Talk:Weimar Classicism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weimar Classicism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Modern Low‑importance

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Modern philosophy

Multiple issues

1) It is written by a single author with poor English skills but who loves dense, abstruse language. An author who probably continues to police the article.

2) It makes huge unfounded claims, such as this gem:

"The inability of this common-sense outlook convincingly to bridge "feeling" and "thought", "body" and "mind", led to Immanuel Kant's epochal "critical" philosophy."

You would need several noted authors to expound on this, instead there are none. I would contend it is gibberish, but is to anyone original research. There are many similarly unfounded claims.

3) It is written like a work of German literary criticism, using ridiculous descriptors and esoteric terms which are useless for the general reader. I could see it standing as an example of the problems of Wemar Classicism perhaps, i.e., arrogant self belief coupled by a love of clever sounding phraseology with no meaning (ouside a small clique of like minded brethren). --Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]