Talk:Action (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Philosophy | (Rated Stub-Class, Low-importance) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
I have reworked the Philosophy of action article, but I cannot move it, as necessary, to "Action theory". Please do so if you can. A merger with this Action (Philosophy) should not be undertaken any more. What I left in Action (Philosophy) concerns definitional issues which should not be deleted but are not of immediate concern to action theory.--Dhh28 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Action Theory
I think this article and Philosophy of Action should be merged to "Action Theory" which is what the field seems to be called based on the links from SEP. Yesterdog 05:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, who wrote this?
[edit] Cleanup request
This Taoist style is good for an essay. but not for an encyclopedia. mikka (t) 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is it?
what exactly do you mean? I do not think this is as bad as you put it. Knowing what a subject is is to be acquainted to the questions it raises. Obviously, this is a stub, much more needs to be done, but that's all. Velho 21:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the question series is kind of icky, because it obscures why the questions are being asked. It's not good for an essay either, because it doesn't address the nature of the questions or answer them. It just lists them. If anything, it's good for a lecture when you expect the students to figure out the importance of the questions on their own. I got rid of them, which reveals a need for some references of people or schools of thought which define action in all these different ways. NickelShoe 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Beh, I'm taking down the sign myself, because I think the tone is fine now. Put it back up if you disagree. NickelShoe 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
