Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Existence/archive1

Existence

Existence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 7 June 2024, 12:46 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Existence/archive1

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Existence is the state of having reality. Often contrasted with essence, it is a wide and fundamental concept associated with various tricky problems, such as the status of imaginary entities like Santa Claus. Thanks to Of the universe for their GA review, to Jenhawk777, Bilorv, and Patrick Welsh for their peer reviews, and to Baffle gab1978 for their GOCE copy-edit of this level 4 vital article.

750h

• I have read through this article twice and have not seen any obvious problems. Expressing my support of this nomination. I love the examples used, such as "kangaroos live in Australia", which facilitate the reader’s experience. I’m happy to have been the GA reviewer of the Ethics article and hope to see it here sometime soon :-). 750h+ | Talk  04:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @750h+: Thanks a lot for the support! I'm working to get Ethics ready for a nomination and I'll let you know, hopefully after this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Shapeyness

Another great summary article on a massive topic like existence :) These are the only comments I have after reading through, I expect to support when they are cleared up but I might also make some more comments if I look through the source list. Shapeyness (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I'm happy to see that you haven't become tired of reviewing those wide-scope articles :) and your background on Quine should prove quite useful for this topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Willard Van Orman Quine (1908–2000) defends a different position by giving primacy to singular existence maybe it would be useful to say why, e.g. "arguing that general existence can also be expressed in terms of individual existence"

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• According to this view, a universal that has no instances in the spacio-temporal world does not exist optionally, this could be simplified by removing reference to the "spacio-temporal world" (if you decide to keep, should it be spatio-temporal?)

  I fixed the spelling but I left the term. I'm not sure how relevant the concern is but one universal could instantiate another universial without either of them existing in space and time. I don't think Aristotelians would be happy about that kind of existence so this way, we have our bases covered. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Right so this is actually a slightly more cautious wording, I didn't realise that at first. Shapeyness (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Abstract objects ... exist outside space and time the use of a spatial concept ("outside") here is unfortunate, although it gets the idea across pretty well. Maybe "do not exist with a location in space and time"/"do not have a location in space and time" would also work?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• On the relationship between abstract and fictional objects - in the source this seems more of a passing comment or something to keep in mind rather than an important point in its own right, do you think it is due weight to include? Maybe it would be better to discuss fictional objects more holistically in their own subsection or in "Modes and degrees of existence" given fictional objects are generally thought to exist or to have being in a different way

  That was more of an intermediary solution since I thought that fictional objects should be mentioned but I didn't want to give them their own section. I added a subsection called "Others" to discuss them in more detail. I also used the opportunity to add some information on intentional inexistence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Physical entities include objects of regular perception given the later reference to perceptions being mental objects, I see it being quite easy for a reader to get confused here by not realising the subtlety of the word choice (objects of perception, not perception itself). Also, idealists and indirect realists would argue the objects of perception are mental, so maybe best to reword.

  Good catch. The reference to perception was not essential here so I rephrased it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• For instance, according to Gibson, a thing either exists or does not exist; this means there is no in-between alternative and that there are no degrees of existence This was very famously argued by Quine in "On What There Is". It is probably better to remove this sentence or put Quine here instead, or at the very least add a supporting secondary source here to demonstrate the importance of Gibson's argument

  Agreed, Quine would have been the better person to ascribe this view to. The main point of this phrase was not so much to talk about Gibson's or Quine's philosophy but to give the reader an idea about what this position means. I found a way to phrase the sentence differently that does not require attribution. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that makes the most sense I think, Quine is already well covered elsewhere. Shapeyness (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• On the previous point, when Gibson is first mentioned he is cited there too, do the secondary sources mention him in regards to existence being an elementary concept?

  Vallicella discusses him but the essential point is the view itself and not that Gibson in particular defends it so I removed his name. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think keeping reference to Gibson is harmful if RSes think they are important enough to mention in this context, just wanted to check. Either way is fine though. Shapeyness (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) explored how being and nothing pass into one another in the process of becoming This is slightly confusing, although maybe it's because I don't know much about Hegel
  • Sorry, Phlsph7, I didn't get back to you on this before peer review ended. I was looking at the Rosen again, just because it is a source you chose, and found additional support for my suggestion about internal mediation on p. 93. But perhaps more appropriate for an article at this level would be something quite simply along the lines of "According to G. W. F. Hegel, there is no pure being or pure nothing, only becoming." This is enough to provide a little bit of the flavor of Hegel's thought to someone with no background in philosophy. It's also such a bare description of the opening of the logic that it would be supported by just about any secondary source that discusses that section. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

    I implemented your suggestion and adjusted the page numbers, though I'm not sure whether it solves Shapeyness's concern. For whoever is interested, there was already a lengthy discussion during the peer review on how or whether to mention Hegel. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

    @Patrick Welsh: would becoming (philosophy) redirect to the right concept, might be worth a link in that sentence if so. Shapeyness (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

    I haven't read Whitehead, who is the primary subject of that article, but it sounds as though he took some inspiration from Hegel but departed on some fundamentals (e.g., his Aristotelian commitments). A wikilink on that term would probably be confusing to readers.

    "Dialectic" is a term that I think means less than some some scholars admit. In this case, however, it might be useful as a modifier to distinguish Hegel's views from at least some other accounts of becoming. Something like only a dialectic of becoming. Hegelian dialectic is an okay section of Dialectic, and it links out to the relevant section of Hegel for anyone who wants a more integrated account.

    As I said in the peer review, however, while I think that it's entirely appropriate to mention Hegel in this article, I don't think it is necessary. If it's a problem, I wouldn't object to its removal.

    Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Eastern philosophy is given slightly less space than western philosophy in the history section, that may be justified but just checking

  There would be many ways to expand that section but if we strictly followed the weight given to these views in the overview sources, we would probably have to reduce the section rather than expand it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• There is some sandwiching of text in the history section on my screen - choosing shorter images or using |upright for narrow images might help
  • FYI I reduced the sandwiching in the Eastern philosophy section, but there is still some between Aristotle and Anselm of Canterbury which I'm not sure how to deal with. Shapeyness (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

    I reduced the image sizes but depending on the display device, the problems may remain. We could use the clear-template but that is also not ideal since it creates white spaces. Maybe it's just too many images in the history section so we could remove one or two. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

    @Phlsph7: What do you think of this. It removes most of the sandwiching and the article keeps an extra image. Shapeyness (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

    That looks like a good solution and it has the additional advantage of covering Plato in addition to Aristotle. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses so far! Comments on sources below. Shapeyness (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The American Heritage Dictionary Entry: Existence" - should the title be simply "Existence"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Aho 2021 - this needs editor details

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• SEP entries - (optional one) some specify the location in both Citations and Sources, would it be better to remove it from Sources

  I agree, I removed the locations from the full source templates. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Ásta 2017 - this needs editor details

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Borchert Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries are inconsistent - some refer to it as Encyclopedia of Philosophy and others as Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, some have the subtitle (e.g. Oakeshott - Presupposition) and others don't, some have publisher Thomson Gale, Macmillan and others just Macmillan

  I fixed them by following how title and publisher appear in the book. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• A number of sources have the volume number in the book title, I think they should be in the volume field instead

  I hope I got all of them. I left it for Balthasar 2000 since the volume has its own subtitle, which is not possible to include in volume parameter of the template. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Borchert Encyclopedia of Philosophy is still inconsistent on this (volume in book title or volume field). Shapeyness (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• "Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers" - this is already ok but are there any even better sources

  I replaced it with better sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Existential Sociology" in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology - authors listed here are wrong, I guess they are editors? Also, the doi leads to an old version, is everything you need also in the newer version?

  I replaced it with the newer version and fixed the details. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Some journal articles are missing ISSNs

  Done. I hope I got them all. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Ontology" in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy - Honderich is the editor, is he also the author of this entry?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• It would be useful for some of the works by famous 20th century philosophers (e.g. Camus, Husserl) to have the original publication date too, for Camus should a translator be there too

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Kim 2006 - "Boulder: Westview Press" I think should just be "Westview Press"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Lowe 2005 - editor details might be useful here

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Magnus 2005 - contains location of publication etc when other books don't

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Smith, Mulligan & Simons 2013 - missing chapter/entry details I think

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Van Inwagen - inconsistent capitalisation

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• There are also many chapters from edited collections that are cited to the entire book/editors rather than the individual chapter author, I can add a list of the ones I noticed if that's useful.

  Thanks for catching this, I have to be more careful in the future when citing from edited collections. I went through the sources but I'm not sure that I got all so it might be good to cross-check with your list. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  You got all the ones I noticed! Shapeyness (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion: this article covers everything I would expect, and checking against overview sources I can't see any major points that aren't covered. I think there is space for the Eastern philosophy section to be expanded some more without unbalancing the article or causing it to become overlong but it's not neglected as is. Overall, it is a well-written article that meets all the FA criteria. Shapeyness (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the support and all the insightful suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Prose and image review by Generalissima

I don't know how you do it Phlsph, you are amazing at both prose and sourcing for these extremely ethereal concepts. The layout of this article makes sense, and you do a good job breaking up the topic in a way that someone who might not know very much about ontology can understand.

@Generalissima: Thanks a lot for doing this review and for your kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Lede is good; my only concern is that instantiated might be a bit too obscure a term for the lede, where generally we want to distill concepts down to a very easy to understand level.

  I've been struggling for a while to get this passage right, I hope the new version is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Much better! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Definition and related terms is good, see no prose issues here.
• Types of existing entities is also good.
• Modes and degrees of existence, Theories of the nature of existence, History, In various disciplines are all good.

And then in regards for images:

• I'm a bit confused by your linking of certain names in image captions and not others; is there a MoS guideline I have overlooked on this? Nothing on MOS:CAPTIONS seems to indicate it.

  I'm not aware of any guideline. It's probably best to follow consistency and just link all. I hope I didn't miss any this time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Almost all pictures here are public domain due to their antiquity, and those that aren't are own work and CC licensed:
  • Existential quantifier.svg - Own work, good to go.
  • Avicenna lithograph - cropped.png and Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli.png - Public domain, good.
  • File:Bellerophon riding Pegasus and killing the Chimera, Roman mosaic, the Rolin Museum in Autun, France, 2nd to 3rd century AD.jpg - Public domain.
  • File:Bertrand Russell 1949.jpg - Creative commons.
  • File:Alexius Meinong 1900.jpg - Public domain.
  • "The School of Athens" by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino (cropped).jpg - Public domain.
  • Anselm of Canterbury2.png - Public domain.
  • Franz Brentano in Vienna, 1875.png - Public domain.
  • Raja Ravi Varma - Sankaracharya - cropped.png - Public domain.
  • Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg - Published under CC, statue itself obviously public domain.
• All have alt-text.

And that's all for know. Happy to say I don't see anything else that needs fixing! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Support on image and prose review. The changes have resolved my only concerns here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Given how broad this topic is, I can't vouch much on the completeness of coverage. Does "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" have a publisher? Is it just my impression or are we using solely Western publishers? Spot-check upon request. Otherwise, nothing jumps out to me as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! In their suggested citation style at [1], the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not mention a publisher. Concerning non-Western publishers, the problem is similar to the one we encountered in other philosophy articles where Western publishers dominate the field of high-quality academic English sources. I added several sources by non-Western publishers to the section "Eastern philosophy" to have at least all the main claims there covered by a non-Western source. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does the article pass the source review? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if there is African philosophy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I just added a short paragraph in response to voorts's review, see my comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you have the impression that your main concerns have been addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, with the caveat about completeness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

voorts

Ceci n'est pas une critique. Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello voorts and thanks for reviewing this nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have been making (and will continue to make) copy edits throughout the course of my review. If you disagree with any of them, I am happy to discuss.
• The lead does not adequately summarize the entire article. It devotes an entire paragraph to the debate over whether existence is a first- or second-order property and gives short shrift to the rest of the article.

  I tried to address this point by expanding the paragraph on types while presenting it before the paragraph on first- and second-order theories. The overview sources give considerable weight to these theories so I think one lead paragraph is justified, but maybe its length could be further reduced. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think the History section should also be summarized in the lead. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Suggested clarification: Dictionaries define Eexistence ias the state of being real, and to exist meansas to have being or to participate in reality.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• When you introduce a person, it would be helpful to give some information about them. For example, {{green|According to the Austrian philosopher Alexius Meinong (1853–1920){{nbsp}...}}.

  Done, I hope I didn't miss any. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Recommend merging the paragraph about Husserl's view into the end of the paragraph beginning with The terms "being", "reality", and "actuality" ....

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Recommend moving the paragraph beginning with Disputes about the nature of existence are reflected ... to below the paragraph mentioned directly above.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Recommend merging the paragraph beginning with According to some philosophers, there is a difference between entities ... with the paragraph on the contrast between existence and essence.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• For example, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character in Arthur Conan Doyle's book A Study in Scarlet and the One Ring is a fictional object in J. R. R. Tolkien's book The Lord of the Rings. Would you mind picking one non-Western example?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

More to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• According to this view, existence is more fundamental than regular properties because without it, objects cannot instantiate any properties. If existence is a second-order property, then aren't regular (first-order) properties more fundamental? I'm also not sure how that follows from the previous sentence.

  The basic idea is that a thing can't have properties if it does not exist. According to Nelson 2022, "instantiating any property whatsoever presupposes existence and so existence is not a further property over and above a thing’s genuine properties", meaning that regular properties "conceptually presuppose" existence. Strictly speaking, Nelson 2022 presents this as an argument against first-order theories and only uses this later to motivate second-order theories so I adjusted our formulation accordingly. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to Eastern and Western philosophy, is there anything to add about Indigenous American philosophy and African philosophy?

  Done. They are not covered by the overview sources that I'm aware of so we need to keep this part brief to avoid WP:UNDUE. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are there any specific philosophers in those traditions that can be discussed? Additionally, I think that feminist philosophy and Afro-pessimism should probably be included in the "In various disciplines" section. Finally, are there any other philosophical traditions that you can think of that ought to be covered here? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  These traditions don't have much of a written history and the sources cited mostly talk about general positions. We could try to find some contemporary representatives, but, as far as I'm aware, they are not particularly well-known.

  In deciding which philosophical traditions or theories to mention to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion, I usually rely on overview sources, as recently discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive93#How_to_assess_comprehensiveness_of_wide-scope_articles. My impression is that we have them covered as it is.

  I found a way to include feminism in the paragraph on existentialism. I'm not sure what to do about Afro-pessimism. If you can point me to an overview source that explicitly makes this connection then I can have a look. However, we have to be careful about continually expanding this article with minor topics since this would probably not result in overall improvements to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not weighing in on this nomination (although I do wish some action were taken on my PR suggestion that the status of social institutions – such as money and the nation state – deserves attention in the article).

  Since it has come up again, however, I'll just offer that I would support reopening the general discussion linked above—perhaps in a more binding format.

  Even high-quality tertiary sources are often written by non-experts in the general field—and even those entries by experts are reviewed by the editor(s), rather than subject-matter experts not in the position of having directly solicited the submission (from people that they usually know personally/professionally).

  To be clear, such sources are way, way, way better than bare-minimum RS. It is my newbie opinion, however, that what they do, or do not, include should never count as the final word in a FA nomination, especially in cases concerning non-Western or otherwise underrepresented groups.

  Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input. Given that the discussion was about the inclusion of Afro-pessimism, I assume that your elaborations were intended as an argument in favor of it since here is not the right place to restart a recently-closed general discussion of FA criteria and Wikipedia policies. I'm not in priniple against including Afro-pessimism, but I haven't had luck in finding reliable sources for this and I don't want to claim in the article that there is an important connection if we can't verify it.

  By the way, I followed your suggestion and expanded the list of examples of social kinds in the section "Others" with "money" and "nation state". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I commented only because a conversation in which I took part was invoked as if it established a consensus that I fail to see. Since the issue has come up in multiple nominations without (as far as I can see) being resolved, it seems like it might be worth pursuing further in a more general forum.

  As to Afro-pessimism, I agree with you that the onus is on the editor making the suggestion to show that there is a relevant literature that is not being represented.

  The mention in Others of money and the nation state is not really responsive to my suggestion. My recollection is that the PR had been open for several weeks and was closed out before we had a chance to discuss. If you are still interested, I would be happy to expand on the talk page once the FAC process is complete.

  Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• In the paragraph on existentialism, you should at least cite the major existentialists (e.g., Kierkegaard, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Nietzsche), since this is a broad-concept article and readers would likely be looking for those names.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

One more comment. Per ELNO #1, the references in further reading (except for Aristotle) should be either cited in the article or moved to the talk page using {{refideas}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I decided to remove all of them since the article is not short on good sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

One more minor point:

• The last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead should be reworked as the first sentence to follow the structure of the article (history comes before various disciplines).

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise, support on 1a, 1c-e, 2, and 4; weak support on comprehensiveness. I still need to think through this question of what types of sources should be used to satisfy comprehensiveness w/r/t broad concept articles, but I agree that Afro-pessimism probably doesn't need to be in there at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I have a current FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Addie Viola Smith/archive1, if you have time to take a look (it would also be a pretty easy source review). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the support. I'll see what I can do about that source review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to check whether this nomination is ready to be closed. It is 32 days old, has image and source reviews, and 4 supports. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Big topic! I would prefer to see another comprehensive review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my peer review was conducted with the content-comprehensiveness criterion of FAC foremost in mind, and – in contrast to the equally general knowledge nomination – I found few causes for concern.

It is still my judgment that such a general article on existence should more directly address the status of social institutions. In particular, to whatever extent language shapes our basic sense of reality, how is this not discussed? It has certainly been overstated, but I do not think it can be, on that account, overlooked. More generally, we overwhelmingly live in the domain of a socially established "second nature", which is a concept with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Aristotle. I don't recall this getting much attention in my readings of the pre-FAC version of the article. What I read a few times in the course of doing the PR did not do justice to my satisfaction to this, in my considered judgment, crucial dimension of existence.

(Edit: my other suggestions, you will see were largely adopted.)

I'm willing to read the current version, however, and elaborate a little more on what I think is missing (assuming it's still missing) so that my review can be, as much as possible, assessed by non-philosophers. Perhaps it is fringe in a way that I simply do not see!

My concern is only to not again become involved in the kind of unproductive meta-debates that threw the knowledge nomination off the rails. During that review and subsequent conversation, multiple editors mentioned that the concerns I raised should have been addressed in PR, and I've tried to take the cue and weigh in there instead. But if another content-based review of this article might help avoid a second nomination not likely to attract additional reviewers, I'd be happy to go over it again. If I ask for something unreasonable, however, other reviewers and silent watchers need to please speak up. I have no desire to hold the status of this or any other article hostage. Patrick (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see what you have to say regarding the current version of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your expression of interest! In view of recent history, however, I am going to wait for input from FAC coordinators. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I slightly expanded the current discussion of social kinds/institutions and mentioned the theory that language influences/determines how humans perceive the world. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I somehow misread this as a suggestion to restart the whole nomination process, which seemed to me not a great idea. (Sorry, all!)

Wanting a fresh perspective on the current nomination process makes much better sense. A solicitation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy might yield a new set of eyes.

In any case, it's not likely I would have anything to add to my comments already visible to !voting participants.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions, @Phlsph7:. I think they improve the article, even just down near the bottom. I gave it another read and, as expected, have little more to add, with only one or two points that could be a content issue:

• In the lead, shouldn't the essence of an entity are its essential features or qualities be the essence of an entity is its essential...? This reads to me as wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's ungrammatical.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merriam-Webster (2024). "Definition of Existence". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. is not a high-quality source supporting According to some idealists, this may apply to all of reality. The other two, however, should be fine on their own.

  This source was mainly added for the first part of that passage: Existence is commonly associated with mind-independent reality.... I moved it to cover only that part. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Kierkegaard and Nietzsche predate the term/movement "existentialism", and Camus did not accept the label for himself.

  They are commonly categorized as existentialists. The names of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were explicitly requested above so I kept them but I removed Camus. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Should there be a discussion of Aristotle's concept of entelechy? It was important for Leibniz and a lot of late modern German thought, where it was often elaborated in organic metaphors. Put differently, does the article discuss the existence of "real potentialities", such as that of an (actually existing) acorn to become an oak? The acorn not an oak, but it still has that potential, which a tulip bulb, for instance, does not.

This comes up briefly in "Modes and degrees of existence", but it's associated only with Platonic forms. And then an argument against it gets more lines of exposition than the original claim. I would just suggest this position deserves a little bit more of a hearing. (I wasn't reading the article with this specifically in mind, so maybe the issue is already addressed and I just missed it.)

The contrast between potentiality and actuality is mentioned in the discussion of Aristotle in the history section. I added a footnote to expand the explanation and use the acorn-oak example. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Some people coming here are probably expecting to find discussion of what is the most fundamental physical unit, e.g., quarks, strings, etc. Should something be done to throw them more of a life-line?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Besides this, I do not have any further to add. I'm happy to join those who are already supporting a pass on prose. How to address FA comprehensiveness of the treatment of such an extraordinarily general phenomenon, however, remains unclear to me. Coordinators, however, are welcome to take into consideration that I have no specific content-based objections apart from the minor issues mentioned immediately above.

(Oh, and feel free, anyone, to relocate this comment if it makes more sense elsewhere on the page.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and the support on prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: thanks for having a look at this nomination and clarifying the issue. Jenhawk777 was involved in the peer review and they said they would consider doing an FA review as well but they were not sure whether this is acceptable given that they already did the peer review. My gut tells me that it shouldn't be a problem but I thought it best to confirm with you before getting started. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: I Jenhawk777 would very much like to participate in this FAC, but I have already participated in its peer review and made contributions there, so I need to know if it is copacetic for me to do so here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

By all means. FrB.TG (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, it would be great if you could review. As FrB.TG notes, your having opined at PR is not an obstacle to this; IMO it would be an advantage. Nor would having edited the article by way of, say, a copy edit or clarifying the sourcing. It is helpful if this is declared if it amounts to a significant proportion of the article, but usually this sort of detailed advance knowledge of an article is considered a plus for a reviewer at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. I am pleased. Thank you so much for answering. I will get to that this evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Jenhawk777

I haven't seen a source review in these excellent previous reviews of content, so I am going to make a stab at a random check on those.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Definition and related terms

Beginning with #1, it's good.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

On #9, I could only access Van Inwagen. He's sufficient to support the sentence, so you might want to remove the other two.

#10 all three are good

#15; I didn't pursue this one all the way, but Robinson in Reason, Faith and History did not have pages 7 and 139 available for preview, and a word search for the quote using perceived did not come back to either of those pages.

OOps! Sorry, I have been interrupted by RL. I will be back. I promise! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I found the relevant passage from Robinson 2008, p. 139: We could also draw on a distinction between a thick and a thin concept of existence. The thin concept is the logical property that everything existent shares. A thick concept would be one that provided a metaphysical analysis of what it is to exist. What this is, and even whether there is such, will depend on substantive metaphysical truth. For example, according to Berkeley, esse est percipi vel percipere. This is not presented as a contingent truth, but as the correct philosophical perspective on what existence is. If he is right, it could not have been otherwise. According to Plotinus, being is what emanates from the One in its act of self-understanding. In both cases (and I do not wish to imply that they cannot be reconciled), a correct analysis of the source of existence throws light on the nature of existence for all existent things. This is not just a feature of idealist or theistic metaphysics. If certain sorts of arguments correctly showed that everything was spatial curvature, or spatio-temporally located causes – or even water – then they would show what the real as opposed to nominal essence of existence was. We could conceive it might be otherwise, but it could not. The "7" belonged to the chapter, which is unfortunately difficult to distinguish with the short footnote citation. The chapter is already given in the full citation template so I removed it from the short footnote citation. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Well done. I love quotes, but there is no way around the fact that they are often problematic. Since you have multiple refs for relatively accepted concepts, I think that's entirely sufficient.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the interruption. Unexpected company dropped by, and darned if they don't expect me to pay attention to them! So - beginning again.

• First, I want to whine a little about over citation in this article. Having multiple references for every, single, citation makes it much more difficult for any interested party to actually check sources. Other editors have fussed at me about this before as well. They admonished me to pick the best ONE, and go with it, unless the content being discussed is controversial, or they actually reference different concepts, in which case, they should be placed accordingly. This article has multiples repeatedly. It's not a plus. It's actually a hindrance. Source checking is tedious enough without having to check five of them at every one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the frustration with the references, I'll see what I can do about it. From previous reviews, my impression is that different reviewers have different philosophies about the use of references. For some, it's sufficient if the references of a passage confirm the main facts while others want also minor details and examples to be covered, which often requires the addition of extra references. For philosophy-related articles, reviewers sometimes challenge views that seem uncontroversial, which can be mitigated by having additional sources. If in doubt, I usually try to err on the side of caution by having too many rather than to few references to ensure WP:V. Source variety has the advantage that people who cannot access one specific source are able to use one of the alternatives. In an attempt to reach a middle ground, I removed several citations. We are not yet close to the one-reference-per-passage principle but I hope it's better now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I was actually up to #20 in this section. The link to the archived version you cited of Platter's Divine Simplicity and the Triune Identity would not open for me, the google books version had no page numbers, and the Internet Archive didn't have the book at all. How did you access it? I am okay with you simply removing it if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The preview function for Platter 2021 works for me. It could be that the preview depends on one's geolocation. The source explains how Aquinas distinguishes essense and existence. I removed it since the passage is already covered by the remaining references. I have access to most of the sources so feel free to ask me if you have problems accessing one of them.

I don't think that reviewers are expected to check every single reference, which would be a tremendous task for lengthy articles. They usually perform a spotcheck of a few selected references to see whether they support the claims they are used for. First-time nominators have to pass a spotcheck but spotchecks are not compulsory for every nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

A spot-check is all I am doing. Perhaps location is the issue, but removal solves the problem, so thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I also looked at #21 from this section. Why no capitalization or explanation for the question of Being here where it's first mentioned? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I found a way to mention the "question of being". Some translations of Heidegger capitalize being while others don't. If you want, we could capitalize it. But it might be confusing for readers not familiar with Heidegger since the term being is usually not capitalized outside the Heideggerian context. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to dive deeper into Heidegger's philosophy since we might have to deal with some terminological issues if we do. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The reference capitalizes it, so that's why I asked, but it's appropriate either way. I like the added explanation here, and agree it's important not to go down the rabbit hole with him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Types of existing entities

Remove this sentence - Different types of existing entities are discussed in academic literature. - it's not necessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Singular and general

#24 I really liked Hofweber's way of describing the problem you mention here as having two parts: "what the stuff of reality is made out of" and "what the most general features and relations of these things are". Is there a way to include this to better clarify what's being discussed?

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's super easy for non-philosophers to get completely lost discussing philosophy. Simplifying complex concepts for non-specialists is the goal of WP. The use of specialized terms - "instantiate" "spatio-temporal" "universals" and "particulars" - are terms that philosophers understand that are not automatically understood by others. It looks to me, very much, like all of the above reviewers are people with some grounding in philosophy, so they are familiar with these questions, and didn't call you on it, but what about those not familiar - those sophomores we write for? Simplification is a gift and a skill, and you have it, but it isn't consistently applied in this article. I find that a serious issue. What's the point of an article that no one who doesn't already know all of this could understand? Stanford, whom you reference in more than one case, is dependably good at simplification, yet that is not often included here. As I said in peer review, I would like to see simplification of the complex more consistently throughout this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I managed to remove the word "spatio-temporal" from the article. I moved the footnote explaining "instantiate" to the first occurrence. In priniple, the term could probably be removed from the article by replacing it with the word "exemplify". However, this would create problems since it is used in some quotes in our article, which would need to be removed as well. I added corresponding footnotes for the terms "particular" and "universal". The word "particular" could possibly be replaced with "individual" though I'm not sure that this makes much of a difference. I don't think that something similar is feasable for the word "universal". I'm not sure whether removing all the key technical terms of this topic from the article would have a negative impact on comprehensiveness. Which "Stanford" are you referring to? Phlsph7 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• In pursuit of simplicity, about half of paragraph three belongs in paragraph two, and vice versa. Keep that idea of simplification at the front of your mind here, and you can probably cut a good chunk of this out entirely. Concise is always, always better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Which parts of the 2nd and the 3rd paragraph are you referring to? Their topics are slightly different. The topic of the 2nd paragraph is whether singular existence is a special case of general existence or the other way round. The 3rd paragraph does not state that one is a special case of the other. It discusses the question of whether there is general existence without singular existence. Even if the answer is no, this does not mean that general existence is a special case of singular existence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

#25 I was unable to run down Prior. The archived ref you have opens to Liebnitz. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

From Prior 2006, p. 493: Philosophical discussion of the notion of existence ... First, there is the problem of what we are to say about the existence of fictitious objects, such as centaurs, dragons, and Pegasus; second, there is the problem of what we are to say about the existence of abstract objects, such as qualities, relations, and numbers. I removed the unhelpful link. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would remove all redlinks - Henry S. Leonard - in an FA that are not refs to non-English WP's.

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There are simply so many refs, I am going to skip over most of them. I have found some problems in at least one ref in nearly every citation I checked, but they are small things that are easily corrected or deleted, so don't fret, just fix or delete.

Concrete and abstract

They exist in space and time, and influence each other; they have causal powers and are affected by other concrete objects. Simplify causal powers by defining it - something along the lines of: "They exist in space and time, and influence each other. They are caused by and are able to cause effects on other concrete objects." An example wouldn't hurt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Still needs simplifying/replacing or at least defining. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to further simplify your suggested passage. It currently reads: They exist in space and time. They have effects on each other, like when a rock falls on a plant and damages it. I'm not sure that there is much more in terms of simplification that can be done. We could simplify the 2nd sentence by splitting it in two: They exist in space and time. They have effects on each other. This happens when a rock falls on a plant and damages it. To my ears, having a series of this type of short and simplistic sentences sounds like bad prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The second paragraph in this section is really good.

#34, for Faulkner and Gregersen p.298, I followed your link, but it wasn't there. It had no image available, so I couldn't verify. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

From Faulkner & Gregersen 2017, p. 298: According to Platonists, abstract objects exist but not anywhere in the physical world or in people's minds. The preview works for me, so, as mentioned above, this could be caused by geolocation. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is, but I am having repeated problems with the archived links. I can access most of the linked citations using other methods, but not the links themselves. Nothing on simplifying jargon? Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language says Do not use specialised vocabulary in contexts where more widely understood alternatives will do. I did mention that on the PR. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

For me, the regular links to google books preview the pages (at least some pages). The archived links to google books work but I can't preview the pages. I'll see what I can do about the simplifications. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool. About Realists, the article doesn't mention Plato, which is fine, he was a Realist, but this source specifically refers to Platonists and not Realists in general. Maybe just adding "Realists such as Plato accept the idea..." to better reflect the source.

I can't get to Prior, again. Is he a reference for "abstract objects have independent existence" or for "opinions about abstract objects are divided"? Can you get that for me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible, contingent, and necessary

Begin the second paragraph with your second sentence: "It is an open question..."

This paragraph mixes these ideas. That makes it harder for the non-specialist to follow. Take the first sentence (Most entities...) and the third sentence, (According to one view, ...) and move them - either to close the second paragraph, let them stand as a paragraph between the two you have, or let them open paragraph three. Three paragraphs for three concepts is easy to follow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• #40 Pruss & Rasmussen specifically argue for the necessity of God. That's a good reference for sentence #3 and paragraph four, however, it says on page 2 quite specifically, we take no sides on what sorts of things can be causes; we leave it open, for instance, whether numbers, properties ... and other so called 'abstract' entities may have causal powers... I'm afraid I think your sentence that has them saying ... all abstract objects have necessary existence. misrepresents their actual view. Find a different source or delete the sentence.

They include some good simplifications you might could use: "There was a time before items of our ordinary existence existed" and they have a list of them as examples of contingent items as things that may or may not exist.(Page 1) "A necessary thing exists no matter what" ... "a necessary thing cannot be assembled or disassembled" (Page 1) it is "anything capable of causation" (Page 2). Good accessible definitions there.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've been at this for a few hours now and I am getting frustrated and tired, so I am going to take a break. I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Physical and mental

The first paragraph in this section is brilliant. I don't want to look at any of the sources here lest I find a problem.

The second paragraph is also good, but I wonder that materialists and dualists are defined while 'Philosophy of the Mind' - currently a hot topic in philosophy - is not. Arguments here stretch along a spectrum between a purely causal sense that reduces mind to matter with no ontological discontinuity at one end, to a purely definitional sense at the other end that points out the impossibility of communicating subjective internal feelings of pain, color, taste, etc. by talking about molecules - where in the brain does a burned finger manifest? - and make it obvious there is ontological discontinuity. Qualia, consciousness, intentionality and causal power - going into detail is probably another rabbit hole - which you are good at avoiding - but perhaps at least a sentence on the issues? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Others

This section is also excellent. I checked all of #55. I think I, personally, would remove the APA, but the others are good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Once again I am interrupted. I apologize. You know that, overall, my opinion is, this is an excellent article. I do not consider myself finished however. I will be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)