Talk:Georges Rey

[Untitled]

The second sentence of this article, namely, "One major focus of Rey's effort is on the attempts of other philosophers of mind to be "eliminativists" or "instrumentalists" with respect to the mental states (states like beliefs and desires) that we are subjectively aware of by way of introspection" is false. Anyone who has read the book can see that Rey rejects that introspection plays a role for our recourse to mental states. The primary reason for that recourse is according to him their role in explaining the 'standardized regularities'. So, someone should delete at least the last part of the sentence or use a completely different sentence.

Book report?

This article is largely a book report on Rey's introductory text. As a book report, it is a failure. It gets too much wrong (see above). The criticism of dualism paragraph is similarly unfocused. Rey's criticism of dualism is a criticism of cartesian dualism. That he leaves out weaker forms such as property dualism is a mistake but doesn't impugn the success of that chapter of the text. While Rey's book is a signal accomplishment, some mention of his other works would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.111.101 (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is full of POV nonesense. I've deleted a flagrantly POV paragraph, and suggest the rest should be rewritten / revised by someone who's actually read the book. (Maybe I'll change it at some later point.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.16.159 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georges Rey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901115453/http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/deptwebsite/people/corefaculty/rey_georges.html to http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/deptwebsite/people/corefaculty/rey_georges.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)