Talk:Pessimism

Philosophy: Epistemology / Ethics Low‑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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Ethics

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Move section Philosophical Pessimism to its own page - a proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Contents split into Philosophical pessimism — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that section Philosophical pessimism be moved to a new dedicated page Philosophical pessimism. Philosophical pessimism is a very specific tradition in philosophy as can be clearly seen in the section and from the books. This has no connection to psychology, technology, entropy, or even epistemological pessimism. As such, it would be good to create a dedicated page and link this page in the current article. This move would result in the same thing as with Cultural pessimism - a short description in the current article and a link to a much more detailed Philosophical pessimism page. Even Wikiquote has a dedicated page for that: Wikiquote:Philosophical pessimism. Please see the draft page I created for the new page - Draft:Philosophical_pessimism. We can already start editing that draft, together. I'm calling some editors who I believe would wish to comment: @Javierfv1212, Throughthemind, Gaeanautes, Spencerk, Lestrade, Omnipaedista, Sirhu, Tisane, Sinveil, Ihcoyc, and FitzColinGerald:. Fantastiera (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – Philosophical pessimism is a hundreds of years long tradition in philosophy, and the section is already quite long. These conditions justify creating a dedicated page (see the linked Draft) Fantastiera (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree with above-mentioned the reasons for the creation of a separate article Throughthemind (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Like Fantastiera said, the section on "philosophical pessimism" is already quite long and could be elaborated further in the future. In order to keep things more organized, the creation of a new page seems a wise decision. As Ken Coates writes in Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar (2016), "far from being an esoteric doctrine, rejectionism [i.e. philosophical pessimism, anti-existential views] has been a major presence in human history straddling all three major cultural forms – religious, philosophical, and literary". Sirhu (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section move discussion for Pessimism#Philosophical pessimism

An article that you have been involved with (Pessimism#Philosophical pessimism) has some content that is proposed to be moved to another article (Philosophical pessimism). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Pessimism#Move section Philosophical Pessimism to its own page - a proposal. Thank you. Fantastiera (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

123helpme.com

@Avast rumali, about your edit here [1], that website seems like a source that shouldn't be used on WP. I quote:

"123HelpMe.com has been helping students and professionals from around the world for more than 7 years. We comply with all consumer protection laws and voluntary guidelines -- no exceptions! We provide thousands of pages of original research without charge, as well as other free tools and services. We sell other research to pay our expenses."

If the text originally comes from a WP:RS publication, you should cite that publication, not the website. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry about that. thanks! Avast rumali (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags

I've added copyright tags as the Notes section contains significant amounts of copy-pasted copyright edits. I don't think they are uncontestable violations so I haven't removed them or required RevDels but I still wanted to point it out. Would value any feedback on it. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 23:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move section Pessimism#Epistemological to Philosophical pessimism

I'm putting here a suggestion to move Pessimism#Epistemological type to Philosophical pessimism, because it does not talk about psychological disposition, but rather it is a philosophical account of knowledge and its limits. As a start, Epistemological pessimism should be moved there. We could talk about the rest (Cultural, Technological and Environmental) later. I'm calling some editors who I believe would wish to comment: @Javierfv1212, Throughthemind, Gaeanautes, Spencerk, Lestrade, Omnipaedista, Sirhu, Tisane, Sinveil, Ihcoyc, FitzColinGerald, Nero's Fiddle, and Delukiel:.

Do you "Agree", "Disagree", have some other comments? Fantastiera (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree/Support + Comment. It does not seem to exactly fit on this page. Considering how the philosophical pessimism page is structured, I wonder if we could add a sort of "overview" section to the philosophical pessimism page, including some information from that subheading. My comment is mainly on the fact that the philosophers referenced in that section are not traditionally thought of as pessimists to my understanding, so adding an entirely new section for them on the Philosophical pessimism page likely isn't necessary (i.e. Foucault, Jacobi). Delukiel (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point. It's very likely that Philosophical pessimism has a very specific internal consistency which precludes Pessimism#Epistemological. But then Pessimism is also not a good place for Pessimism#Epistemological. Fantastiera (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]