Talk:Absolute (philosophy)

If anyone actually goes to work on this page and later wants someone to look over additions pertaining to Hegel or German Idealism, please just tag me. I can probably fix any conspicuous errors and provide supporting citations from scholarly sources with little trouble.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Absolute (philosophy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6 § Absolute (philosophy until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Except between 04.15 and 05.37 am? Other formulation please! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

... what? Veverve (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There's some good material on the German entry on this topic that could easily be incorporated. (Material from this article could also be usefully incorporated into that article, for that matter.) It is, however, all philosophical, not religious or theological.

If this entry sits here for too long without anyone adding anything more about the theological usage of the term, I would propose, at minimum editing, the lead accordingly—if not also again considering deletion. I leave this entirely up to others however.

(My only interest here is to ensure the article does not misrepresent Hegel, but I do not believe that his concept deserves its own entry, which right now is almost what it is.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If this entry sits here for too long without anyone adding anything more about the theological usage of the term, I would propose, at minimum editing, the lead accordingly—if not also again considering deletion: why? The topic is notable. Veverve (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Only because, in its current state, it is mostly redundant with the entry on Hegel. That is harmless, but it does not benefit the community.

I am sure it is true that theologians and others also use the term and do so in different ways (for instance, to refer to an entity, which Hegel's term does not), but none of this is discussed.

So, please—someone add that!

As I said, though, I am happy for the article to sit here harmlessly. I only point out that if it deserves to exist as its own thing, it barely, if at all, makes that case in its current form.

If anyone takes issue with the article's treatment of the term "absolute" as it is used by Hegel or in the German Idealist tradition, please do tag me here so we can discuss. That, however, is the extent of my interest in the article. My comment above is only to point out that there is very little else here to discuss. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: Hi, there. I'm aware that all German nouns are capitalized. However, the noun is clearly widely capitalized in English as well, in a variety of sources. Regardless of whether this should be the case or not, do you have any evidence it is generally frowned upon? In my experience, in fact, it is a convention "generally followed" for this term in English. I appreciate you providing the view of one of Hegel's recent translators at least, but does that override the general norm? I've also seen it capitalized in reference to other German and even British idealists; for example, see A. C. Grayling's The History of Philosophy or Thelma Z. Lavine's From Socrates to Sartre. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The two presses publishing new translations of Hegel (by several different translators, working autonomously) are Cambridge and OUP. None of these volumes puts caps on "absolute." This is also the practice in what remains the best translation of the Encyclopedia Logic, which is published by Hackett.

A quick spot check indicates that it is not capitalized in articles published in either of the two English-language journals dedicated to Hegel, The Owl of Minerva and The Hegel Bulletin.

I could find another translator or scholar commenting on this, but I think most people in the field today just operate according to the rules of English grammar without much by way of further discussion. It's kind of weird, imo, to have to include even one source to support this.

To be clear, I am sure that there are non-Hegelian and neo-Hegelian contexts that require caps. (Quite probably it is the influence of the British Idealists that led early translators to impose caps on "the absolute" and its many near-synonyms in Hegel's philosophy.)

If this doesn't satisfy you, could you say what would? I know the scholarship quite well and am sure I can meet any reasonable standard.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Another thought on this. I'm pretty sure the reason people care about capitalization is because the use of caps biases towards (or against) an interpretation that is more-or-less conventionally theologically Christian. Hegel identified as a Lutheran, but his concept of the divine is non-standard, more Greek than Christian. In particular, it is not a supreme being or entity of any kind; that is, it is not a proper noun any more than, for instance, "truth."

Wikipedia should be neutral on this dispute (to the extent it is even disputed) by observing the normal conventions of English in translations from other languages. So I'm pretty sure his use of "absolute" should be rendered in lower case—even if I am wrong about the empirical question of a scholarly majority and/or the textual/philosophical question of how best to interpret Hegel.

Also, I'm moving the Inwood citation down to be an endnote. If the article ever expands and inconsistencies of capitalization become a large enough issue to merit its own section, please someone just tag me and I'll see if I can find something better to contribute on this front. (The 2018 Inwood citation is admittedly imperfect in that I don't think Hegel ever uses "absolute" in a non-technical sense. But to refer to the practices of university presses and journals as I do above would be considered an impermissible synthesis of original research. It's just a hard claim to source—to say nothing about establishing burden of proof.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I think you've done a satisfying job explaining everything above. I legitimately had just only ever seen it capitalized and assumed this was more about its technical metaphysical use than any infiltration from German-language literary conventions. The sources you point to, though, are convincing. I am a person who can be swayed by genuine thoughtful discussion! I also think your new Inwood-referring note referring explicitly to the capitalization question is a smart move for others like me, who are initially baffled. Would you mind me moving it to though to the first sentence? Wolfdog (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad to have addressed your concerns! By all means, do freely move or otherwise edit my contributions to improve the article according to your judgment.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I oppose moving it to the first sentence, as the article is not about Hegel or Hegel's use of the word. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you plan on adding footnotes on every capitalisation of every philosopher of the word "absolute"? Why must the reader be aware of Hegel's capitalisation and disagreements among his translators, in the lede of a broad article? Veverve (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

1) Well, for one thing, 3/4 of this article is about Hegel. 2) I've already explained to Patrick above how it's commonly capitalized even outside of Hegelian contexts. Perhaps your implication here is correct that I should reflect that in the note; I'll make that change. Here are links to some credible sources, which use a capitalized "A", in relation to thinking other than Hegel's: Indian philosophy, Schelling, British idealism, etc. 3) No, of course I'm not going to be adding footnotes on every capitalisation of every philosopher. What on earth are you talking about? 4) In answer to why make readers aware of capitalization conventions (in a footnote, I'll remind you, which is hardly cluttering), we do this on other pages too, to acquaint readers with such conventions. Wikipedia is a place of learning; not sure how to explain it much deeper than that. See the lead sections of pages like Theory of Forms or Demotic (Egyptian) or Gal (unit). Wolfdog (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like this article should only be its Hegel and idealist content, and that its Indian philosophy or other religious content should be moved to ultimate reality. I would be happy to expand that article into a more comprehensive one. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this article should only be its Hegel and idealist content: why do you thinks so? As far as I am concerned, this concept is broader than the concept developped by Hegel. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not some expert on this topic, but it seems like more of a Western philosophy term than a religious one, and the word is extremely connected to Hegel. If the Indian religious content should stay, I think it should be fleshed out more. Right now, I am trying to build up the ultimate reality article (which to me, at least, is about the same idea as the absolute, but in a religious or cosmic sense instead of an continental philosophical one). I like the German version of the article, which goes through the various philosophers who wrote about the concept. I think this article should look like Plotinus-Spinoza-Hegel-Kant, and the ultimate reality article should look like Hinduism-Taoism-Christianity because of the associations of their titles. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced by your arguments. Veverve (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been trying to add information to this article on the use of "the Absolute" in documents written for the CIA by US Army Intelligence regarding various New Age movements, meditation practices, and techniques for astral-projection. I think this is relevant to the subject, and interesting. It is also well-sourced, these primary sources having been declassified and analyzed by numerous secondary sources, which I have made use of.

The edits have been continuously reverted by @Veverve. Particularly, he says that this edit of mine, is, in his words, "OR from primary source+ unrelated".

This is an incredibly vague edit-summary, especially if you consider what I added, and the sources I used. He has so far declined to be more specific, so I will try to decode his argument myself:

1a. The accusation that it is original research from a primary source might be correct if I only used a primary source. But I didn't. I added two secondary sources analyzing the primary source as well. The fact that Veverve's edit-summaries seem to ignore this suggest that he did not really look at the sources before he reverted it.

1b. I think there's a case to be made that a primary source in this case would be enough anyway, since the proper-noun "the Absolute", capitalized, is to be found in the primary source. I'm not really sure it's necessary for the author of the primary source to have to say, "By the way, I'm referring to the same Absolute from 19th century Idealist philosophy," for us to know that this is where the concept originates, anymore than it's necessary for someone referring to the Holy Spirit in a primary source to have to say, "By the way, I mean the person of the trinity from Nicene Christianity" for us to understand that.

1c. If I made grand statements about the connections between Hegel and Kant and the noumena, etc., that weren't in the primary source, that would be original research. I did no such thing. My edits were a more or less literal survey of the material found in the secondary sources.

2a. As to what Veverve's accusation of "+ unrelated" means, I really have very little idea. Veverve obviously could've meant multiple very different things from this very vague statement. So, until he issues a clarification, I will try to address each of the possible things he could have meant:

2b. Veverve could mean that the term "the Absolute" used by the Army, the CIA, and Bob Monroe's organization is unrelated to the concept from Idealist philosophy; That "the Absolute" is unrelated to "the Absolute", not because Veverve believes that A does not equal A (I hope), but because these are two different ideas that simply share the same name. While I see his point, I think my above argument in 1b is a reasonable refutation of this argument.

2c.Veverve could mean that the secondary sources are unrelated to the primary source. This is obviously untrue. If this is what he meant, this would also be evince the idea that he did not really look at my edit before he reverted it.

If anyone else has an argument as to why this material should not be included, I'd be welcome to hearing it. BeatrixGodard (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh reverted my edit again, citing "WP:FRINGE" and bypassing the talk-page. He did not elaborate further. This would be the perfect place to. BeatrixGodard (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The scope of this article could be better defined, and I wish it were. Nevertheless, its focus upon overlapping philosophical and theological concepts with an ample academic literature leaves little room for conspiracy theories about an alleged CIA coverup of headphone-based astral projection technology. WP in not an appropriate venue for the promotion of obvious pseudoscience.

Your proposed additions are fringe, undo, OR synthesis, and I am sure also violate other WP policies and guidelines. Please stop. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't add anything about a "CIA coverup of headphone-based astral projection technology." You don't seem to have read the edit that you undid.

"[This article's] focus upon overlapping philosophical and theological concepts with an ample academic literature leaves little room [for your additions]"

The above is a very ironic statement, since the actual content of the edit I made was about the U.S. government's interest in the Absolute as a unifiying overlapping philosophical and theological concept, and not about a CIA-headphone cover-up or whatever you're talking about.

"Your proposed additions are fringe,"

I used CIA.gov as a source.

"undo"

I'm not sure if you are ordering me to "undo" my edit, or if you meant to write "undue." If the latter, perhaps. Make a case for it.

"OR synthesis"

Most of what I added are either direct quotes or close paraphrases of material from CIA.gov or VICE.com.

"and I am sure also violate other WP policies and guidelines."

Great. Since you're going to casually make such an accusation, please list all of them. BeatrixGodard (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

If you find it notable enough to be mentioned under an article on general philosophy concept, please include more reliable sources and scholarly discussions on such to support it’s due weight.

A single page of excerpt and two reports in pop journals is a bit too trivial to justify such a mention. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

A single page of excerpt

The document is 29 pages long, and the phrase the "the Absolute" occurs 30 times. That's more than once per page.

I hate to cite Wikipedia:Competence is required, but it seems valid here. I don't expect you to have read the entire source, but being able to count the number of pages before you comment on them is pretty basic stuff. BeatrixGodard (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA; Please demonstrate notability by providing media reports. Any government can write the word absolute for any amount of times in any document, it won’t justify an inclusion.

You might need to try and get the point. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I think it is fair to point out that you misrepresented the amount of pages in the source by a difference of 28. I think I was pretty nice about it.

I provided two articles. If you take issue with the articles, take issue with the articles, here. So far most of the issue taken is with information found in these articles that I have declined to include in the article, and not what I've actually included in the article. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You're trying to add the text to the article, so the burden of proof lays on you.

I just realized that the Wayback Machine page you linked is only 1 page long, while the full text is 29 pages.

Please justify why two reports from the same pop journal is notable for an inclusion of a single government report on a philosophical concept in general.

The point is "this doesn't seem like an encyclopedic addition to the article". 海盐沙冰 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The burden of proving what? If you mean that this content should be added, sure. If you mean something more specific, I will do my best with that as well.

I just realized that the wayback machine page you linked is only 1 page long

The Wayback Machine archive is also 29 pages.

Please justify why two reports from the same pop journal is notable for an inclusion of a single government report on a philosophical concept in general.

In brief, because this is the Wikipedia article on that philosophical concept in general.

Legato, because it is notable that multiple agencies of the U.S. government (Army Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency) have studied "the Absolute" as if it were a matter or practical importance, and this is the page for "the Absolute." BeatrixGodard (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I did indeed mean WP:UNDUE. Apologies for the typo. (It's not the first time!) However, since you're editing against consensus, I'm not going to elaborate any further. The whole frame of the secondary sources cited (which are effectively just one non-academic, non-scientific source) is an alleged government concealment of page 25 of a report written by a non-expert. I'm sure there's a place for this material somewhere on WP, but that place is not here. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

since you're editing against consensus, I'm not going to elaborate any further. [...]

Well, thank you for elaborating anyway, to the extent that you did. I do think that if you're going to make claims like I am sure [your proposed additions] also violate other WP policies and guidelines, you should have to be specific, since I can't defend myself against the accusation that I broke rules which you refuse to name.

The whole frame of the secondary sources cited (which are effectively just one non-academic, non-scientific source) is an alleged government concealment of page 25 of a report written by a non-expert.

I did not add that information to the article. I am not defending the addition of anything to the article which I did not already add to the article. I would appreciate if the editors who object to the additions I'm proposing to the article would keep their criticisms to those additions, and not to additions that I am not proposing to the article, even if you think that it would make your case easier to do so.

I will look for more sources, but I think that the bizarre effort made here to try to misrepresent the edits I've made to this article speak for themselves. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Your editing style is certainly very skillful for an account with such a low edit count. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not meant to be a complement. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The exclusion of important contextual information from your edits does not improve the situation. Readers should not have to click through and read the sources to learn that these claims were made by someone who believes that he has astral-projected by way of headphones.

As a general matter, it would help a lot if you oriented your talk comments more towards collaboratively improving the article and less in terms of demanding satisfaction from other editors.

That said, I do appreciate that you are making use of the talk page instead of edit-warring. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the basic idea of a general term called "the Absolute" presented in this page is basically the same as an "ultimate reality". I propose we merge the two articles under ultimate reality (a more general and neutral sounding term). Ultimate reality is defined in the main page of that article as "It refers to the most fundamental fact about reality, especially when it is seen as also being the most valuable fact." The Absolute as defined on this page is "an absolute perfect, self-sufficient reality that depends upon nothing external to itself." The ideas are pretty much the same and both refer to an ultimate and fundamental metaphysical ground or the most basic existent thing / things. Thus, the "absolute" and the ultimate is brahman in Hinduism, and it is God in Abrahamic religions, etc. All these ideas roughly correspond with the idea of Arche in Greek thought and Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) in Indian thought, but since these articles are about specific cultural and religious expressions of the concept, they should remain separate. Javier F.V.