on the internet, nor in a hopefully complete list of ancient Anaximander quotes and fragments in an old book of mine (Die Vorsokratiker I, Reclam 1983). I guess it is wrongly quoted on Wikipedia. Can anyone clarify? --Mlewan (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The English translation of the text of Simplicius is: "For some, like the followers of Anaximander, Leucippus, Democritus, and later the followers of Epicurus, assuming the worlds to be infinite in number, also assumed they were generated and destroyed, with some always being generated, and others destroyed, ad infinitum." Ontoraul (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism[edit]

Why isnt Hinduism included in the article? —usernamekiran(talk) 03:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]