|Renaissance philosophy has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Someone tried do some mischief to the page, editing its content. Please, don't do it here. That's a encyclopedia for all humankind.
Yes, the nasty fat hobbitses did it. Fat hobbitses, doesn't trust Gollum. Aagh! Bad Dobby, bad Dobby!
...is pretty sad considering its importance and the fact that it's on a navigational template. Seems like most of what it says is about defining the Renaissance and not about philosophy at all. Someday I would like to work on this article. Is there anyone who's attached to the text as it is? Maestlin 18:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Right after I wrote that, it occurred to me to check the edit history. Some vandal blanked the page and nobody caught it. I have restored the lost material from an edit by FuelWagon on 18:24, October 24, 2005. There haven't been many changes since. I think I have it all straight but I hope someone will correct the article if I messed it all up. Maestlin 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, this article is not as good as it could be, in parts it is even wrong (e.g. the general preference of Plato over Aristotle: who soever claimed that did not bother even to make a quick check e.g. of the number of commentaries existing to both of these philosophers from the period in question).
126.96.36.199 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote it, and I just revised it to get my point across better. Maestlin 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written. At one point it says, "Having established that many aspects of philosophy were held in common during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, it will now be useful to discuss in what areas changes were afoot. I will use the same outline as above, to show that within trends of continuity one can also find surprising differences." There are also numerous grammatical and syntactical errors; like "In terms of method philosophy was considered during the late Middle Ages as a subject that required robust enquiry on the part of people trained in the subject’s technical vocabulary." Which should be rewritten: "In terms of method, philosophy was considered during the late Middle Ages as a subject that required robust enquiry on the part of people trained in the subject’s technical vocabulary." The bolded doesn't make too much sense (and I added a comma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)