Talk:Thing-in-itself

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ding an sich

Perhaps the phrase is common in German from time out of mind. For example, in R.B.Blakney's "Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation", the German phrase is used, reflecting, I suppose, its use by Eckhart. (Sermon "Honor thy Father", page 148 in the 1957 reprint of 1941 edition (Harper: New York)) Nick_cool (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also the German wikiarticle. Nick_cool (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick cool, Sorry, what exactly are you trying to say? --Bageense^(disc.) 01:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your query, Bageense. The entry for "Thing in itself" opens by saying that this describes a concept originating with Im. Kant. But the phrase is used in the translation of Meister Eckhardt referred to above. And the footnote refers us to "Timmaeus" 49, 50, 58! So perhaps someone versed in history of philosophy could recast the article, taking the pre-Kantian use into account? Nick_cool (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation

Some sources use it; some don't. I think it's useful at points in body text to avoid syntactic ambiguity, but should it really be in the title? small jars tc 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Why not avoid what you call "syntactic ambiguity" in the title also? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no syntax to be ambiguous about in the title, just the term on its own. small jars tc 22:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you could give me an example of the syntactic ambiguity in the body text I would understand better what you mean by it. Myself, I like the clear concept of the thing-in-itself as a separate, well known concept in philosophy. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In itself" is already a common phrase so it can cause confusion. If I said something like "just the fact that there is a thing in itself doesn't mean we can perceive it", you wouldn't know whether I was talking about the thing-in-itself, or if "in itself" was added on for separate reasons. I assume the point of the hyphenation is to lump the phrase together so this never happens, but it looks silly to repeat it in the title, which already has the lumping together built in. small jars tc 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I understand your point now. I still prefer to have the hyphens as defining a separate, well-known concept in philosophy, as I said. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]