Talk:Idea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Metaphysics

Contents 1 R in Idea? 2 Idea/Concept confusion 3 Intellectual Property 4 Analogies 5 Idea & Concept 6 Broadening the article 7 External Links 7.1 Irrelevant / Commercial Links 8 Definition of Idea 9 Article now full of irrelevant and erroneous material - suggest reversion to last sound version 10 old Catholic Encyclopedia and other attributable sources 11 The Marxist, dialectical-materialist view 12 Ambiguous word

[edit] R in Idea?

Why do some people say "I-DI-ER"? 205.174.22.28 05:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As with all regional dialects, two sounds are swapped. In this case, a New England or New York dialect swaps "ah" and "er." As a result, "idea" (idee-ah) becomes "idee-er." In compensation, "later" becomes "lay-tah." You will notice that similar swaps occur in other dialects. In the southern U.S., "here" becomes "hee-ah" and "fellow" (fell-ah) becomes "feller." Similarly, "yellow" becomes "yaller," "bigger" becomes "biggah." A swap also occurs with diphthongs, but that is another story.Lestrade 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Idea/Concept confusion

Ideas and concepts should not be confused. Ideas can be propositions or plans. Concepts cannot. Ideas can be much more complex. I can have a clear concept of dogs but have not the faintest idea of how to make her happy. Changes ought to be made.

[edit] Intellectual Property

Why talking here about intellectual property, when there is already a dedicated article?

Yes. But I would like to talk about the differece between ordinarly property and intellectual property because idea can be exclusive but cannot be non-rivious. Overlapping is not a problem. Every article should has a complete text to describe it thoroughtly. Well, I may be wrong. As always, just correct it in the way you wish Taku

I believe that the difference between intellectual property and ordinary property should belong to the intellectual property page.

I hope you will allow me a humble suggestion. What I find most interesting in your addition, which might perhaps be developped, is the mention of the commercial use of ideas (which caused a branch of law to consider the intellectual property and related protecting rights), in the sense of using ideas for personal benefit (making money, in most cases). This, of course, could be in contrast (and it might be put into evidence) with a traditional - and some say, instinctive - free sharing, uninterested communication of ideas among humans. Would it be an acceptable idea? :-)) --G

Sorry for really late. I think your suggestion is interesting. But I am not sure I can write a good text like a philosopher (After all, idea is a philosophical term I believe). If I have time and come up with good idea, I will (it seems highly unlikely thought). -- Taku 02:05 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

I understand mental picture; but, it is a metaphor that many people would not understand. I can't do better off the top of my head But let's think about it. Two16

---

Taku states that an idea cannot be non-rivalrous. That's exactly backwards, pure ideas are non-rivalrous. Great quote from Thomas Jefferson: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."

In any case, while I agree with the sentiment (and am currently obsessed with copyright & intellectual property issues), I beleive that the "Ideas as Property" portion of this article has definitely departed from neutrality. Budesigns 03:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

     Agreed. Flying Hamster 01:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you budesigns, I wished I was smart enough to write about this topic. Maybe you could add some stuff? I would help with grammar as much as I can if you want. Jaberwocky6669 23:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC) =) Jaberwocky6669 23:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

Although there are some good points in this article, it clearly does not do justice to broad topic of the idea, eidos. Unfortunately, I would not be able to unilaterally go about modifying this in an organized manner. My proposition is that we list subject areas that ideas relate to, as to develop a system of organization for a new, modified article. Philosophy is an obvious subject area that comes to mind, so is psychology. Detailed links could be made to derivitave words such as Ideology, Idealism, etc. It would be my argument that the idea is primarily philisophical, since there is much more written about the nature of the idea in philosophy than in any other social science. Anyway, just tell me what you think. Peace. Flying Hamster 01:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Analogies

Is it just me or does the statement "There are some who believe that there is a realm in which ideas exist and that we only discover these ideas in much the same way that we discover the Wikiwiki world." depend on a really bad analogy that is also (indirectly) self-referring? If the notion that there is a hidden realm of (finite?) ideas which are gradually discovered by people is what it's trying to demonstrate, then an analogy isn't necessary at all.

[edit] Idea & Concept

These are two ambiguous words that each have multiple meanings. An idea is definitely not simply a concept. This can be understood by looking at the concept article here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrade (talk • contribs)

[edit] Broadening the article

I think the article could be broadened, somewhat. currently, the realm of ideas is becoming increasingly important in every aspect of our lives ... Business, science, math, education, and so forth.

[edit] External Links

No room for a Idea Wiki Website? - The point of putting it on here was to have it grow in the wiki community. How is it supposed to grow if no one can find it? Should we let it grow a little, by some mysterous force, and then put it on here? Is there no relation to Idea and an Idea Wiki? Swerty 08:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The same is for Idiki. When did Idea Wiki started? Idiki started approximately at October 2005, furthemore it has already 39 ideas and 33 (valid!) users. Alpt 06:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant / Commercial Links

Most of the links (with the exception of the Encyclopedia entry and (possibly) the last one on patenting / copyrighting an idea, are sources of ideas (some of which appear to be paid consultants who'll produce ideas on request). This topic is not discussed at all in the article.

Either the irrelevant links should be removed or the article revised to include this topic. I vote for removal. --SteveMcCluskey 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Idea

The opening definition in this article is too limiting.

"An idea (Greek: ιδέα) is a specific thought which arises in the mind. The human capacity to generate ideas is associated with the capacity for reason...."

I was planning to link here from a discussion of Plato, but in the ancient Greek sense an Idea neither arises in the human mind nor is it generated by the human capacity for reason. For Plato, ideas come from outside the mind.

I do not want to say that a definition should assert that ideas come from outside, but it should be sufficiently broad to include philosophical positions such as Platos that hold ideas do have reality of their own independent of any mind. --SteveMcCluskey 23:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article now full of irrelevant and erroneous material - suggest reversion to last sound version

The recent poorly-edited major expansion of this article raises the tough question whether progress is now easier by going forwards or backwards.

• Example of what I mean by "irrelevant": lots about Charles Sanders Peirce that belongs in the article about him, certainly not here. (I assume it's obvious to anyone who reads this article through that this is just the tip of the iceberg.)
• Examples of what I mean by "erroneous": The claim in the lead that Clement of Alexandria and Thucydides said such-and-such about "idea(s)." Since the Greek word ἰδέα does not mean "idea," these passages are quite simply mistranslated and irrelevant; they would belong in the article Idea (Ancient Greek word), except for the fact that Wikipedia does not contain articles about how words in foreign languages are used (Wiktionary maybe). (Virtually everything new in the article having anything to do with antiquity is tainted by some similar kind of error. It seems likely that the same is true of topics I know less about.)

The obvious idea that occurs to me for improving the article, or making future improvements feasible, is to revert to the last pre-expansion version. But rather than acting so boldly myself, I place the suggestion here to see if it will be embraced by others. I don't see the point in copy-editing "Quaestionses," "rid," or the more obvious "persihable," "diety," etc., so long as the larger & deeper mess remains. The article is transparently User:Doug Coldwell's attempt to get the idiosyncratic ideas with which he stuffed the now-appropriately-deleted article Good sense (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good sense) into the encyclopedia somewhere. Wareh 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in its present state the article contains much material that is irrelevant at best (much of it is plain wrong), but the older version isn't that wonderful either. At the very least the weird quasi-etymological stuff in the lead should be axed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] old Catholic Encyclopedia and other attributable sources

Sorry about the intro. Didn't realize that style. However adding back section "History of the idea" - verbatim from old Catholic Encyclopedia 1914. No original research. I have scanned in the page I got from the library today and would be glad to e-mail it to you. --Doug ^talk 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also adding back "Where ideas come from" since this also is verbatim from the old Catholic Encyclopedia 1914. No original research! It not my "Ideas", however Plato's which was written about in this encyclopedia. Would you like a copy? --Doug ^talk 23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but you should at least provide citations for this material. I don't think copying sections verbatim from another encyclopedia is a great way to build Wikipedia, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding back "Validity of ideas" because this also is from old Catholic Encyclopedia of 1914. No original research. Will be glad to provide citations. Will start on that tomorrow. Note that my other material has citations. I'll work on shorting it up also. I'll work on paraphasing; is that alright then?--Doug ^talk 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It does say at the bottom in Reference: This article incorporates text from the old Catholic Encyclopedia of 1914, a publication now in the public domain. - and usually that is all that is needed for most editors, however you are asking for exact page numbers like 630 - 634? Or would a citation link do? --Doug ^talk 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't really think paraphrasing the sections you've incorporated from the Catholic Encyclopedia is a great idea either. I lean towards what Wareh suggested in the section above--that is, reverting back to an older version. This article has expanded to the point where it's meandering and diffuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Puzzeled: If one is not suppose to paraphrase or put in text from a public domain source, then how is it to be edited? I believe there was a request to expand the "stub" - which is precisely what I did with many citations to many encyclopedias and reference sources. How is a stub suppose to be expanded then?--Doug ^talk 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had made it plain, Doug, but I don't think your additions provide us with a good basis for improving the article, and I think we'd be better going back to an older version. The way to expand from a stub is to do research on the topic, gain a broad knowledge of the subject, and then write. The article we've got here seems more like a collection of random bits from the Catholic Encylopedia and threads from the reference desk. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you will notice most everything I put in is attributed to some encyclopedia or source reference book. Most everthing has a citation to show where I obtained the material. If you have a question on something, you could either look up the citation (since most have precisely the page number) or ask me. I have scanned in much of this from library books and there is a good chance I already have it in my folder. I would be glad to e-mail you that information where I obtained something. Which ones do you question? FYI: most I obtained from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (first reference). It is easily obtainable at most large libraries or through Interlibrary loan. Or you could purchase a used copy from E-bay or Amazon. Since there are many citations on the material I entered, click on the link. If you still have trouble finding where I got the material, then ask me and I will point out precisely where it is. The second souce I used the most was a hard copy of the Dictionary of the History of Ideas. However I since found out there is an online version, so I also referenced that. If there is a question on a citation where I used this source, let me know and I can also send you an e-mail because I scanned in this material also. This reference is easily availabe also at most large libraries worldwide or through ILL. Many references I obtained from The Story of Thought, which I scanned in the complete book. This is references to Plato, Descates, Locke, Hume, Kant, Pierce, Augustine, and Stoics. I used this reference book maybe even more that the first reference, so I am very familiar with it. If you have any questions pertainting to any of these people, I will be glad to e-mail you those pages that reference that person. I also obtained some from The Reader's Encyclopedia, which I have a personal copy. I also happen to have found much of this in The American International Encyclopedia which I have a personal copy of. The Thomas Jefferson letter is verbatim and is linked. Everything I put in is attributable to a source which I will be glad to amplify or give you further information on. Some of these books I own personnally. I am not sure what you are referring to of "threads from the reference desk" - perhaps you can point that out to me. Can you point out what part you feel I can not attribute to a reliable source?--Doug ^talk 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I'm not questioning that you got most of this material from encyclopedias. What I'm questioning is its coherence. This collection of stuff doesn't add up to an article with a logical flow, in my opinion; it's just a confusing array of stuff related to the word "idea".

But you've definitely put in some material that goes against the original research policy, for instance, the now deleted sentence "The influence of Plato was strong enough to make Aristotle regard mind (nous) as a faculty of the soul which has no physical base and which may be capable of existing outside the body²." [1] Yes, that sentence had a citation, but the section it was in was implying some sort of connection between idea and nous, and you provided no source for that relationship; therefore, this looks like an original synthesis of previously published material.

As for the reference desk stuff, how about this sentence (now deleted [2]): "The name Iesous (pronounced "ee-yay-soos" or "e-ay-sous") is from Greek." This seems to relate to this conversation on the reference desk. Worse, in context, this sentence seems to imply that "Iesous" is based on a combination of idea + eidos + nous; a notion which is rather, um, idiosyncratic. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to answer throughly your concerns. Keep in mind that I am editing in Good Faith.

1. The first is of course your "opinion", however keep in mind that several other editors have edited since I added this material and shown no such concern. Some with much knowledge on the subject (i.e. related college degrees in these fields).

2. Got this information from page 631 of the old Catholic Encyclopedia under the title "Idea":

Aristotle, who, his critics notwithstanding, was as competent as they to understand Plato, and was Plato's own pupil, teaches that his master ascribed to various ideas as independent, autonomous existence. It then goes further into detail explaining this.

Also I got this from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas (can also be found online) under subject "PSYCHOLOGICAL IDEAS IN ANTIQUITY" which reads verbatim:

But the influence of Plato remains strong enough to make Aristotle regard mind (nous) as a faculty of soul which has no physical base and which may be capable of existing apart from the body.

3. This apparently then is the only material you can find I got from the reference desk for this article. Since this has been edited out, then the name of "Iesous" is not an issue.

If you have further concerns, just let me know and I will try to give you further references where I got this information. As you can see here, I am not getting this information just from the old Catholic Encyclopedia (and only a small piece, now edited out, from the Reference Desk). This I would consider the order where I received most of this material:

1. The Story of Thought
2. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
3. Dictionary of the History of Ideas
4. The Reader's Encyclopedia
5. The American International Encyclopedia
6. 1911 version Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition
7. 1914 version of the old Catholic Encyclopedia

If I can be of further help, let me know. --Doug ^talk 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Both I and another editor have raised concerns about your edits on this talkpage, and I think it's safe to assume that we both possess college degrees in a related subject. Of course, credentials aren't that important; what's important are the actual concerns raised.

2. You're missing the point--what I said is that you were using previously published material to advance an original idea, i.e., your notion of the connection between idea and nous. This is prohibited by the no original research policy. Unless you're claiming that the Dictionary of the History of Ideas makes the same argument about the relationship of "idea" and "nous" that you were trying to make; but that isn't demonstrated by the quote you provide.

3. I can see that you're drawing on a bunch of different encyclopedias. The problem is the way you're assembling the passages, paraphrases, whatever you're taking from these sources. In my opinion, you've created an incoherent, unsalvagable mess, and if you look at the section above, you'll see that I'm not the only person who thinks that. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I will have to agree with you that credentials aren't that important. Suggestion: Why don't we get a consenses with "Third Opinions" and see what the community thinks of the article as it stands now? I'll value a community opinion, how about you?

2. Keep in mind you are arguing about something that is already edited out, so I am thinking this is a pointless issue. I showed you where I got the information (attributable) so that you know I didn't just dream this up. It's not original research on my part, but information (almost word for word) from an attributable source. I have even agreed to keep it out, since it seems to be a very sensitive issue to you. Arguing over something that has been edited out is not an issue for cause that the entire article is bad.

3. See suggestion in #1. Fair? --Doug ^talk 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Good idea.

2. Yes, that material has been edited out, but it's very important that you be aware of (and understand) Wikipedia's no original research policy, especially the prohibition on original syntheses of published material.

3. Agreed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming you are a Wikipedia administrator, but not for sure. If so then you would know the next most proper step to do. The "Third Opinion" request I am going to leave to you to request from any group of people you wish (i.e. Philosophy). Or as an alternative perhaps a "Third Opinion" could be to just leave it to the community of Wikipedians to edit on their own volition without any of us (three) editing this article for a period of time (i.e. 30 days, 45 days, 60 days = your choice). I'll leave it up to you to choose whichever method you want (so that I am more than fair working with you). Deal? --Doug ^talk 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Marxist, dialectical-materialist view

Why does this article lack the Marxist view of the concept of 'idea'? Putting it even broader, why is the main objective relation between mind and matter not discussed here? The reasons for picking there particular philosophers and 'forgetting' Marx are really vague and unclear. Even the main opposition between the idealist and the materialist wing, which runs through the history of philosophy, is obscure in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.208 (talk • contribs)

You are right, the article is badly incomplete in content and perspective. Please consider expanding and improving it. Wareh 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous word

The word "idea" is used as a sign for more than one concept. The article should include all of the concepts that are designated by idea. The other concepts can be communicated by other words, such as Notion, Idea, Representation, Presentation, Platonic Idea, Platonic Ideal, Platonic Form, Platonic Archetype, Platonic Pattern, Fantasy, Conception, Concept, Mental Apprehension, Mental Activity, Thought, Opinion, View, Belief, Plan, Action, Intention, Principle, Ideal, Theme, Phrase, Figure, Image, or Likeness.Lestrade 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The article already discusses several of these meanings. Some of the terms listed have no notable difference in meaning; this is not a thesaurus (for example, there is no point in listing the various & more or less adequate ways of referring to Platonic forms, even in the detailed article theory of forms, not to mention here). "Image" is not a primary meaning, so it does not belong as the first term in the first sentence; it's a mostly obsolete sense adequately covered where relevant (under Descartes, Stout, Johnson). If any of these usages is well-established & not currently treated by the article, the first step is to include it in the article body. The function of the lead is to summarize the most important reliable-source-attributed material "below the fold," and not to serve as a grab-bag of lists or assertions. I would suggest that, if "image" appear at all, it at least be part of a clear statement that this was a sense in earlier philosophical usages, while keeping more prominent the more typical range of meanings towards which the term developed. Your comment above ("Idea & Concept") shows you feel strongly about keeping those two senses separate, but, like it or not, "idea" in current general usage (including several of the points treated in this article as it stands) has acquired a less narrow range of meaning. Wareh 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)