Talk:Noocracy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Athenidas, Ardaboga. Peer reviewers: My322.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

What would it be? Malick78 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Answer, Needs Confirmation/Agreement

Nooc·ra·cy... Pronunciation: \ˈnō-ə-ˌkrə-sē\ 76.166.208.110 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of word?

There must be a distinction made here - who used the actual terms, and who applied the concepts? Did Verdansky and Chardin ever use the word "noocracy". We need to be clear about who uses the actual term, and who uses the concept.

Along these lines, is there a philosophical tradition that bears direct continuity between the "noocracy" that Greek philosophers spoke of, and the modern philosophy, especially around the concept of noosphere? This is only vaguely stated, but it is not at all clear.

NittyG (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nessesesary to cite< where greek philosopher use this term --85.235.223.114 (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noocracy v noosphere

Surely the concept of a noosphere is contingent upon seeing human thought to be a totality, without distinction or qualitative judgement. An 'existential'. This article appears to describe noocracy as being based upon wisdom and consensus. That's actually a huge difference in implication and meaning. I'm not convinced I'm right about this but, if I am, the article needs clarity.

Sourcing and copyediting

This article looks like it only has one source. It should probably have more for verification and such. The only source used here looks like it is used purely for the example/"publications" section. I thought I should bring that up. anamedperson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Plato and "noocracy", there is no precise "quote" of the idea, because of the form of Plato's writings ( didactical philosophical dialogs ). Still, the idea is expressed in " The Republic", especially with the selection of the most able citizens in order to become the "guardians" of the city. So, although this article might have been created by a single person, it could be developped later with a broader approach. ( Sylvain, Paris, France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.219.236.122 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Criticisms

In this part, there should be a clearer statement about "by who" and "with which" arguments noocracy was criticised. It could be useful to analyse those arguments one by one, appropriately citing the resources from which they are drawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardaboga (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerance is intolerant?

Itzhak Rosenberg has repeatedly removed a bit of sourced content regarding a correlation between income and tolerance of LGBT rights, claiming that such tolerance is "offensive to an absolute majority of the world's population." Here is a place to put up facts in support of that claim. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase made a correlation between a)better financial status and b)better views towards LGBT. That study was conducted in only one country (USA), which just so happens to be a majority white country and with a racist and colonialist past. The problem here is the narrow sample size in only one country. A further problem is that better LGBT treatment is only an occurrence in colonialist nations like USA, UK, Japan, South Africa, many European countries (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, etc.). If one looks at GDP (PPP) per capita statistics of the world, in the top 10 of 2020 according to IMF, any country that was not colonialist (Qatar, Singapore, Brunei, UAE, Kuwait) and is richer than the US does not uphold LGBT rights. Hence, the person's conclusion was a very narrow one and unreflective of the world's diversity, hence intolerant. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that stuff about colonialism is relevant here. (Russia, for example, had and has colonial aspirations, and is not known for being an LGBT-friendly regime. So? The study did not concern regimes, but people's attitudes.) You are bumping into the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance of intolerance is no virtue.

You may find LGBT issues personally offensive, but casting that in terms of "the world's diversity" is a non-starter. Just plain Bill (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting paradox. As for colonialism, I wouldn't be so quick to deny the claim with one outlier.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One parenthetical counterexample suffices for the purposes of this discussion, since colonialism is a red herring here anyway. Wealthy authoritarian regimes are also a distraction from the topic, which may be framed as populism being a flawed version of democracy.

Once more, "but that's offensive!" is vanishingly seldom a valid argument for excluding relevant content from Wikipedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But does it suffice though? Anyways, I doubt we'll get anywhere with this discussion, Best regards --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]