Talk:John McDowell

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

Biographical Section[edit]

This article contains nearly no biographical information on McDowell. I propose at least a brief biography, including his early life in South Africa, where he went to university and his graduate study in philosophy. This would provide some context for the discussion of his early publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Mohen (talkcontribs) 05:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

McDowell and Rorty[edit]

Many of the central themes in McDowell's work have also been pursued in similar ways by his Pittsburgh colleague Robert Brandom, although the latter's work shows a strong influence of Richard Rorty which McDowell's work does not.

Is this accurate? I know much more about McDowell's work than Brandom's, so a comparison is difficult to make, but McDowell explicitly states that much of his work (and Mind in World in particular) was directly inspired by engagement with Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature... how else might what you want to express here be written to reflect McDowell's statements about Rorty's influence on his own work? Radgeek 20:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. McDowell directly treats Rorty's work at a number of points, and acknowledges its influence on him. The difference lies in the fact that Rorty was Brandom's teacher, and, seen in at least one light, Brandom agrees w/ Rorty much more than McDowell does. Seen from another light (theoretical quietism v. creative metaphysics, e.g.) exactly the opposite is true.

good article that needs som rework[edit]


there are few things that need to be reworked, such as the end, which is to laudatory. Also, the article sides with McDowell against Dummett and Crisp, without justification, by remarks such as that he "succssfully" disproved this or that. As I see it the discussion is still open.

best regards,


Agree with Phil about the peacock terms. Have made some edits accordingly.Philosophy Junkie 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rldoan 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I didn't think that this was so bad. I know from experience how hard it is to escape McDowellisms when trying to explain his philosophy.


merge list of works[edit]

There is almost no precedent for doing this separately for an academic. the separate article wa challenged, and I suggest moving it here.DGG (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

and now I am going to trim it to limit it to the books and notable peer reviewed articles, as is standard practice. DGG (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

further external links[edit]

I stumbled upon McDowell's Howison lecture on youtube: is it appropriate to link to it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Honorary Degree from University of Chicago[edit]

John McDowell will receive an honorary degree for the University of Chicago. The ceremony will take place June 13.

Perhaps some interested party would like to include this in the main page. My source for this information is a U of C Philosophy department email:

From: \\ Subject: Honorary degree for John McDowell \\ Date: May 12, 2008 9:32:29 AM CDT \\ To: [removed email addresses for spamproofing purposes]

Dear All,

John McDowell will receive an honorary degree for the University of Chicago. The ceremony will take place June 13. Announcements about additional events related to the honorary degree award will be forthcoming.

Best, Stephanie _______________________________________________ Philugs mailing list

Off the top of my head, I wonder if honorary degrees are often listed for academics in wikipedia articles. I suspect not.JustinBlank (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations[edit]

This man has a long article, ample possible sources, but no inline citations. This should be remedied, especially by editors who know something about philosophy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposing article for deletion[edit]

I noticed that it was created from a University of Pittsburgh campus IP and is made of original research as well as also failing in many other areas of Wikipedia's standards for articles possibly going as far as being Self-promotion since the IP is traceable to the subject's university. IRMacGuyver (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? If you knew anything about contemporary philosophy, you'd know that McDowell is a major figure. Deleting him from Wikipedia would merely testify to the ignorance of Wikipedia's editors. 271828182 (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
the article doesn't meet hardly any of Wikipedia's standards and nothing anyone has added changes that. The editors making this page aren't even following the simple rule of using sources. Also you can't just remove a deletion tag cause you feel like it. You need to discus it and let the community come to a decision. That shows blatant disregard for Wikipedia's standards. If he really is a major figure other works need to be added to reference this supposed "fact" As it stands the way this article is written the only books claiming his notability are his own. IRMacGuyver (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to remove a prod tag - no discussion or consensus for doing so is necessary. If after a prod is contested (i.e. a prod tag is removed), and you still desire deletion, you have to nominate the article for an AfD, following the instructions at WP:AFD. Then there will be a deletion discussion and based on the consensus reached in that discussion, the article will be either kept or deleted. In this particular case I absolutely guarantee you that the article will be kept (in fact any AfD will likely result in a "snow keep" outcome. There are multiple books written about this guy's works - they are listed at the end of the article in the "Books on John McDowell" section. That alone is more than enough to satisfy any notability requirements that we have. But if you still wish to proceed with an AfD, that's certainly your prerogative. Nsk92 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't remove the tag, someone else with a clue did. Just because you haven't looked for evidence (which you clearly have not [1]) doesn't mean there isn't any. Your presumption of non-notability merely makes you look like an editor who makes edits on articles you know jack-all about. 271828182 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I also applied the search engine test and he didn't seem to be notable. I thought with all the blatant violations there would be no discussion about it. I mean it's obvious that some of the IPs are right from the guy's school and it article contains original research without any citation. IRMacGuyver (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop re-adding the PROD tag. Doing so, after PROD has been contested is considered disruptive and you may end up getting a block. If you still desire deletion, list the article for WP:AFD. Nsk92 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The basis for this whole discussion is the presumption by IRMacGuyver that this article is "self-promoting" as it is written by its subject or someone associated with him based at the University of Pittsburgh. I can assure you that I wrote the (bulk) of this article, that I am a professional philosopher, that I am not John McDowell nor associated in any way with John McDowell, nor have (or have ever had) any attachment to the University of Pittsburgh. If you are going to keep attaching the PROD tag based on an assumption you have made about the "facts" perhaps, as the editor of an encyclopaedia, you could attach some importance to getting your facts right or making some attempt to verify them. As you are, in this case, completely mistaken perhaps you will now stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John McDowell. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)