Talk:George Edward Moore

This redirect 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

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Untitled

This article demonstrates a failure to grasp the meaning of the Open Question Argument. The Open Question Argument claims that, given a definition "x = y", if it is still meaningful to wonder, "This thing has y, but does it have x?", then the definition is incorrect. This relies on the idea of open and closed questions. Consider the following definition: "A bachelor is an unmarried man." This definition does not fall to the Open Question Argument, since it's never an open question to say, "Well, Fred is a bachelor, but is he an unmarried man?" This question is closed; it is obviously true. This is just what the two phrases "bachelor" and "unmarried man" mean. Moore considers the definition (slightly rephrased), "A 'good' thing is a thing we 'desire to desire'". He then claims (quite correctly) that you can certainly wonder, "Well, I desire to desire this action, but is it good?" Then, provided the structure of the Open Question Argument is valid, he has shown that the definition is not correct. Moore then claims that all meaningful definitions of "good" fail in the same way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.149.249 (talk • contribs) .

Mores "Proof of an External World" is so ridiculous and ill-conceived that it does not deserve mentioning in a philosophy article. His "intuition" is not even an argument. Apparently, he never found the time to read Descartes Meditations, which were published in the 17th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kikl (talk • contribs) .

Given that it's his most famous work, and widely influenced other philosophers as well, I think it's patently ridiculous to assert that it should not be mentioned. You may have your own idiosyncratic opinions on what ought to be discussed in philosophy, but Wikipedia is not the place to advocate them. --Delirium 02:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

In the "Influences" section Bradley and McTaggart are mentioned. Moore certainly had read Bradley's book and he had McTaggart as a teacher, but im not sure he was influenced in his works by them.--Greece666 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thales and landscaping

Can any cite be found to back up the claims regarding Moore's admiration of Thales and/or Thales' arguments concerning landscaping? It just strikes me as so odd. -69.249.67.3 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moore contra Descartes

To assert that Moore's proof of an external world deserves only to be muted by Wikipedia is ridiculous. Also, I do not know for sure, but I would wager that Moore did, in fact, read Descartes' Meditations. Further, I am not entirely sure you are familiar with Moore's essay "Certainty". Give it a read and, if you are still in disagreement with Moore, create a Wikipedia article entitled "Critiques of Moore's Proof For An External World". Then, in a courteous and academic manner, lay out your own critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysiaca (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Influence

Greece666, G.E. Moore, I think, was profoundly influenced by McTaggart. Moore began his philosophical career as an idealist. He did so in part because of McTaggart's intellectual (and personal) influence. The following link is a good source concerning this topic: Levy, Paul (1979). Moore: G.E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles. ISBN 978-0-03-053616-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysiaca (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move from George Edward Moore to G.E. Moore

I propose moving the article to have the title G.E. Moore. This is on the basis of the following source: A lecture on G.E. Moore given by Professor Thomas Baldwin at the University of Cambridge, September 2008. It mentions near the beginning that he did not use his first two names, also that his wife called him Bill but this hasn't been seen to have spread to anyone else. Therefore, he is known as Moore, and G.E. Moore to differentiate him from the countless other Moores. In addition, G.E. Moore is by far the most common way to refer to him in philosophy (I reckon, you can googlefight it ;D), and a title should be what's most commonly used.

I won't do this myself as it's a somewhat large change but if someone agrees with me, it would be great for you to change it. Thanks for all your hard work on the article!!! Drum guy (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]