Talk:Ernst Cassirer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality

• See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability first.
• Please do not try to underscore what is "probably the best university in the world" (Berlin university) - such things belong on the web page for Berlin universities (the article does not even say which Berlin university he attended, please supply that information if you can). Even then, if you want to make such a claim, then supply the proper references as to who regarded/regards the Berlin univerity in question to be the best in the world.
• Please do not try to underscore that regarding him a member of a certain school is "correct" instead supply references to scholars in the field who claim that and any counterclaims.

Nixdorf 14:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No sense arguing against activist minor vandalism here. Never mind, and please go ahead destroying scholarly references if you feel good about it. Clossius 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I sensing a belligerent tone of academic elitism in you? Nixdorf 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not belligerent (how can it be belligerent if I ask you to go ahead with your destructiveness?), but frustrated. And while there is nothing wrong with elitism, especially not academic one (seeing that the academic system is structurally built on it - how are you gonna have a non-elitist academic system? truth by voting?), I don't think it's elitist even in the worst, most pc form of the word to mind this kind of behavior. But really, in what system, other than sheer lust for (minor) vandalism, does it make sense, or give satisfaction, to remove scholarly references? And wikipedia is set up, unfortunately, in such a way that there is no remedy against vandalism of this kind. It is normal, even in the wikipedia, that generally uncontested facts (Cassirer's Neokantianism is a point in case) don't have to be referenced unless they are seriously contested - and then, if this is done, it is sensible to ask for back-up in literature. But as the system is, a certain kind of mind obviously gets a kick out of pushing that Cassirer was no Neokantian (or Xenophanes no Presocratic, or Goethe not born in Frankfurt, or whatever), or to abuse the NPOV policy, and why then should a normal person list books, essays, and encyclopedias, during the precious time she or he has, that "prove" what is being contested? Especially if one is up against destructive energy that finds its fulfillment not in correct facts or good articles, but in busybodying and indeed destruction... it's a struggle one cannot win, because the people one is up against often practically live in the wikipedia as their virtual universe of choice, unless one dedicates more time and energy to it than one should. Clossius 06:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling you friends at Wikipedia vandals for upholding official policy is indeed belligerent. But you confuse me for the other person editing this article. I removed the words "and correctly" because I see no need of underscoring it, because everyone knows that this is true, and I removed the words saying Berlin was the greatest university in the world at the time, because that certainly is contested. The page still says he is a neo-Kantian and I don't object to that so I don't know what you are talking about really. I think you might have misunderstood? Nixdorf 07:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have. I think that, though it is very unclear what is official wikipedia policy at any given point in time, what is interpreted by some as official policy is often enough used for vandalism, and that it is not always conducive for wikipedia to indeed obey official policy anyway. And certainly I think that this is definitely not a per se friendly environment; if anything, it is set up to be hostile. I also wonder whether it is of any interest whether an arbitrary reader "sees no need" of underscoring that Cassirer was a Neokantian - au contraire, as the article stands now, thanks to a completely unnecessary interference not backed up by any facts or references, it says that Cassirer was considered a Neo-Kantian, which means, in everyday understanding, that he was in fact not. I had added the "and correctly" to make the uncontested claim that he was - whether you "don't object to that" or not, which is hardly the issue here. As regards Berlin, the article used to say that Berlin (and there was only one University of Berlin at that time, which I think is so basic knowledge of academic history for anyone dealing with it that it doesn't need to be pointed out) was probably the best university in the world - and that, for an English-language encyclopedia, is of importance, because otherwise one would not understand why a man like Cassirer preferred a basically unpaid, junior position there to a Harvard professorship (which is almost the opposite of the situation today).

Again, my point is that these statements - that Cassirer was a Neo-Kantian, not just held to be one, and that the University of Berlin around 1900 was probably the best in the world - are generally uncontested points, and that as always, such statements don't need scholarly references to back them up, especially if they stand there, but rather challenging them needs some references. This is the same in academia as on wikipedia: If something more or less generally known is challenged, then you need references for that, and only then might protagonists of the original view cite some references on their part.

Again, re the accussation of belligerent "academic elitism": I actually wish I had the energy to be belligerently academic-elitist here, because clearly that is what is missing from wikipedia at the current point in its development, i.e. that articles are not reliable and serious enough because the 'democratoid' verification mechanisms don't work. Cassirer is a point in case. But this reply was already longer than it should be... Clossius 13:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am troubled by your entry since I read it as if you disagree with the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. It seems you need to go on to that page and discuss this, instead of taking that discussion with me. I further think it is a very deviant behaviour to call someone who repeatedly tries to discuss issues with you a "vandal", it is a misuse of language. I will take out the word "considered", since this is what bothers you. Yes, Berlin only had one univeristy at the time, but please put in a link to the present-day university that corresponds to the one Cassirer worked for. Perhaps it could be called "the center of the academic world at the time", but "probably the best university in the world", is a phrase which reminds me (and a few other I think) of the Carlsberg slogan "probably the best beer in the world". Perhaps it is just commercial culture making phrases like that look odd, but I think it's still a fact of life. It think it is very non-NPOV. Nixdorf 14:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that I disagree with the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith, to the extent that I believe it to be an invalid heuristic. I think the word "vandal" is used correctly here, although of course rhetorically, which on the discussion page is possible; it is certainly not a misuse of language, because it reflects what I do mean (one could only claim, as you do, that I shouldn't think that). I think that to call that "deviant" is beyond the need of comment. And as regards Carlsberg, that is actually a valid point, but it comes rather late in the discussion. (I also agree, if then we do agree on that, that the Carlsberg slogan is very non-NPOV, and also factually incorrect, both objectively and subjectively.) Clossius 11:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My position is to move toward consensus instead of having this unproductive back-and-forth. Encyclopedia's are supposed to be about facts. Either produce citations for the positive account for inclusion, or the inclusion should be dropped. In cases where claims are made like 'best in the world' etc., unless there was a documented, broad consensus, they should be dropped or put specifically on the page of the item. So if U.B. was the best in the world, that should be documented on the U.B. page, not here. So my position is that the article should put this aside and move on to other issues. --Buridan 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nixdorf 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the very beginning, whatever. Clossius 07:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

@Nixdorf: I added the link to Berlin university (there was only one at this point, of course). If this was the best university in Germany back then is, imho, irrelevant to this article.

--Faehn 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neo-kantianism

Ernst Cassirer and Theoretical Biology: Closer than you Think a paper that accepts neo-kantianism in cassirer's roots. http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/issues/v30/30n4.Panofsky.htm another paper referencing his roots. You can use scholar.google.com or the philosopher's index to verify upwards of 200+ papers agreeing with the idea that cassirer had neo-kantian roots. It is not widely disputed. --Buridan 15:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with you, noone here ever did. Any Neo-kantianism dispute must have been a complete misunderstanding... Nixdorf 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Rewrite

I rewrote the intro. For reference this is the old version:

Ernst Cassirer (July 28, 1874 – April 13, 1945) was a German philosopher. He became a Doctor of Philosophy at University of Marburg in 1899 where he studied with Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. He was initially a neo-Kantian although he later developed his own philosophy of culture, arguing that all of human's intellectual achievements are a result of our evolutionary experience. ("Kulturwissenschaft"). Today, the late Cassirer is also considered one of the key thinkers of Semiotics.

--Vector4F 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)