Talk:Gnosiology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Focus and Content[edit]

This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify your goal in what you have posted. It not only appears to lack good faith -which would potentially fuel other Greek and Russian editors to contribute-. It appears to be a WP:policy misuse.
1.Professor Theodosis Pelegrinis is the dean in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Athens uses the term.
"Theodosis Pelegrinis: Well, the term ‘metaphysics’ was introduced completely by chance by Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century. When he was enlisting the works of Aristotle, he came across a book that was called “The Physical”. Later on, he detected Aristotle’s work that was called “First Philosophy”. Instead of calling it “First Philosophy” however, he gave it the title “After the Physical”. Due to the fact that the subject of the book “First Philosophy” is God, among other things, the study of things that dealt with matters that are beyond our observation/detection was established as called metaphysical. One mistake was that. Not really a mistake, but a random event that was the reason for introducing the term metaphysics to the philosophical literature; “after the physical” in other words. The difference with the other more traditional branches like gnosiology, is that gnosiology deals with the sources and conditions of knowledge. In others words, how we can get to know and up to what point we can know of something. Ethics deals with the definition of the concept of benefit. The distinction is clear. Metaphysics is a term that has endured a lot, a branch that has been denaturized, but in every case, it is the branch that deals with matters that are not objects of our experience, without that meaning necessarily that metaphysics deals with the transcendental."[1]
2.Russian (Ukrainians) at the University of Kiev do also.[2]. The term is more obscure and not in general use, then epistemology that why the article is just a stub.

LoveMonkey (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Your extremely defensive reply is unwarranted. As is what appears to be an attempt to blast criticism below. WP is intended to be a collaborative environment. If you take offense at others following WP:policies like NPOV, notability, and verifiability on articles you have contributed to, then you are free to stop contributing.
The existence of the term is not disputed, nor is the use of the term in philosophy. (It is its use in philosophy that I would like to see developed further.) The problem lies in the article being written from a Greek Orthodox theological perspective rather than a neutral one (WP:NPOV). The section "Christianity" is derived from quoting the Metallinos article on "Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology". The section "Sectarian gnosticism" does not seem to fit the subject matter of the article (gnosiology) and seems to represent WP:original research. The sources cited in the article fail WP:Verifiability not because they are from unreliable sources, but because they are not concerned with explaining or defining the subject of the article--gnosiology. And so, the article fails to establish WP:Notability. It may need to be considered for deletion. Personally, I would rather see it come into line with policy. Metagignosko (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey's reply[edit]

Metagignosko wrote

Your extremely defensive reply is unwarranted. As is what appears to be an attempt to blast criticism below.

LoveMonkey's reply
As do all of your comments on this talkpage. Since when is wikipedia unfit or not the place for theological terms-as your very first post alleges.

"This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

So is the sectarian section not an attempt to balance this? Oh wait your unhappy with that too.. As you have called it Original Research. But your not being impossible and critical? Wait I get it, only you are allowed to do that. Yez why wonder why I question your intentions.

Metagignosko wrote
WP is intended to be a collaborative environment. If you take offense at others following WP:policies like NPOV, notability, and verifiability on articles you have contributed to, then you are free to stop contributing.

LoveMonkey's reply
Well you should follow your own advice. Also I will suggest that Metagignosko does not own wikipedia as neither do I. But Metagignosko sure likes to post here as if they think that write the policies and that those policies like WP:NPOV.

Metagignosko wrote
The existence of the term is not disputed, nor is the use of the term in philosophy. (It is its use in philosophy that I would like to see developed further.)

LoveMonkey's reply
This is a contradiction to your earlier post.

"This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

So which is it? Is the term in dispute as a "Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary" or as a term that you don't like it's sources?

Metagignosko wrote
The problem lies in the article being written from a Greek Orthodox theological perspective rather than a neutral one (WP:NPOV).

LoveMonkey's reply
This is exactly what is my main gripe. I can and I will legitimately criticise and point out your explicit misuse of this Policy. Again I also call into question your intentions. Because my intentitions are to create good and valid content for the wiki project. That is why a created this entry. I have retired and find your tactics that same old ones that I have come across on here before. That is why I don't suffer such comments well. I am retired from wiki and would like to stay that way. However I am interacting with you. Which is an obvious sign that I wish to collaborate.

Metagignosko wrote
The section "Christianity" is derived from quoting the Metallinos article on "Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology".

LoveMonkey's reply
Ay something we agree on-progress.

Metagignosko wrote
The section "Sectarian gnosticism" does not seem to fit the subject matter of the article (gnosiology) and seems to represent WP:original research.

LoveMonkey's reply
It can not be WP:original research if it is sourced. That is the misrepresentation of policy I am speaking of. Please clarify. Are you asking for it to be differently sourced? Such a point hardly justifies

"This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"
How do you expect people to respond to comments like that above? And if they respond in kind, do you not consider your comments then, disingenuous- in being provocative and then expressing outage that people get provoked..

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metagignosko wrote
The sources cited in the article fail WP:Verifiability not because they are from unreliable sources, but because they are not concerned with explaining or defining the subject of the article--gnosiology.

LoveMonkey's reply
So which is it? Is it a fish or a pick up truck? Is it original research or the sources are not comply to WP:Verifiability? How can it not be verifiable if people can pull up the page and read it for themselves?

Metagignosko wrote
And so, the article fails to establish WP:Notability. It may need to be considered for deletion. Personally, I would rather see it come into line with policy.

LoveMonkey's reply
Seems like a veiled threat there the comment you made. What are you implying with your comment here? Are you stating that if the article does not go your way you will nominate it for deletion? Are you not mature enough to see people could see such an implication? Why are you expressing anything at all negative about the potential for people to do so? Are you going to dodge my request for clarification by blaming me? Tell me how is it you expect people to respond to such things? How is they are not to become frustrated as the artful dodges and projecting? How long has it been since anyone has even contributed to this article? How can your approach be one that promotes colloration when you make implicit comments about the article getting deleted if it does not match up to your critieria? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Junod's gnosiology[edit]

maybe it would be good if someone would add an paragraph about gnosiological idealism. (coined in Philippe Junod's "Transparance et Opacité, mention Konrad Fiedler, etc)

Counter Productive Ridicule[edit]

Wikipedia has as an encyclopedia criticism as an integral part of its collaborative process. It is good to be critical, but critical to drive and fuel better article development not to make unproductive and make unsigned counter productive comments like the one posted below on this talkpage. Why is an article written by an accredited Professor of one of the Oldest Universities in history of the Mediterranean world (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) now no longer "good enough" to source a stub article about a philosophical and theological term. Greece would have the Oldest University in the world if crusaders and Turks hadn't destroyed it (see University of Constantinople). So Why the impossible criteria? What kind of reduction to the absurd unsatisfiable criteria are people trying to establish here?LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't try to stifle legitimate criticism with such an obvious red herring. The anonymous comment states that the article in the link is irrelevant due to its subject matter. The academic standing of the author is not mentioned nor implied as an issue. Grind your axe elsewhere. Metagignosko (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try and post that people can not be critical of anonymious unwarranted and counterproductive statements. Please don't defend bad behaviour. Pretty please.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

links[edit]

the link to the metallinos article (university of athens) is irrelevant as it deals with the conflict between science and belief in the greek orthodox church.

Confused mess[edit]

Section Eastern Orthodox theology para 3:

The nous in Hellenistic philosophy is the term for the demiurge, meaning...

What?! And:

The followers of gnosticism vilified...

What?! Is there a purpose of this topic-hopping, or have random editor added random reflections around "gnosis"?

Where is the definition of "gnosiology"? The Section Eastern Orthodox theology only provides a pseudo-definition that elegantly pours out words in a manner to make "gnosiology" just any other applied science. Where is the real definition? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to understand Rev Metallinos, I perceived he used some kind of inferior reasoning, in this blog comment I got the idea that given a platonic realist view (with common concepts as being real), gnosiology is some kind of methodology, that per the bible revelations and other taken as axioms, one meditates those dogma on order to "implement" them in oneself, and live according to their consequences. Or something ... behind the brag-abouts of "science", "true", "clean", "non-protestant", "non-western" and such egoinflating wordings. An interesting concept, perhaps. I'm reasoning along similar lines, but I'm a protestant. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you requesting that the comments be sourced? As are you accusing Professor George Metallinos of hubris? The reason the term is used is because the West confuses gnosiology with gnosticism. To do that is throw the baby out with the bath water. I supposed you can't really be troubled to actually read any real life Greek philosophers and see what they say? I mean from your comments are people to believe that Christos Yannaras is an idiot? [3] Or Dumitru Stăniloae for that matter. [4] Do you know anything about any of this? Or are you just here throwing about accusations because you have no idea about any of this subject and or any of the people involved in it? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Gnosology into Gnosiology[edit]

See Talk:Gnosology#Gnosology and gnosticism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy#Gnosology and gnosiology. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into Epistemology[edit]

I propose to do without this article, merging it or redirecting to Epistemology. I considered requesting the article for deletion, but redirect seems more appropriate. Whether there is any real substance to be merged is unclear; a deletion-via-redirect seems appropriate, but let us see.

The terms "gnosiology" and "gnoseology" as defined are just rare synonyms of "epistemology" or "philosophy of knowledge". The terms do not denote a distinct subject of inquiry. And encyclopedia articles are separated by topics, not by terms denoting topics. As it stands, the article mostly documents the terms and not a separate subject. It interestingly notes the use of cognates in other languages, but that again is about words and not about an encyclopedic subject.

If the terms were ever used as synonyms of "Psychology of knowledge" or Sociology of knowledge, these would be the subject headings, not the rare "gnosiology".

From what I can see, there is no subject worthy of an encyclopedia article under "gnosiology/gnoseology" other than "epistemology". The terms should be treated in Wiktionary as words, though, as they are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant disagree. Thank you for your suggestion. But I think Western esotericism in this page may not be considered as the exoteric topic of philsoophical 'epistemology'. Hence i cautiously think the content on this page does not deserve to be parked under 'epistemolgoy'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gnosiology&oldid=1202334808"