User talk:Phlsph7

Your good article nomination of the article Cognition has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Magnesium Cube -- Magnesium Cube (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I like the way you make an image of File:Addition with carry.png. I hope I could create a similar image to the one you have made by myself, specifically for the counting section in Addition#Non-decimal. So how did you do it? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dedhert.Jr, I made the image using LibreOffice Calc (other spreadsheet software, like Microsoft Excel, would work as well) by zooming in and taking a screenshot. However, it would have been better to create an SVG image (for example, using Inkscape) to scales cleanly at any size. I could also give it a try if you have a clear idea of what image you need. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Inkscape is something I can use for now. But if you want to make the image that I need, can you make this one?

1 1 1 1 1 (carried digits)

0 1 1 0 1

+ 1 0 1 1 1

—————————————

1 0 0 1 0 0 = 36

You can see the real example that I cannot copy exactly in the given link, i.e, in Addition#Non-decimal. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: I gave it a try, does this work for you? I left out the "= 36" since I found it odd to have it for the sum but not for the addends. I can include it if you think it's important. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh. That's nice. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

A mere suggestion for the future. You seem to like contributing to philosophy articles which are wide in scope. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy from the 1960s has articles for philosophy by nation. American philosophy, British philosophy, French philosophy, German philosophy, Italian philosophy and so on. The Stanford Encyclopedia online might be more up to date, but unless I missed it, they do not have those articles. Only for non Europeans (eg Latin American philosophy) or for a narrow European topic (aesthetics in 17th century Britain, or whatever). I fear they think it would be "racist" or some other taboo to have a wide scope British philosophy article (but not Latin American). So, we could cover a subject the reliable Stanford ignored, which certainly has sources. Also, the wiki articles on these subjects exist but are rather thin. French and German don't go back as far as they should, to Alcuin of York and Gottschalk of Orbais and so on. Cake (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree, these would be good topics to work on. Our articles seem to follow primarily a historical outline, covering the topics century by century. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 7, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I saw you're working on Truth now, which reminded me of a conversation from before. I also see you're not in short supply of suggestions from other editors, but if you don't mind another one, Identity (philosophy) is in pretty bad shape. I was planning to get to it on my own, but real-life situations have slowed me down a lot, and my to-do list in real life and on Wikipedia is growing faster than I can keep up. If you find the time, it would be nice to see this article get some attention. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Farkle Griffen, I think we touched on the problem of identity when you were working on Equality (mathematics). There is also much to be done on Identity (philosophy), which is currently more or less a single-section article. I'm not sure when I will be able to address this. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you today for Political philosophy, introduced: "Political philosophy studies the theoretical and conceptual foundations of politics. It examines values guiding political decisions, political ideologies outlining desirable social arrangements, and the legitimacy of political institutions. This is a level-4 vital article with close to 300.000 page views last year."! - Thank you for more content to be featured soon! - - Happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7! I've been wanting to convert the citations in Sex–gender distinction to the shortened footnotes method, like you did in Normativity. Did you use a script or does it need to be done manually? Thanks :) Gmsrubin (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gmsrubin, I normally adjust the citation format while rewriting, so for Normativity, it was mostly manual. I have an old local script that can do part of the process automatically. However, it does not always work and requires that all references use "cite"-templates (cite book, cite journal, ...). Given that there are many with different formats (see below), it might be better to do it manually all the way since the script is not always reliable. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Forgive me for always having something to say, but since you are focused on truth, I had two problems there while editing the analytic philosophy article. One, do I put it with epistemology, or metaphysics? I started with it under epistemology, but truthmaker theory had me put it under metaphysics. I also think consistency between articles helps a reader. Should I move it back, or should the article on truth be cluttered with two infoboxes next to the introduction? Secondly, how to characterize Frege? On the one hand he is a deflationist, on the other hand he says the True is an object referred to by true sentences. Cake (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi MisterCake, I'm not sure that there is a clear answer to this question. Theories of truth are associated with both fields, with truthmaker theory probably more closely linked to metaphysics, while others may be closer to epistemology. So one way to decide would be to compare the weight of truthmaker theory to the other theories in this context. Regarding the article Truth, there should probably be no sidebar in the lead per WP:LEADSIDEBAR (I plan to address this when I get to the lead). However, there could be infobars on both fields at the bottom. There seem to be several sources on Frege's conception of truth, but I haven't had the time to work through them. One contentious point seems to be that Frege holds that sentences (only?) denote truth values. I'm not sure how his views fit into the spectrum of established theories of truth, but a condensed overview on analytic philosophy of truth probably does not need to go into this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

For the analytic philosophy article I had to shrug my shoulders and say Frege says truth doesn't exist, but also says truth is what sentences refer to. One could skirt the issue by only mentioning Ramsey, but Frege looms as large from what I understand. Basically the father of deflationism. And the truth article mentions a lot of continental thinkers who I doubt were as influential. Not like I am insisting on his mention but I thought it could be a problem. Cake (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

One solution would be to say something along the lines that Frege's philosophy "inspired" deflationism. This leaves it open whether he forms part of that school of thought. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

That could work. I think one worry there is a kind of wire-crossing, where a reader thinks Frege's views about sentences referring to the True is what influenced deflationism. Hence I settled on saying "On odd numbered Tuesdays, Frege was a deflationist." Cake (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Dualism is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shapeyness -- Shapeyness (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Dualism has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shapeyness -- Shapeyness (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you today for Aesthetics, introduced as "the branch of philosophy that studies beauty, taste, and art. It examines what makes something aesthetically valuable and how to interpret the meaning of artworks"! Thank you also for more quality content, - amazing! - I began to translate Bernhard Waldenfels, because I was sure he deserved to be mentioned, but now struggle with the terminology of philosophy even in German. Help would be velcome! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm not familiar with Bernhard Waldenfels in particular, but if you have more general terminological questions, I could look into them. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll do so when I get to it - have so far only touched where he worked from when to when, not what. Would you find anything in English, - translations into English are mentioned. I'm on vacation, and my (possibly only) topic today is a pianist, Tamás Vásáry, - we have a few more days for the philosopher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

A reader who knows German might get an idea from the titles of his book. Here are the titles selected on the German Wikipedia. For those where I think a translation of the title might help I give my tentative one in brackets, and you could check if it might work, and offer a better one following it, for me to compare and learn. I'd be most interested in the first, the last, and in how to express "Fremde" (the strange, the foreign, the alien ...) and "Leiblichkeit" best, which recur.

• Das sokratische Fragen (Socratic Questioning), Meisenheim: A. Hain 1961
• Das Zwischenreich des Dialogs. Sozialphilosophische Untersuchungen in Anschluß an E. Husserl, Den Haag: M. Nijhoff 1971 (Japanese. 1986)
• Der Spielraum des Verhaltens, Suhrkamp 1980 (in Japanese 1987)
• Phänomenologie in Frankreich, Suhrkamp 1983
• In den Netzen der Lebenswelt (In the Nets of the Experienced World / Living Environment), Suhrkamp 1985, 1994 (in Serbo-Croatian 1991)
• Ordnung im Zwielicht, Suhrkamp 1987 (in English by David J. Parent: Order in the Twilight, 1996)
• Der Stachel des Fremden (The Sting of the Strange / Foreign) , Suhrkamp 1990, 1998 (in Slowenian and Czech 1998)
• Einführung in die Phänomenologie, Fink 1992 (in Spanish 1997, Korean 1998, Ukrainian 2002)
• Antwortregister (Response Register), Suhrkamp 1994
• Deutsch-Französische Gedankengänge, Suhrkamp 1995
• Topographie des Fremden – Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 1 (Topography of the Foreign – Studies to the Phenomenology of the Foreign 1), Suhrkamp 1997 (in Polish 2002, Ukrainian 2004, French 2009)
• Grenzen der Normalisierung (Limits of Normalisation) – Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 2, Suhrkamp 1998 (in Hungarian 2005)
• Sinnesschwellen (Sensory Thresholds) – Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 3, Suhrkamp 1999
• Vielstimmigkeit der Rede (Polyphony of speech) – Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 4, Suhrkamp 1999
• Das leibliche Selbst. Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des Leibes. (The Physical Self. Lectures on the Phenomenology of the Body), edited by Regula Giuliani. Suhrkamp, 2000 (in Japanese 2004)
• Verfremdung der Moderne (Alienation of Modernity), Wallstein 2001
• Bruchlinien der Erfahrung (Fractured Lines of Experience), Suhrkamp 2002
• Spiegel, Spur und Blick. Zur Genese des Bildes. (Mirror, Trace and Gaze. On the Genesis of the Image), Salon Verlag 2003
• Findigkeit des Körpers (Cleverness of the Body), Norderstedt: Books on Demand 2004
• Phänomenologie der Aufmerksamkeit (Phenomenology of Attentiveness), Suhrkamp 2004
• Idiome des Denkens. Deutsch-Französische Gedankengänge II, Suhrkamp (2005)
• Grundmotive einer Phänomenologie des Fremden, Suhrkamp 2006 (in Polish 2009)
• Schattenrisse der Moral (Shadow Silhouettes of Morality), Suhrkamp 2006
• Philosophisches Tagebuch. Aus der Werkstatt des Denkens 1980–2005, Fink 2008.
• Ortsverschiebungen, Zeitverschiebungen: Modi leibhaftiger Erfahrung (Shifts in Place, Shifts in Time: Modes of Embodied Experience), Suhrkamp 2009.
• Sinne und Künste im Wechselspiel: Modi ästhetischer Erfahrung, Suhrkamp 2010.
• Hyperphänomene: Modi hyperbolischer Erfahrung, Suhrkamp 2012.
• Sozialität und Alterität: Modi sozialer Erfahrung. (Sociality and Alterity: Modes of Social Experience) Suhrkamp 2015.
• Platon: Zwischen Logos und Pathos. Suhrkamp 2017.
• Erfahrung, die zur Sprache drängt. Studien zur Psychoanalyse und Psychotherapie aus phänomenologischer Sicht. (Experience that Demands to be Expressed. Studies on Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy from a Phenomenological Perspective), Suhrkamp 2019.
• Reisetagebuch eines Phänomenologen: Aus den Jahren 1978–2019. Ergon Verlag, Baden-Baden 2020.
• Globalität, Lokalität, Digitalität. Herausforderungen der Phänomenologie. (Globality, Locality, Digitality. Challenges of Phenomenology.) Suhrkamp 2022.

Thank you in advance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I found a few titles translated, "Fremde" as both "other" and "alien". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should provide our own translations of book titles. Maybe there are more specific guidelines on this, but my approach would be to only include a translation if the book was actually translated, in which case we can just use the title of the translated work. It might be different for an in-depth discussion of one particular work where understanding the title is central for the explanation, but we are dealing here with a list. Friesen 2014 (https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pandpr/index.php/pandpr/article/view/20640/16462) mentions a few titles of translated works.

If you want to go ahead and translate the titles anyway, one approach would be to go through works that have already been translated and see if they use the relevant expressions as technical terms and how they translate them. For example, Friesen 2014 translates "Ortsverschiebungen, Zeitverschiebungen: Modi leibhaftiger Erfahrung" as "Displacements of place and time: Modes of embodied experience" rather than "Shifts in Place, Shifts in Time: Modes of Embodied Experience". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear. I don't want to actually add the translated titles to the article, - I only want to understand his principal thinking better and how to speak about in (in prose) in English. I believe I did what you recommended: I looked and found titles that were translated in that Friesen essay (which I meant when I said "I found a few titles translated"), two as books, and a few more in the journal, and I added those to the article. I can take it from there when I'll go on to translate what the German article offers about his work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I translated that section now. The lead summary comes as "Central themes of his writing are questions and answers, as well as phenomenological studies on experience, foreignness or otherness, and physicality." - The only link that pleases me is experience, linking precisely to how that term is thought about in philosophy. I would not know one for the questions and answers (Responsivität), nor an equivalent to the German de:Fremde, and I think that the philosophical de:Leib is not really the same thing as Mind–body problem, or is it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, finding good wikilinks for those could be challenging. We have the articles Alterity and Other (philosophy) in regard to otherness, but I don't know if they match the meaning that Waldenfels associates with the term. As I understand it, German phenomenology uses the term Leib for the experienced or lived body, in contrast to the term Körper denoting the physical body. So Leib does not fit our articles Mind–body problem and Human body very well. When in doubt, no wikilink is probably better than a misleading wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - that helped! - What can we do about the interwiki-connection of de:Leib and en:Mind-body problem? - I have trouble with the DYK nomination for him, in case of interest, - haven't looked today yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I used those in the lead - please check. Any link for philosophical questions and answers, as in the title of his dissertation, and Antwortkatalog? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It's probably best to remove the interwikilink between de:Leib and en:Mind-body problem. We have the article Question. It covers the topic mostly in a linguistic sense, which could be different from Waldenfels' approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, - could you do that, please. I somehow lost access to Wikidata. - Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I fixed the interwikilink. Congratulations on the four biographies! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

hi! just wondering in case you didn't see it but ^[who?] templates were added to the aesthetics article, i removed an unnecessary cn template but checking the online source and google books page i didn't notice any specific reference to particularists or universalists. hope you're well!--Plifal (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Plifal and thanks for the note! I reformulated the expressions to avoid the concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

appreciated! excellent work by the way!! i'm, like, totally in awe at your consistent high-quality output of fa vital articles in summary style.--Plifal (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I would have given a full review of the above article were it not for my forthcoming examinations. I may make a revision or two in the future if I spot an error. Good luck with your nomination. MSincccc (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Some of my nominations take several months before someone reviews them, so chances are that this one will still be around for a while. Good luck with your exams! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

On 13 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cognition, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are cognitions about cognitions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cognition. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cognition), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm toying with the idea of taking the plunge and reviewing your Formal semantics (natural language) GAN. I was just wondering whether you'd be able to provide copies or quotes of offline sources for the spot-check, because I'm assuming that's what's deterring most people from picking it up. JustARandomSquid (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi JustARandomSquid, the article has been waiting for a long time in the review queue, so it would be great to get some feedback. I think I have access to most of the offline sources, so it should be possible to look up the relevant passages or to send you some documents. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Formal semantics (natural language) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of JustARandomSquid -- JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

On 18 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dualism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that epistemological dualism posits a fundamental division between experience and reality? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dualism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dualism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 12:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm contacting the members of WikiProject AI Tools because there is a related discussion about creating help pages on using such tools on Wikipedia. You are invited. It's at Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Planning help for AI workflows. See you there!    — The Transhumanist   14:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Phlsph7! You have done an immense favor to the philosophy community by working on various philosophical articles and making them truly brilliant.

If you are accepting suggestions for the future, would you consider turning the free will article into Good Article? It is a Level 3 Vital Article, it has a large number of monthly visits, and it is one of the most misrepresented (relative to the academic discourse) topics in the popular (non-academic) philosophy. Additionally, it is one of the last Level 3 Vital Articles about philosophy specifically that isn't yet a GA. Turning it into a high-quality article would do an immense service to a whole lot of people. ~2026-12422-09 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the feedback! I agree, the article free will would be an interesting candidate. I put it on my todo list but I don't know when I'll get to it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Nihilism has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 April 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Formal semantics (natural language) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of JustARandomSquid -- JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Got over the hump of contributing to a GA philosophy article with Heraclitus. I would greatly appreciate if you had any comments or improvements. Cake (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi MisterCake, congratulations on getting the article to GA status! The review dragged on for quite a while, so it's good to see that it has reached a conclusion. A few observations:

• One question already raised in the GA review concerns the length of the legacy section regarding WP:PROPORTION. It could probably be shortened by removing remarks that philosopher X wrote a sentence that mentions Heraclitus or resembles something Heraclitus said, such as the remarks about Diogenes the Cynic, Descartes, and Husserl. If the legacy section really is that important that it should fill half of the article, then this should probably be reflected in the lead as well, which currently only has a single sentence on the legacy and primarily discusses Heraclitus's philosophy.
• You could also try to focus the life section more on Heraclitus rather than presenting contextual information (like the first paragraph on the history of Ephesus) and evaluative anecdotes (like the third paragraph).
• Given that all the information in the section "Foreign influence" is highly speculative, I'm not sure that it deserves a full section with several subsections. Maybe the main points could be condensed into a paragraph and moved to another section. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• All good points but ones I will go back and forth on how to address. More about his life would always be welcome. I do think it is required to mention Miletus fell hence philosophy moves on from there. On Legacy, I wish I had something better to say about Descartes, since he would link Montaigne with Spinoza. Diogenes the same, as the Cynics were majorly influenced by Heraclitus. The original homeless philosopher. Husserl's quote I find already significant, for he talks a lot about the mind. The foreign influence is indeed speculative, but a major part of especially earlier Heraclitus studies. It was part of my attempt to cover all the interpretations. I tried to provide that. One could absorb it into the article, like in the fire section mention the potential Persian influence. But since that is more speculative, I like its own section. The Persia and Egypt parallels seem necessary to reference. The India parallels seem a bit more vague to me, but seem justified by the other two. PS It might be original research, so I did not include it, but Frege references "morning star and evening star" which comes from the entry on Pythagoras in Diogenes Laertius, and he says "The discovery that the rising sun is not new every morning, but always the same, was one of the most fertile astronomical discoveries." Surely a Heraclitus reference. Cake (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  For more on his life, you could try the life sections of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry (in case you have access). It might be good to mention somewhere in this section that Heraclitus wrote a book. One way to assess WP:PROPORTION is to look at how much weight other overview sources give to a specific topic, like legacy and foreign influences. The two sources just mentioned give significantly less weight to these topics than our article. If you decide to keep the references to Husserl and the other two, you could try to present them in such a way that they do not sound like trivia. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  Graham's Stanford article and Graham's work was used throughout. In fact I emailed him to make sure I cite his preferred journal article on Heraclitus (the one about him being a process philosopher). I also have a paper copy of Laertius. Long's Routledge entry looks really interesting, but I do not have access. Are there any known biographical details I am missing? The one supposed fact about his life, that he renounced some aristocratic life, is likely based on him saying "the Kingdom is a child's", as the article notes. Other depictions of his life like as a lonely wanderer eating shrubs seems again inferred from the fragments. The article notes how he gets confused for a Pythagorean vegetarian since he condemned blood sacrifice. Cake (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  The following are the first two paragraphs of the Routledge entry, have a look if that has something useful.

  Heraclitus appears to have spent his life in Ephesus, which had been founded as a Greek colony some 200 years before his birth. According to ancient biography he was an arrogant and surly aristocrat, given to eccentric behaviour, but these anecdotes are largely a fictional construction built out of his own words, in which the tone he adopts in relation to other people is contemptuous. Rather than viewing this as a psychological trait, it is better to treat it as an extreme instance of the way early Greek poets and sages claimed authority for their work. Heraclitus, however, is exceptional in the explicit contempt he expresses for such hallowed authorities as Homer and Hesiod, and also for the contemporary intellectuals Xenophanes, Hecataeus and Pythagoras. He may have been on bad terms with his fellow citizens for political reasons, including perhaps support he received from King Darius of Persia, and it is likely that he was opposed to the democratic constitutions some Greek communities were beginning to adopt.

  Although Heraclitus presents himself as uniquely enlightened, he was clearly familiar with the leading thinkers of his time. He draws attention to the relativity of judgments and the difference between humans and animals in ways that recall Xenophanes’ critique of religious beliefs (see Xenophanes §3). He almost certainly knew and rejected Pythagoras’ doctrine of the transmigration of souls (see Pythagoras §2). His cosmology is both indebted to and a criticism of Milesian science: the criticism appears particularly in his denial of the world’s beginning, but his focus on the law-like processes of nature has clear affinities with Anaximander’s celebrated doctrine of cosmic justice (see Anaximander §4).

  Phlsph7 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am jealous of Long's ability to write. I think I covered everything in that first paragraph. He was arrogant. He was un-democratic if not aristocratic. He dislikes everyone. In fact I would say "including perhaps support he received from King Darius of Persia" is chalked up to the "foreign influence" section, proving its worth.

  The second paragraph is really interesting for its talk of Heraclitus's influences. It would be neat to draw a parallel between Heraclitus and Xenophanes, as the two transitional figures between the Milesians and what comes after. I guess one can see it in that they both talk about animals being contrasted with God. That seems a possible addition to the God section. Opposing Pythagoras on transmigration seems a possible addition to the Soul section. The Anaximander influence on justice (though more in opposition) is mentioned in the strife section. I am struggling for what to add from this to the biography section. He basically has no biography, but a ton of influence, hence the article done that way.

  PS There are mereological interpretations of the philosophers after Heraclitus. One can say the Eleatics, the pluralists, and the atomists, believed respectively in nothing has parts, everything has parts, and something has no parts. I wonder if there are any interpretations of Heraclitus as the transitional figure, from Milesian material monism to mereology. Perhaps one could say Heraclitus said there were no wholes. Heraclitus says things are both "whole and not whole", and Laertius specifically uses "the whole flows" when summarizing his philosophy. Cake (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Saw your User:Phlsph7/SpellGrammarSuggestions and User:Phlsph7/SpellGrammarSuggestionsList. You may or may not be interested in User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourcerySpell.js and User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Spell.js. Polygnotus (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

My story today is about Bernhard Waldenfels. Remember? Thank you again for your help with philosophy language! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. - I really should say thee topics, because I did almost nothing for Habermas, but I was willing if there were still open tasks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You should join Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. You are one of the best contributor at WP. ~2026-16285-41 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-16285-41 and thanks for the suggestion! I plan to participate but I haven't yet decided which article to work on. I'll probably write an entry sometime next month. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see. Hopefully that Nothing is also at your to do list since It has philosophy content. ~2026-16515-57 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, that would be an interesting candidate. I'll look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

On 20 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Formal semantics (natural language), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that formal semantics uses logic and mathematics to study language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Formal semantics (natural language). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Formal semantics (natural language)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)