|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
==I hate pointless articles likranswikied to a sentence or two in Wiktionary:Simhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_nowiki.pngplicityhttp://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.pngupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Button_hide_comment.png, where all dicdefs belong. --Ardonik.talk()* 07:06, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Button_reflink.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Button_gallery.png
I do not agree with the following sentence:
"Simple things are usually easier to explain and understand than complicated ones."
Simple things are even as hard to grasp as comphttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Button_blockquote.pnglex things, for the reason: why seem simple things more clear than complex ones? the reason itself is as just complex and the mere complex things as counterpart. Take the golden mean for isntance, it is very easy and simple formula, but why that is very appealing to us is a mystery and very complex. My personal opinion is that simple things are very complex from some standpoints.
The golden mean and it's formla is simple and easy to explain, it's attractiveness is not. Why it's appealing is a irrelevant to it's simplicity. 220.127.116.11 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
For that to be the case things would have to be simple and in and of them self, and given that simplicity is a category of the human mind that is not the case. There are fundamental philosophical issues here.
Entire section copied from stanford's encyclopaedia
The entire "Simplicity in philosophy" section was simply copied from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/. I know this source is public domain, but guess the copy is not allowed even so, am I right?