Talk:Giambattista Vico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Kingdom of Naples    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kingdom of Naples, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Italy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Vico a Neapolitan philosopher? As the most influential figure in the Italian philosophical tradition (more than Benedetto Croce, that's sure), calling him Neapolitan is a bit reductive. So Dante is a Florentine poet and Mussolini a Romagnolo politician, huh?-- 13:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I love Vico, but surely Aquinas?

List of sources[edit]

Isn't there a more wikipedian standard way of doing the sources-lists? Just underlining them and putting them before the next paragraph doesn't seem to quite fit in with the rest of the site's layout... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 09:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article (regarding picture)[edit]

The following was moved from the top of the article:

[[image:|right|]] N.B.--the posted image does not seem to be of G. B. Vico. (This is the only representation I've ever seen of a bald and bearded Vico.) Cf. the copy of Francesco Solimena's portrait of Vico commissioned by Villarosa, a reproduction of which serves as frontispiece for the Fisch & Bergin translation of "The Autobiography of Giambattista Vico" (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Pr., 1944).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


The paragraph "Quotations" has been reverted because "Quotes go on Wikiquote". That's not how i imagined wikipedia : i prefer to have all informations on 1 author in 1 article. Why not. But then, the reference to wikiquote should be added (better by the one who made the revert) and all the authors' articles should be checked. Chrisdel 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps James Joyce deserves more of a mention here? Vico is sort of the eminence grise of Finnegans Wake: the book's cyclical pattern was inspired by Vico, and he is more or less explicitly referenced at the end of the first sentence: "brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs." - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Joyce was thinking of blending "Vico" with "vicious" as in a "vicious recirculation." Nothing is explicit in this book of extreme and intentional obscurity. Joyce was the anti–Tolstoy.Lestrade (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

External links[edit]

The last link listed under "External links" is now dead, though it is archived at NBR 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


This is REALLY bad. It's too bad I loath this anti-scientific, reationary philosopher so damned much, or I might fix it. I wonder how the Italian version is, but I don't expect much better.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He may be anti-scientific and reactionary, but he's the greatest philosopher we've had, so let's be a bit more respectful... -- 13:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph looks like it was written by a post-modernist on steroids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats a reationary philosopher? (Billy Rubin, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A philosopher whose work is mostly concerned with responding to (usually negatively) other philosophers rather than creating and developing new ideas. Most academic philosophers, in other words ;D  Skomorokh  19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


The infobox has been changed from a philosopher's to a writer's. Cited by the editor are that the writer's infobox is a better box, has a cleaner layout and there is space for notable works. I strongly disagree, but rather than to edit battle, I prefer to discuss it. If no discussion ensues, then I shall once again revert per WP:Preserve. The philosopher's infobox is much better, can be laid out just as cleanly as the writer's infobox, and the reason the "notable works" is not there is because there is presently an editing trend to decrease the size of infoboxes. Some wanted to add the "notable works" back in to the philosopher infobox, but consensus was to keep them out of the infobox and to mention the notable works in the article.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructivist Epistemology?[edit]

Please. Just stop. Not in the first paragraph. Will you people stop claiming everyone in history "anticipated" Constructivist Epistemology? I could go into the details as to why this is completely wrong, but this just has no place in an article about Vico. If you want to put it in your CE article, different story, but what an extremely small fringe group in the academy think about Vico should not be in the first paragraph. Vico is a philosopher of history. The only notable influence that would warrant a first paragraph mention is Joyce.


If Vico "inspired" Russell as claimed, how is it that there is no mention of him whatever in Russell's "History of Western Philosophy"? Perhaps whoever made this assertion would be kind enough to provide some supporting evidence.... Godingo (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Russell's History of Western Philosophy is idiosyncratic and not to be taken too seriously. It was more of a vehicle for his personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article ends abruptly mid-sentence[edit]

The article seems to have been cut off before its conclusion. Perhaps this is an attempt to better relate Vico to Finnegans Wake, but I rather doubt it... CCPotter (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Chris Potter

apologist of classical antiquity?[edit]

I know that the meaning of the term 'apologist' here is in the sense of arguing in defence of something, but, for goodness sake, how is he defending 'classical antiquity'? Like, which bit? In Vico's writings (possibly influenced because he is from Naples, just up the road from Paestum and ancient Elea (Parmenides, Zeno etc and Calabria where Pythagoras had his school) he was focused on Demosthenes, Polybius, Seneca, Plato, Socrates, Virgil, Thucydides, Livy and several others, this wide expanse of historians, poets, philosophers, taxonomisers etc, because he was a philosopher of history and of rhetoric for the most part. Can someone explain what it means for him to be an apologist of 'classical antiquity'? Also, and I say this in response to a query above, just because Vico himself doesn't use the term 'philosophy of history' doesn't mean that his work, ideas and method didn't inspire and contribute to that field. Hugely in fact. (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)