Talk:Techne

2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear this addresses a subject more suitable for an encyclopedia than a dictionary. I mean, I know it doesn't include a reference to Lost, The Simpsons or Star Wars vs. Star Trek, but no article is perfect. Elijahmeeks 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Encyclopedic material. Factotum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.180.32 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic restoration

The fact that some of the article is in want of citation does not merit a wholesale blanking, on the part of a certain user. Several paragraphs are well cited, and consist merely of quotations and paraphrasing, not, as said user argued, synthesis. Clearly, there's more work to do on the history of the concept of Techne, but this work does not involve merely deleting everything and passing the buck to someone else. One would hope Wikipedians would be of a more creative mindset than that. Pablosecca (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, since I'm the "certain user": the problem with the article is not that it lacks citation, but that it is riddled with error, with a very light admixture of truth. This is equally true of the "well cited" sections and the bits "paraphrased" from primary texts. My record here clearly shows that the vast majority of my work is to add and to write, not to delete, but, despite my adherence to that general principle, I believe going back to the stub form is the first necessary step if this article is ever going competently to address the topic. But this will have to be for a wider consensus to decide (though this article is so far off the beaten path that it is unlikely to attract the attention of expert editors); I'll just add the cleanup tag. Moreover I am preparing a scholarly publication on a related subject and am therefore not the most appropriate editor to write the needed content here. I do believe that the bibliography as I left it is the best starting point for an account of Greek thought about techne, and that eventually the article will need a further section on the more recent uses of a concept inspired by ancient theories and still named techne but really a vehicle for new ideas and concerns, as this is what seems to underlie a significant portion of the existing content (this is diagnosable from the use of such an inappropriate source as Young). (I am reminded of a more severe but analogous instance, when the article I moved to Classical education movement had originally been masquerading as a historical treatment of ancient and Medieval education.)

I hope this doesn't sound unduly negative. If you are the Pablo Secca who created these wonderful drawings, your interests may lie in what people like Derrida, Zizek, Castoriadis, etc., say about terms like techne. If so, we can probably agree that they do not pretend to confine themselves to recovering ancient ideas but are actively philosophizing themselves. Once the article has separate sections to treat Ancient Greek ideas concerning techne and modern theories of techne (which refer to ancient theories but don't presume to expound them authoritatively), it will be clear that two very different kinds of expertise and sourcing are appropriate in the two sections, so we will be able to make something more sound than the current muddle. Wareh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a brief note and an area where the article could be expanded, the term techne can also be applied to the military sphere aswell. Xenophon explicitly calls the Spartans 'techne' with regards to warfare (i struggle to remember the direct quote for it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.195 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For the application of techne to such "arts" as military science, Serafina Cuomo's book Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Cambridge University Press, 2007) might be a valuable source.

I don't think it would make sense for Xen. to call people techne, but the phrase "technitai [=techne practitioners] of matters related to war" does occur at the end of his Constitution of the Spartans 13.5. Compare his use of the liberally educated-vs-artisans contrast at Memorabilia 2.7.4. Wareh (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am working on a project for University and have some additions I'd like to make on this page. They give more detailed examples on whether rhetoric is techne and examples of what is considered techne and what is not considered techne. RAH95 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The phonetics say [ˈtexni] but to me the audio sound more like [ˈteçni] (though slightly different). Am I mishearing? --AndreKR (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, several wiki pages on related subject areas including Phronesis use a mix of diacritics including: techné, téchne, tëchnë, technê and tēchnē. This should be standardised to the correct diacritic. The same is true for Episteme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.199.56 (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation?

"For the ancient Greeks, when techne appears as art, it is most often viewed negatively, whereas when used as a craft it is viewed positively: because a craft is the practical application of an art, rather than art as an end in itself." Any chance for a citation of this part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.58.99 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No Heidegger? Really?

It is quite amazing this whole article does not include a single reference to Heidegger, in whose philosophy the concept - or his particular interpretation of it - was quite central and influential not only in the following philosophy but also other spheres of life, including art. --82.131.109.201 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have included some of Heidegger's ideas. Unfortunately, I do not have access to his works so I cannot contribute more. I have also created a new subsection that discusses the distinction between techne and technik according to theorists. Let me know if you have questions. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:STUBIFY

It's unclear what this article was trying to say, and unclear whether or not the quoted people were all talking about the same "thing" when using the word Techne. It seemed to take for granted that they were. I have kept the citation to the SEP article, which talks about some far more comprehensible aspects of the relation between techne and episteme in the context of ancient greek philosophy, which is what this article is about. - car chasm (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2023 and 9 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Coolguy500 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kcub27, Winklec3.

— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph doesn't quite scan

In Ancient Greek philosophy, techne (Greek: τέχνη, romanized: tékhnē, lit. 'art, skill, craft'; Ancient Greek: [tékʰnɛː], Modern Greek: [ˈtexni]) is a philosophical concept that refers to making or doing. Today the modern definition and use of "practical knowledge" is similar to the Ancient Greek definition of techne, whereas the latter can include various fields such as mathematics, geometry, medicine, shoemaking, rhetoric, philosophy, music, and astronomy. One of the definitions led by Aristotle, for example, is "a state involving true reason concerned with production".

What does "the latter" refer to here? I can't get it at all from context. Kimadactyl (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)