Talk:Aldous Huxley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"On November the 22nd of 1963, unaware of the assasination of John F. Kennedy earlier that day and under the influence of an unspecified entheogenic substance." Can someone supply a verb for this non-sentence?

Missing information[edit]

Could someone update the article to include the quotes from his work - "Confessions of a Professed Atheist"

Doubts about whether philosopher was Aldous Huxley's occupation[edit]

Do we really have to go there? This is deja vu all over again. How many drama boards and how many citations will this one take before we learn that FKC actually agreed all along but just wanted his own source cited in this article, too? [1] Msnicki (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Your comment above has nothing to do with Aldous Huxley, and has no relevance to improving this article. Either stay on subject for this page or do not comment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I am commenting on the content and I'm asking what is it going to take this time to gain agreement. Is it just sources you need or do you actually not agree that he's a philosopher? Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The question is irrelevant. I am not interested in discussing whether Huxley or anyone else was a philosopher. What matters is whether there are reliable sources that show that "philosopher" was Huxley's occupation. Do you have any? Incidentally, it is wrong in any event to list Huxley's occupation as "Writer, Novelist, Philosophy". "Philosophy" is not a term comparable to "writer" or "novelist"; I presume that "philosopher" is what is actually meant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If you don't have any serious doubts you care to put into words explaining why you don't think Huxley was a philosopher, wouldn't it make more sense (common sense?) to simply add a {{cn}} tag rather than remove the claim? Msnicki (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Mystic" may be a better word. Or "New Age adept avant-la-lettre." Maybe it depends on the kind of philosophy; I'll bet Bertrand Russell didn't regard Aldous Huxley to be a philospher. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
He did write a book called The Perennial Philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Msnicki, your reply misunderstands the issue. The question is whether "philosopher" was Huxley's occupation, eg, something he was paid to do. One can obviously be a philosopher without being one by occupation. What I am requesting are sources showing that Huxley was by occupation a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Since you don't appear to disagree with the claim and would merely like additional sources, the proper way to make your request is with a {{cn}} tag. Then please allow time for others to do the research you don't wish to do yourself. WP:There is no deadline. Msnicki (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
By all means research the matter. The claim that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher" appears to be wrong, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Msnicki, I am afraid that your edit here suggests that you still misunderstand this issue. The question is not whether Huxley was a philosopher. The question is whether Huxley's occupation was "philosopher". Obviously one can be a philosopher without being such by occupation. The sources you added call Huxley a philosopher, but unsurprisingly none suggest it was his occupation. It has already been established above that Huxley "was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood". Please stop confusing and distorting the issue by adding such misinformation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what the term occupation means to an intellectual. You seem to be focused on how the individuals monetizes his work, which I believe misses the point of what it even means to be an intellectual. An intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how he puts bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. I'm reverting to re-add my citations but I'll also take it to WP:ORN for additional discussion. Msnicki (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
An encyclopedic biography of Huxley should not mislead readers by asserting he was a philosopher. The word "philosopher" is often used in a colloquial sense but such mentions do not give substance to a false claim about Huxley's occupation. People write books about all sorts of topics, but writing such a book means you are a writer. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Can or cannot Aldous Huxley be described as a philosopher ? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC).
    • That is another question. Clearly anyone can be described as a philosopher, and if it were WP:DUE an attributed opinion could be added to the body of the article. My primary objection is the over simplification of adding misinformation to the infobox. Lots of people have written books about science but many of them are not scientists. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we should only say someone was a philosopher if they made an original contribution to philosophy, which is how the term is normally used in the literture about philosophers. Huxley AFAIK did not write about philosophy, but about mysticism, which is sometimes called philosophy. So too are lots of things. Physicists are "natural philosophers," a financial analyst may have an investment philosophy. Mungo Jerry wrote, "Life's for livin' yeah, that's our philosophy./Sing along with us/Dee dee dee-dee dee/Dah dah dah-dah dah." The same arguments could be used to label them philosophers, but it conveys no information to readers. TFD (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Does your "AFAIK" include having read any of Huxley's works? Msnicki (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I have read several of his novels and biographical articles about him. I have also read many of the English philosophers who were contemporaneous with him (Wittgenstein, Russell, Moore, Ryle, Ayer and others) and the history of 20th century English philosophy and did not come across his views there. I also cannot find any philosophical writings in bibliographies of his work that I consulted. What about you - have you found any books he wrote about philosophy? TFD (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Would Plato be counted as a philosopher by your criteria ? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Plato made an original contribution to philsophy, in fact subsequent philosophy is often called "footnotes to Plato." He wrote about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and other areas, and is mentioned in all histories of philosophy. He is closely identified with the rational, as opposed to empirical, approach and hence has influenced European philosophers such as Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, existentialists and phenomenologists, more than he has influenced English philosophers. TFD (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Who could disagree ? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC).
Not me. But I think it's okay for a philosopher to express his thoughts as fiction. Msnicki (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Although Plato's works, at least those that have survived, were presented as dialogues, the characters actually discuss philosophical issues. Also, while he used parables, such as the cave, they are used to explain philosophical issues. I do not know though how a work of fiction could be used to explain philosophy or any other topic of learning, unless the characters discuss it or the author inserts sections about philosophy as a break from the story-line. TFD (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD, perhaps you should add l'Etranger , The Age of Reason, Utopia and Leviathan to your reading list. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could read a standard introduction to philosophy to your reading list, because you appear to not know what it is. TFD (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this discussion. There is 'philosopher' in the wide taproom sense ('he's a bit of a philosopher innit'), and there is philosopher in the narrow sense (has published notable work on properly philosophical subjects). Huxley not a philosopher in the narrow sense. Nor is the guy who wrote on Zen and motorcycles. Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

AcidRock67, you appear to be intend on having "philosopher" listed as Aldous Huxley's occupation. Please read the discussion above. Huxley was never employed as a philosopher, hence "philosopher" cannot be given as his occupation. As Xxanthippe commented, "He was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood." (Additionally, I should note that the disruptive editing you are engaging in is unwise, given your recent block for edit warring. If you continue such behavior, you will likely be blocked again, for a longer period of time). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not willing to edit war the matter, but I agree with AcidRock67's edit remark[2] that there does not appear to be a consensus. Msnicki (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There would be if we had an RfC and posted to the philosophy forum. I suppose for many there is a tendency to be dismissive of the subject - what do philosophers do anyway? - but it is an academic discipline like any other that has a defined subject matter and literature. And Huxley never wrote about any of its topics. TFD (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── AcidRock67 is editing disruptively by edit warring to restore misinformation. Philosopher was not Huxley's occupation, as he did not work in a philosophy department. If I don't revert AcidRock67 immediately, that is because that user's edits here are part of a pattern of disruption extending over multiple articles and may well need to be dealt with as such, rather than on an article by article basis. An ANI discussion or something similar could be required to deal with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You said yourself that if there was an RfC, you would probably get a consensus. So why not just put it to one and be done with it? Why all the constant complaining at various drama boards? How many reports have you made? Too many to count. And has it worked? Of course not. This is what drives AcidRock67 crazy and it drives me crazy as well. Your behavior reminds me of a child who constantly tattle-tales. Put it to an RfC and see where it comes out. That's the adult way of dealing with a content dispute. Msnicki (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to review WP:CIVIL. You are, of course, free to place a request for comment if you wish. I might do so myself, but it seems to me that no one other than AcidRock67 actually supports listing "philosopher" as Huxley's occupation, which is evidently factually wrong, so I am not sure why an RfC would be either helpful or appropriate. You suggested that you would do more research on the subject of Huxley's occupation; it does not surprise me that you came up with nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not incivil to tell someone that their behavior is a problem, especially when it is. If WP:CIVIL actually prohibited telling people that their behavior makes other people dislike them and dislike trying to deal with them, you'd never have been allowed ANY of your numerous trips to all those drama boards. You fight constantly and you escalate everything to a drama board. It's just a fact. And AcidRock67 is NOT the only one who thinks Huxley was a philosopher. I also think so (did you forget me?) and it looks to me like Xxanthippe thinks he was as well. So it looks to me like it's tied, three !votes on each side. If you really care, put it to an RfC. Msnicki (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Random insults such as comparing someone to a child are uncivil. Reminding someone of WP:CIVIL is a better response than insulting them in return. Unfortunately, it appears necessary to point out again that the issue under dispute is not whether Huxley was a philosopher, but whether "philosopher" was his occupation, which is something else again. Given that Huxley was not employed as a philosopher, the answer is no. Listing "philosopher" as Huxley's occupation is misinformation, supported by no one other than AcidRock67 and (possibly) you. I am not persuaded that we need a lengthy RfC to decide whether a claim that is clearly factually incorrect should appear in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't compare you, I compared your behavior to that of a child tattle-taling. And I stand by it. You are CONSTANTLY running off to complain at one drama board or another. And it never ends anything. You may be an absolutely wonderful guy in RL, brilliant, considerate, kind, a genuine pleasure to be around, someone I might love to have as a friend. But what we see of you here is a different story. You've made more trips to drama boards in just a few months than most people make in a decade. It's unpleasant. It turns everything into a battleground. As for whether we need an RfC, do what you like (you will anyway) but please consider that you are not the final arbiter of fact. I don't agree with any part of your argument. We decide things by consensus. Right now, there isn't one. Msnicki (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone is only a philosopher by occupation if they are employed as a philosopher. That clearly was not true in Huxley's case. There is not a lot of point in saying that you disagree with me, given that you have provided no evidence of any kind that Huxley was ever employed as a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unless you have a WP:RS that says so, that's just your personal opinion. I have a different opinion. And I notice you're off to the drama boards again, complaining about AcidRock67 again. What a surprise. Not. Msnicki (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There obviously is not going to be a reliable source stating that someone is only a philosopher by occupation if they are employed as a philosopher because that is an obvious truth no one would ever bother writing up. So it is pointless to request such a source. I do not see the absence of a source stating a sky-is-blue kind of statement as a justification for including a factually mistaken claim. If you claim that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher", the burden is very much on you to find a source actually stating that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If it were "an obvious truth" that one can only be a philosopher by occupation if you were employed as one, then, yes, I think you should be able to find a source that says that. My personal opinion is that you could be a philosopher by occupation if that is how you occupied your time, regardless of whether you were ever employed at anything. As for sources identifying Huxley as a philosopher, our own article on his book, The Perennial Philosophy#In the United Kingdom, reports, "In the journal Philosophy, the Anglican priest Rev. W. R. Inge remarked on the book's well chosen quotations and called it "probably the most important treatise we have had on mysticism for many years." He saw it as evidence that Huxley was now a mystical philosopher". That's good enough for me. Msnicki (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, as if the time wasting at Talk:Timothy Leary was insufficient. Please let it go—you were wrong and consensus is against you. No one on your side has attempted to engage the arguments raised; instead, there are Google-snippets with any old text to support the wanted conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't edited this article in 6 weeks. I have effectively let it go. Msnicki (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Your case comes down to saying that because Huxley has been called a philosopher, that therefore he was employed as a philosopher. That's a non sequitur: being an X does not mean that one's occupation is X. In the absence of sources saying that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher", the claim needs to be removed, and I will remove it shortly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's obviously personal opinion and WP:OR. Occupation can mean a lot of things. Our occupation DAB page says inter alia,

Occupation may refer to:

Employment is only one of the meanings associated with an occupation as a job. The others do not require that you be employed by anyone else. Further, our article on philosopher states, A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy, which involves rational inquiry into areas that are outside of either theological dogma or science. There's no requirement you be employed as a philosopher to be one. Huxley (and Leary) inquired in theological dogma, the books exist and people called him a philosopher on that basis. Msnicki (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that one does not need to be employed as a philosopher in order to be one. Wittgenstein for example wrote his Tractatus when he was a school teacher. LearyHuxley however did not make any rational inquiry into areas outside theological dogma or science. The books do not exist, which is why he is not recognized as a philosopher. TFD (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Tell you what, let's set Leary aside for now. You do agree with me that Huxley was a philosopher? Msnicki (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Huxley wrote, "To such first-hand exponents of the Perennial Philosophy those who knew them have generally given the name of "saint" or "prophet," "sage" or "enlightened one." And it is mainly to these because there is good reason for supposing that they knew what they were talking about, and not to the professional philosophers or men of letters, that I have gone for my selections." IOW he rejects "rational inquiry into areas that are outside theological dogma," and instead relies on revelation from theological dogma. He may of course be right. Maybe Jesus and other religious leaders told us all we need to know and reason cannot tell us anything about reality. But that is a rejection of philosophy.
Ironically, Huxley's grandfather, Thomas Huxley, was a philosopher but not as well known as his grandson.
TFD (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The existence of different definitions of "occupation" is inconsequential. It is incorrect to claim that Huxley's occupation was philosopher, regardless of which of the definitions of occupation listed above one accepts. If anyone wants the article to state that Huxley's occupation was philosopher, they need to find a source saying that his occupation was philosopher; no such source is likely to exist. Claiming that Huxley's occupation was philosopher is POV-pushing in the absence of a source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley and L Ron Hubbard[edit]

This source mentions, in passing, that AH received "auditing" from L Ron Hubbard. While I realize that the source of these allegations may be questionable, I still think a follow up on this might be warranted. Myself, I have no association with the CoS (in fact, I'm rather critical of the church) and I am also a big fan of AH's work "Brave new world", which is why I want to bring this out in the open. (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been audited by Hubbard would be interesting, if it could be confirmed. This was apparently previously discussed back in 2008, which is now in the article's talk page: Talk:Aldous Huxley/Archive 1#scientology?. As you say, the source isn't reliable, so that's not enough to work with. This NY Times book review mentions that he dabbled in Dianetics, but he dabbled in lots of things, so... Huxley and Hubbard are often linked by the story of Huxley betting Hubbard that he couldn't start a religion, which is almost certainly apocryphal, or at least a gross distortion. Better sources would be needed. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer! That made for some hilarious saturday night reading. For the record, I believe the Hubbard bet is surely apocryphal too. (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is true, we would need to show that Huxley's biographers considered it significant. TFD (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think we necessarily need to consult AH's s̶y̶c̶o̶p̶h̶a̶n̶t̶s̶ biographers. After all, all we need is a WP:RS. (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we do, because of neutrality. Otherwise articles would be filled with information that no one considers important. TFD (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillside school[edit]

Aldous Huxley went to Hillside School Godalming prior to Eton, not Hillside Malvern; would someone like to edit this? BTW I have photographic evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is your evidence published in a reliable source? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dead Link on Reference 31[edit]

The link to Reference 31 ( leads to an empty 404 page. Can somebody experiencend with Wikipedia please fix this issue? (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)user