Talk:Existentialism and Effingham, New Hampshire: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Heidegger and the new first sentence: be an editior and not a copier
 
m →‎History: small fix
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Settlement
{{talkheader}}
|official_name = Effingham, New Hampshire
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Philrelig|VA=yes}}
|nickname =
{{philosophy|class=B|importance=high|metaphysics=yes|social=yes|attention=yes}}
|motto =
<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
|image_skyline =
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|image_seal =
|-
|imagesize =
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
|image_caption =
----
|image_flag =
|-
|image_map = Carroll-Effingham-NH.png
|
|mapsize = 250px
# [[Talk:Existentialism/Archive 1|2003 – June 2006]]
|map_caption = Location in [[Carroll County, New Hampshire|Carroll County]], [[New Hampshire]]
# [[Talk:Existentialism/Archive 2|mid 2006 &ndash; mid 2008]]
|settlement_type = Town
#
|image_map1 =
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->
|mapsize1 =
__TOC__
|map_caption1 =
|subdivision_type = [[List of countries|Country]]
|subdivision_name = [[United States]]
|subdivision_type1 = [[Political divisions of the United States|State]]
|subdivision_name1 = [[New Hampshire]]
|subdivision_type2 = [[List of counties in New Hampshire|County]]
|subdivision_name2 = [[Carroll County, New Hampshire|Carroll]]
|government_type =
|leader_title = [[Board of Selectmen]]
|leader_name =
|established_title = [[Incorporation (municipal government)|Incorporated]]
|established_date = 1778
|area_magnitude = 1 E8
|area_total_km2 = 102.7
|area_total_sq_mi = 39.7
|area_land_km2 = 99.8
|area_land_sq_mi = 38.5
|area_water_km2 = 2.9
|area_water_sq_mi = 1.1
|area_water_percent = 2.80
|population_as_of = 2000
|population_note =
|population_total = 1273
|population_density_km2 = 12.7
|population_density_sq_mi = 33.0
|timezone = [[Eastern Standard Time Zone|Eastern]]
|utc_offset = -5
|timezone_DST = [[Eastern Daylight Time Zone|Eastern]]
|utc_offset_DST = -4
|latd = 43 |latm = 45 |lats = 40 |latNS = N
|longd = 70 |longm = 59 |longs = 47 |longEW = W
|elevation_m = 182
|elevation_ft = 597
|website =
|postal_code_type = [[ZIP code]]
|postal_code = 03882
|area_code = [[Area code 603|603]]
|blank_name = [[Federal Information Processing Standard|FIPS code]]
|blank_info = 33-23620
|blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS]] feature ID
|blank1_info = 0873588
|footnotes =
}}
'''Effingham''' is a [[New England town|town]] in [[Carroll County, New Hampshire|Carroll County]], [[New Hampshire]], [[United States]]. As of the [[United States Census, 2000|2000 census]], the town population was 1,273. Effingham includes the village of Effingham Falls. Pine River State Forest is in the south.


== History ==
== Religious Bias in this article ==
[[Image:Post Office, Effingham, NH.jpg|thumb|left|''Post Office'' in 1908]]
This town was settled by members of the Leavitt family of [[Hampton, New Hampshire|Hampton]], and originally was named "Leavitt's Town." In 1749, the land was granted by [[Colony|Colonial]] Governor [[Benning Wentworth]], and he named it "Effingham" for the [[Howard (family)|Howard]] family, who were [[Earl of Effingham|Earls of Effingham]]. The town was incorporated in 1778. North Effingham would be set off in 1831 to become the town of [[Freedom, New Hampshire|Freedom]].


Effingham was home to the first [[normal school]] in [[New Hampshire]], established in 1830 on the second floor of the Effingham Union Academy Building, erected in 1819. [[James W. Bradbury]], later a [[U.S. Senator]] from [[Maine]], took charge of the school only on condition that it should be for the "instruction and training of teachers." The idea was his own and, at that time, entirely novel.
The article seems to take great pain in pointing out the Christian beliefs of Dostoyevski and Kierkegaard, and also includes a Christian Existentialism part, yet completely ignores any other faiths and their correlations with Existentialism. It goes so far as to even mention the term "nothingness", but no mention of Buddhism.


== Geography ==
Any linkage of any religion (particularly Christianity) to Existentialism where Dharmic faiths are not mentioned is simply silly. The idea of Karma, especially if looked at with purely secular eyes, is as Existential as one can possibly get.
According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the town has a total area of {{convert|39.7|sqmi|km2}}, of which {{convert|38.5|sqmi|km2|abbr=on}} is land and {{convert|1.1|sqmi|km2|abbr=on}} is water, comprising 2.80% of the town. Green Mountain, elevation {{convert|1884|ft|m}} above [[sea level]], is the highest point in town. Effingham is drained by the [[Ossipee River]] and the Ossipee's tributaries, the [[Pine River (New Hampshire)|Pine]] and [[South River (Ossipee River)|South]] rivers. The community is bounded on the east by the Maine state line, and on the north by the Ossipee River. Effingham lies fully within the [[Saco River]] [[Drainage basin|watershed]].<ref name=watershed>{{cite book |title=Water Use in New Hampshire: An Activities Guide for Teachers |url=http://nh.water.usgs.gov/Publications/nh.intro.html |last=Foster |first=Debra H. |coauthors=Batorfalvy, Tatianna N.; and Medalie, Laura |publisher=U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey |year=1995}}</ref>


== Demographics ==
How does the Wikipedia community justify such overt bias here? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.185.209.60|24.185.209.60]] ([[User talk:24.185.209.60|talk]]) 11:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[Image:Freedom Road, Effingham Falls, NH.jpg|thumb|left|''Freedom Road, Effingham Falls'' in 1915]]
As of the [[census]]{{GR|2}} of 2000, there were 1,273 people, 490 households, and 336 families residing in the town. The [[population density]] was 33.0 people per square mile (12.7/km²). There were 791 housing units at an average density of 20.5/sq&nbsp;mi (7.9/km²). The racial makeup of the town was 98.35% [[White (U.S. Census)|White]], 0.39% [[African American (U.S. Census)|African American]], 0.31% [[Native American (U.S. Census)|Native American]], 0.24% [[Asian (U.S. Census)|Asian]], 0.08% from [[Race (United States Census)|other races]], and 0.63% from two or more races. [[Hispanic (U.S. Census)|Hispanic]] or [[Latino (U.S. Census)|Latino]] of any race were 0.39% of the population.


There were 490 households out of which 29.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 53.5% were [[Marriage|married couples]] living together, 10.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 31.4% were non-families. 23.3% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.6% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.43 and the average family size was 2.88.
:I wouldn't say it's due to any overt bias, but simply a general lack of knowledge of Eastern traditions on the part of the editors. [[User:Jagged 85|Jagged 85]] ([[User talk:Jagged 85|talk]]) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::I would say it is more than lack of knowledge. It is lack of relevance. Even if similar ideas were postulated in "Eastern traditions," there is no reason to assume that such ideas influenced the European Existentialists. Was Sartre influenced by Buddhism? Doubtful. ---<font face="Celtic">[[User:RepublicanJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">RepublicanJacobite</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:RepublicanJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The'FortyFive'</span>]]''</sub></font> 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:The article does refer to the Buddha and some Islamic and Arabic texts, and maybe some other things in parts of the article i have not read yet. Any interesting correlations or connections between existentialism and Dharmic faiths or any other faiths would be fair game for consideration by all, including the many who lack sufficient knowledge of those other faiths. Please if you have some time start to write an idea or two into the text, and i or others may be able to help get them in there. [[User:Bo99|Bo99]] ([[User talk:Bo99|talk]]) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


In the town the population was spread out with 26.0% under the age of 18, 6.6% from 18 to 24, 29.2% from 25 to 44, 25.6% from 45 to 64, and 12.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 106.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 106.1 males.
I removed the following from the Christian Existentialism, as a deliberate attack and having nothing to do with Existentialism in any form: "God is incomprehensibly paradoxical (this is exemplified in the [[incarnation of Christ]]); theism is not rationally justifiable, and belief in God is the ultimate [[leap of faith]]." [[Special:Contributions/63.169.27.4|63.169.27.4]] ([[User talk:63.169.27.4|talk]]) 18:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Anon: 1337 CST 8/15/2008


The median income for a household in the town was $36,000, and the median income for a family was $38,000. Males had a median income of $29,650 versus $22,188 for females. The [[per capita income]] for the town was $17,089. About 8.1% of families and 15.3% of the population were below the [[poverty line]], including 13.4% of those under age 18 and 6.3% of those age 65 or over.
:I would think one of the main reasons for covering the Christian existentialist movement as an important part of existentialism as a whole, is due to the founding and evolution of existentialism in western society by otherwise pious men. I have always regarded Descartes as the father of existentialism, and his connection to the catholic church cannot be denied. Eastern beliefs are very existential in their modern incarnations, but due to a lack of education I am currently not able to write about them at an encyclopedic level. I believe there is also a large chunk of history missing regarding the evolution of eastern philosophy with regard to existentialism, and therefore any article on that particular school of thought may be pure speculation. I may be wrong, and it is quite probable, but thats my two pennies. [[User:Wophi|Wophi]] ([[User talk:Wophi|talk]]) 01:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


==Modern thought==
== References ==
{{reflist}}
There is a REDIRECT to this article from "Modern thought".


== External links ==
"Modern thought" is a term used in the Victorian period for a mindset that rejected the Bible as an accurate source of knowledge concerning the Creation and the origin of species. It would be good to have an article on "Modern thought" including a link to the controversial bestseller [[Essays and Reviews]] (1860). Modern thought may be an antecedent of Existentialism, but not a parent. [[User:Vernon39|<font color="green">Vernon White</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Vernon39|. . . Talk ]]</span></small></sup></b> 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
* [http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/htmlprofiles/effingham.html New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau Profile]


{{Carroll County, New Hampshire}}
== Making decisions ==


[[Category:Carroll County, New Hampshire]]
''Existentialism asserts that people actually make decisions based on what has meaning to them rather than what is rational.''
[[Category:Towns in New Hampshire]]
:This is supported somewhat by fMRI evidence collected by Dean Shibata. It appears to be much more than an assertion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 12:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


[[ht:Effingham, New Hampshire]]
== Theology Section ==
[[sv:Effingham]]

[[vo:Effingham (New Hampshire)]]
“An existential reading of the Bible demands that the reader recognize that he is an existing subject studying the words God communicates to him personally. This is in contrast to looking at a collection of "truths" which are outside and unrelated to the reader.[29] Such a reader is not obligated to follow the commandments as if an external agent is forcing them upon him, but as though they are inside him and guiding him from inside.”

…and just how is this different from non-existential reading?

“Existentially speaking, the Bible doesn't become an authority in a person's life until they authorize the Bible to be their personal authority”

Wow, genius. *rolls eyes* I guess all Christians are existentialists then, at least according to Wikipedia. Must be Wikipedia's utopia or something. What a joke this article is (and existentialism in general).

== Article is Inadequate ==

The article is titled "Existentialism," but is almost solely about Sartre's existentialism. More needs to be written about the existential part of the philosophy of Heidegger -- generally considered the most important existential philosopher -- even though he denied that he was an existentialist. I suggest readers and potential writers of this article read Walter Kaufmann's "From Shakespeare to Existentialism" for an understanding of the overall philosophy.
[[User:Grantsky|Grantsky]] ([[User talk:Grantsky|talk]]) 18:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is indeed a bit short in the Heidegger department, but that most of the terminology has been taken from English translations of the works of Sartre doesn't mean that the concepts themselves are Sartrean ''in essence''. Despair, for instance, is talked about by both Sartre and Kierkegaard, and the notion expressed in the article is more Kierkegaardian than Sartrean, although it is, in fact, simply a common denominator in the works of most existentialist philosophers, implying that it, as a part of existentialism, doesn't belong to any single one of them. A similar argument applies to the other concepts discussed; bad faith, freedom, facticity, and the other concepts are discussed by existentialist philosophers ''in general'', and no-one in particular (though some have made more explicit and deeper analyses of them than others). I do not recommend reading "overview" books, but rather the original texts of the philosophers.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== About the intro ==
Trying to make existentialism into the invention of one single person wouldn't do; it isn't the invention of neither Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, or any of the other philosophers generally acknowledged as being existentialst philosophers. Sure, the introduction is not the best in the world (yet), and should be fixed up a bit, but introducing the notion that any single philosopher can be held responsible for the "creation" of this field of philosophy is not only incorrect, but an actual lie. Thus, the claim existentialism is a "doctrine conceived by Martin Heidegger" is misleading and shouldn't be left standing. If it should be attributed to Heidegger, why not to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche or Pascal? Philosophy is surely complicated, and for that reason, Heidegger did not conceive of the doctrine of existential philosophy.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not really! Heidegger's [[Sein und Zeit]] stands alone without a need for support from works of Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, etc. If they did not exist, Heidegger's ''Dasain'' (''being here'' or ''to exist'') comprising ''In-der-Welt-sein'' (''being-in-the-world'') and ''Mitsein'' (''being-together'') would be sufficient for Existentialism alone. That is THE attribute of originality determining a fatherhood... of everything. Once the notion had been developed in general and provided by Heidegger, their particular attributes were added by Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, etc. also for a popular consumption; almost nobody is capable to process the general notion, as provided by Heidegger, because it is too difficult to read and understand. Additionally, the Heidegger's past was not helpful either. But they were only secondary developing particular attributes of given and well developed notion by Heidegger. I could make a contribution to Existentialism by writing about itch of my big toe, which may be almost as important as freedom or boredom, but it would not make me a creator of Existentialism. The same is with the theory of relativity conceived by Albert Einstein, which many others contributed to.
:Additionally, the first sentence is very incompetent, because it does not define, what Existentialism actually is (a doctrine), but instead it concentrates on the secondary, popular and flimsy aspect, which is its application (as a movement) misleading the readers. That is an unfortunate misinformation, and - so - the removals of my correction seem to be acts of... [[Existentialism#Bad faith|bad faith]] (see Existentialism). Please, do not do it again. Sincerely, [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

::Ok, first of all, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Unamuno and Nietzsche all ''preceded'' Heidegger, so if it's about being "the first," they should be credited before Heidegger. Actually, I'd credit certian Buddhist and Taoist philosophers with it (especially the notion of nothingness) before I'd credit Heidegger (not because I don't like Heidegger; I'm quite inclined to agree with the man on several points).

::When it comes to existentialism being a doctrine, I'd say that's as far from the truth as you could get; living life by a doctrine (indeed living life ''as Sartre'', as many have attempted) is bad faith. It isn't really a movement either.. I'd simply call it a field in philosophy if it were up to me (in the sense that Hannah Arendt was also an existentialist philosopher), but that would probably also leave out some of the other aspects of what is considered essential to existentialist philosophy (It is a philosophy of ''life'' or living as well as an academic field of study), so I'm not going to. However, to call it simply a movement is also too easy, but pretending it was all Heidegger's invention is just plain wrong. In consequence, even though I would not normally revert an edit like this without waiting for a reply, discussing it, etc, I will do so with this one -- because it is too misleading to be left unchanged.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Again, and for the last time:
:::Heidegger was the first, who created the independent philosophical system (Existentialism) and published it (in [[Sein und Zeit]]), and not a Buddhist monk or Kierkegaard, Pascal, Unamuno and Nietzsche. Their works did not constitute a published, working system (doctrine), and Existentialism by Heidegger did not need them to function. What counts is who constructed a working system for the 1st time and published it, and not, who preceded or added to it, as with theory of relativity by Einstein.
:::All in the 2nd part of your statement above are your emotions without a shred of formal definition, analysis, deduction, etc. You shall not force on others through Wikipedia, which is public, own standard based on feelings, and revert a referenced contribution by other, because it is inconsistent with your private views. Please, construct a proper argument first. Saying, that because Existentialism is not "living life by...", "field of philosophy" or "simply a movement" therefore it cannot not be an invention by Heidegger is a pure nonsense. In other words, something being not this or that does not prove that it can or cannot be a third, unrelated thing. Or, even simpler speaking, number not being 3 or 5 does not prove to be or not to be 7. Formal logic, please! A solid argument is needed, before reverting anything here, and not idiosyncrasies! Sincerely, [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

::::Again, and for the last time: Existentialism isn't Heidegger's invention. Existentialism is a large and diverse field in philosophy, and many of the concepts studied were developed way ahead of Heidegger's time. Some of them aren't even treated by Heidegger. Many of his thoughts are most likely largely influenced by many of the aforementioned philosophers (we know he read Kierkegaard, etc). All of these philosophers' works also constituted a working system, which you would have known if you had read anything outside of Heidegger. Also, calling existentialism a doctrine goes in the face of everything existentialism is.
::::"What counts is who constructed a working system for the 1st time and published it." No. What counts, in a description of a field of study like existentialism, is to explain what is studied. Your text belongs in the "historical background" section, not in the introduction. The reason for this is that it doesn't say ''anything'' about existentialism, only something about Heidegger; reading the introduction should tell you what existentialism is, not who some guy believes "created" it. Especially when this guy doesn't know anything about it.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::You have to be kidding:
:::::*What is it, as not a DIRECT definition [sic!], the following 1st sentence I wrote for the [[WP:LEAD]], please?
:::::'' '''Existentialism''' is a philosophical doctrine - [...] - which describes the nature (sense) of being [...] as being here (Ger. ''Dasein''; existence) on earth (being-in-the-world; Ger. ''In-der-Welt-sein''), among things and other people (being-together; Ger. ''Mitsein'').''
:::::It says everything, namely, that a doctrine is a search for a sense of being, and being here (existence) is that sense, etc. It is so obvious, please!
:::::*On the contrary, that is exactly, what the reverted lead lacks in the following 1st sentence:
:::::'' '''Existentialism''' is a [[philosophical movement]] which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, and that this essence follows from their existence.''
:::::1. It contain a fundamental, logical error: If ''individuals create the [...] essence'', how come ''this essence follows from their existence''? Or one or the other, please. Or you create something, or it follows form something else, i.e. is not created, but derives, please!!!
:::::2. It is obvious, that ''Existentialism'' is a doctrine, and [[philosophical movement]] only follows the doctrine. So, in any encyclopedia, it is necessary to define first the doctrine, and only then describe the [[philosophical movement]], which is only a derivative of the doctrine.
:::::3. Nobody denies that "''Existentialism'' is a large and diverse field in philosophy...", but, again, formal logic is needed to argue, because something being not this or that does not prove that it can or cannot be a third, unrelated thing. Or, even simpler speaking, number not being 3 or 5 does not prove to be or not to be 7.
:::::4. ''Existentialism'' is Heidegger's invention, because he put it together as a doctrine for the 1st time. Others wrote about certain aspects before and after (nobody denies it), but he formalized it for the 1st time in in [[Sein und Zeit]].
:::::[[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::That isn't a description of existentialism. That is a description of dasein. If anything should be chalked up as being "the main focus" of existentialism, it would have to be freedom and responsibiliy (which is what is implied in the notion that one creates one's own essence).
::::::1. There is no "fundamental logical error." What you see as one is simply a sentence that could be rewritten slightly, but the sentence doesn't mean that essence ''logically'' follows from ''existence'' if existence is taken as a logical predicate. Existence is ''your'' existence, your life, all your meanings, etc, and the claim that is being made is that there is no predetermined essence, but rather only the essence that you yourself "create" (it is not a creation ''ex nihilo'', but a creation in the sense that it is only after the fact that you are you what you are, and then you are already no longer what you ''were'' while still being it. This also seems like a sentence full of logical contradictions, and if you knew anything about existentialism, you would know that many of the statements from existentialist philosophers ''seem'' contradictory, but arguments and context show that you, if you were to write them down logically, would have to write a sentence that has a different form from that of the actual sentence taken literally word for word).
::::::2. Existentialism as a doctrine: Your confusion here arises from the fact that you believe existentialism to be Heidegger's invention. However, it is only when you reduce something to the work of one philosopher, or "the word" of one book (as with the bible) that you can call something a doctrine; a doctrine needs well-defined and immutable boundaries. In this sense, what you are outlining ''could'' be called "the doctrine of Heidegger," but it is not existentialism. This is due to the fact that existentialist philosophers do not necessarily agree on everything, neither when it comes to what is important, what should be studied, or which conclusions one may draw from one's study of whatever one sees it fit to study. What existentialism is, is more properly defined as a ''school'' of philosophy, but this term has historically also come to rely on certain other restrictions when it comes to definition (the "school's" members have to preferably be located in the same place, know each other/communicate, etc). It is because existentialism ''isn't'' a doctrine that it is possible for philosophers to be defined as existentialist while they themselves renounce the label.
::::::3. "formal logic is needed to argue": More importantly, knowledge about the subject is required to argue. In other words, you have to have read other philosophers than Heidegger (if you have even read him) to be able to argue about existentialism.
::::::4. If anyone put existentialism together as a doctrine for the first time, it would have to be Sartre. However, since existentialism isn't a doctrine, we cannot attribute it to neither him nor anyone else.
::::::Now, then, instead of arguing over this for eternity, we could try to work out a new introduction that could say something more about Heidegger, but I refuse to reduce existentialism to a doctrine of any sort, meaning that it can't be outlined as Heidegger's invention, nor Sartre's nor anyone else's. However, mentioning slightly more about some of the fields of study, including what Heidegger worked on, couldn't be said to conflict with the spirit of an introduction, if it were to be done right, and not "do" too much of what the other parts of the article should. If we were to create a new intro, it should be done in here first, to avoid further confusion. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Der Zeitgeist|contribs]]) 10:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*1. ''Dasain'' is a proper definition (of ''Existentialism'') meaning ''being here'' meaning ''existence''; see the resemblance between ''Existentialism'' and ''existence'' [sic!], please? Doctrines are named after their essence. I hope, you understand that!? Otherwise, any discussion is pointless... .
*2. The logical error of the 1st sentence is unacceptable: ''individuals create the [...] essence'', CONTRADICTS ''this essence follows from their existence''! Only one or the other can be true! Or you create something, or it follows form something else, i.e. is not created, but derives!
*3. Your following statement (see above) is plain false: ''If anything should be chalked up as being "the main focus" of existentialism, it would have to be freedom and responsibiliy (which is what is implied in the notion that one creates one's own essence).''
**A. If "freedom and responsibiliy" were the focus of ''Existentialism'', it would be called ''Freedomism and Responsibilism''.
**B. You also admit that your 1st sentence does not include "the main focus" and that it is only implied, meaning that ''Existentialism'' is NOT defined there (and anywhere else)! Btw., there is no "main focus", but just "focus", which means - more less - "definition".
**C. Your statement that ''one creates one's own essence'' is UTTERLY false, because ''one's own essence'' or ''inward nature'' or ''humanity'' evolved (see Darwin) and was not made at once (created) by anyone (or anything, as opposite to Creationism). In other words, nobody creates one's own essence. You mistake ''humanity'' for ''humanitarianism''. Any form of your 1st sentence using the syntax: ''individuals create the ... of their lives'' is false, because ''existences create the meaning and essence of their lives'' according to ''Existentialism''.
*4. The 1st sentence of the lead is not a place for learning and putting a false, personal, esoteric and - so - vague description, but it is only for a clear and strong definition (''Dasein'' is) per [[WP:LEAD]], which your sentence lacks per your own admission of no focus.
*5. Why do you still insist on such bad language after it was proven erroneous by myself and lacking a proper definition by your admission, please?[[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::The intro is indeed unclear and poorly written, as is most of the article; but I'm afraid the solution doesn't lie in thrashing out editors' personal opinions about the origins of existentialism. I agree that ''Sein und Zeit'' is not a systematic discussion of existentialism, and that Heidegger was not really an existentialist - but that's just another opinion. Since this is Wikipedia, the solution lies in going to reliable secondary sources for descriptions of existentialism, and then coming to a consensus about what should be cited here. There's Kauffman, there's also MacQuarrie, and William Barrett.[[User:KD Tries Again|KD Tries Again]] ([[User talk:KD Tries Again|talk]]) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

::*1. You are very kind describing it as "poorly written" for it is misleading.
::*2. Nobody claims [[Sein und Zeit]] is, but, if you have to describe ''Existentialism'' in one paragraph, as it should be in encyclopedic articles (so the reader can grasp their essence first), then ''Dasin'' fits the bill despite all its shortcomings. Does not it, please? If not, do you have a better idea for the 1st sentence, please? After the 1st sentence, you can always elaborate details in the next ones... .[[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 20:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::One of the main problems with the introduction, as I see it, is that it still doesn't offer much of an introductory insight into the subject at hand: More should be said about the actual field before one starts introducing "forefathers" and main theorists. There's also the issue with calling it a "philosophical movement," which, to me, seems to undercut its continued relevance as an actual field of study in philosophy (but that could be because English isn't my first language). The introduction also kind of misrepresents the field with its reference to a sort of unexplained "creation" of "meanings" and "essences." If there's one thing that outlines most, if not all, of existentialist thought, it is rather freedom and responsibility. Of course, if you already know what the article is about, you also know that the initial sentences aren't to be taken as literally as they may be, and that what is meant is indeed the fact that you are free and responsible, but if you don't know anything about it, that sentence could be a source of misrepresentation (sentences like it from "introductory books" on the field have been confusing people for decades already, it seems; hardly anyone who thinks they know anything about existentialism knows more than the "literal" meaning of such oversimplified sentences. Of course, an introduction should simplify a bit, but there's a fine line between simplification and misrepresentation, and the problem is how not to cross it.).
:::While holding the issue of "philosophical movement" in abeyance, maybe an introduction that focused more on the freedom and responsibility would sit better? However, one would have to resolve the hostage situation where liberalism has laid claim to the concept of freedom first. Perhaps: "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that focuses on the freedom and responsibilities of individuals in the perpetual creation and sustenance of themselves, their values and their meanings" could work better as a first line? Of course, more should be mentioned about the field itself (one sentence of content and three paragraphs of "forefathers" is hardly informative), most likely something about absurdity and the "shaky ground" of putting all your bets on one card.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::''Dasein'' is a specific technical term from Heidegger's philosophy, and therefore inappropriate to an introductory sentence introducing a broad philosophical/cultural field where Heidegger is only one protagonist. As I suggested above, the easy route - and the only secure one with Wikipedia - is to look at introductory sentences from a few existing secondary sources, and use those as the basis.[[User:KD Tries Again|KD Tries Again]] ([[User talk:KD Tries Again|talk]]) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

:::Not really. ''Dasein'' is a compound German word meaning ''being here'' (''sein''=''be'', ''Sein''=''being'', ''da''=''here'') on earth meaning existence (on earth). So, Sartre translated it as such to French, and since his book became popular and not the Heidegger's (he was a proponent of Hitler from 1933 to 1939), so the doctrine became ''Existentialism'', but already Heidegger called it as such, because ''Dasein'' is not a specific, technical term, but it means exactly ''existence''. Nobody questions that the telephone was invented by Graham Bell despite that iPhone does not resemble it much. The same is with ''Existentialism'' formalized by Heidegger. It is fact and not a matter of opinion.[[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 08:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

==Heidegger and the new first sentence==

Sorry to be a sledgehammer, but it's important to show that won't do for a whole bunch of reasons:

1. Existentialism as such doesn't define being as ''dasein''. Not even Heidegger defines being as ''dasein'' (and "being here" is a controversial translation of ''dasein''). ''Dasein'', for Heidegger, is the mode of being which is my own, and it is totally contrary to his thought to equate that mode of being with being itself.

2. "Ontology" and "metaphysics" can't be used interchangeably as implied by the parenthetical comment, and in any case Heidegger sharply distinguishes them.

3. "Earth" and "world" are entirely distinct concepts for Heidegger. ''Welt'', as in ''in-derWelt-sein'', is a technical term referring to a meaningful framework of concerned projects. ''Erde'' is introduced in Heidegger's later essays, and is one member of ''das Geviert'', along with ''Welt'' (etc).

4. In any case, this is all quite specific to Heidegger, and can't introduce a broad philosophical-cultural field where Heidegger was only one (reluctant) protagonist.

5. Finally, I don't know what P.O.W. has to do with it, but Sartre was prompted to write ''L'Etre et le Neant'' rather than the short existentialism book as a response to ''Sein und Zeit''.

With the best will in the world, the article can't be mended by editors' well-meaning improvisations about Heidegger. Anyone writing about Heidegger has to know the material really well - it's difficult. And this isn't the right place. Again, I suggest checking standard works on existentialism to establish a clear, general, inclusive introduction. Meantime, the new paragraph - which is unsourced anyway - has to go.[[User:KD Tries Again|KD Tries Again]] ([[User talk:KD Tries Again|talk]]) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

:This is all getting very confusing what with the new headings and all, but... starting from the current initial sentence:
:"Existentialism is a philosophical doctrine": This is false because a doctrine is a set of particular propositions set forth by one person or group of persons. The propositions in a doctrine are ''dogmatic'' meaning they are not susceptible to neither criticism nor variance by any of those who subscribe to the doctrine. In other words, if Heidegger formulated the doctrine of existentialism, Sartre couldn't criticise it (as he did in being and nothingness) and still remain an existentialist.
:"individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives": The words "create," "meaning" and "essence" are too vague to be put to proper use in this context. The sentence also contains an ambiguity relating to the issue of "spontaneous" or "received" creation (meanings "received" by society) and "willful" or "free" creation (the decision to do something so as to make oneself be the one who did what one did) which is undercommunicated the way it is right now.
:After that, the only actual information about ''existentialism'', as opposed to its "forefathers," is too scarce to actually mean anything to anyone who wants to get a grasp on existentialism.
:When it comes to the arguments brought forth by 71.247.12.83, there is not much more to say: The point about dasein meaning "existence" is useless; the "logical" argument (which operates at a level of abstraction not proper to the matter at hand) is illogical (it doesn't account for ''actual'' meaning, only "''literal''" meaning); the argument about naming -isms is childish; the argument about essence, again, shows that the person putting the argument forth has little or no understanding of existentialism; and, finally, the point about having to describe existentialism in one paragraph relates more to an isssue of the nature and requirements of encyclopediae: ''Can'' you describe existentialism (or any field at all) in one paragraph? An encyclopaedic article doesn't ''have'' to be introduced by a single sentence that describes the be-all of the subject matter at hand; an introduction can span several pages, if need be. The point is that it should give the reader a particularly concise definition of the subject matter at hand while leaving open a few key "blanks" that are to be filled out by the rest of the article.
:Now, instead of this bickering, I suggest we work something out in here ''before'' randomly editing the article.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Right - but again, it has to be something derived from verifiable sources. That's the place to start.[[User:KD Tries Again|KD Tries Again]] ([[User talk:KD Tries Again|talk]]) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

::::But then the question would have to be "what is a verifiable source?" Is it only secondary literature? If one talks about several philosophers under a common heading that is more "instrumental" (in that it groups these philosophers together by what happened to be their field of study rather than what they called themselves), a reference to the same theme occurring in the works of all of the philosophers should be enough, in my opinion. However, would it then have to be an explicit reference to a particular paragraph, page, sentence, chapter or work, or couldn't one just as well refer to the theme itself as occurring throughout the philosophers' writings? As an example, it's easy to show that dread/angst/etc is treated in a similar manner by both Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre, but would you have to have a reference to some kind of secondary literature that says "dread was treated in a similar manner by both Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre," or would it do to simply point out that these philosophers all treated the same phenomenon? This cross-reference ''does'', after all, have a verifiable source, but the source is not a single work.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User 71.247.12.83 wrote above (but let's not skip back and forth):
::"Not really. Dasein is a compound German word meaning being here (sein=be, Sein=being, da=here) on earth meaning existence (on earth). So, Sartre translated it as such to French, and since his book became popular and not the Heidegger's (he was a proponent of Hitler from 1933 to 1939), so the doctrine became Existentialism, but already Heidegger called it as such, because Dasein is not a specific, technical term, but it means exactly existence. Nobody questions that the telephone was invented by Graham Bell despite that iPhone does not resemble it much. The same is with Existentialism formalized by Heidegger. It is fact and not a matter of opinion."

No, this is inaccurate. In everyday German, ''dasein'' just means "existence". It can be broken down into component parts, but ''da'' is more plausibly translated as "there" than "here"; in any case, neither in everyday German nor in Heidegger's philosophy does it include any reference to "earth". That's OR, as far as I can see: if you're unfamiliar with Heidegger's distinction between "world" and "earth" which I referred to above, the best place to start is with the "Urpsrung des Kunstwerkes" article, or - for a reliable Wiki source - with W.J. Richardson's book on Heidegger. I can't imagine that you think the French phrase "l'etre pour soi" is a ''translation'' of "dasein", so I can make no sense of your point about Sartre (also ''Sein und Zeit'''s popularity was not constrained by Heidegger's involvement with National Socialism, which was not well documented until decades after the book was published, etc, etc....). I am sure your comments are in good faith, and I only hope to draw your attention to the number of straightforward errors you are making.

This is why we need to proceed on the basis of checking our sources and reproducing what they say accurately.[[User:KD Tries Again|KD Tries Again]] ([[User talk:KD Tries Again|talk]]) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

:Technically you right, because I was sloppy with my words, but not substantively. ''Dasein'' means ''being there'' or ''around'' (existence)... <''there'' and mistaken ''here'' are exchangeable in this case>. So, you see the question, what ''there'' stands for or is it ''around'' what... in the case of ''metaphysics'' or - more precisely ''ontology''. Is there any other option than earth, please? Is it not ''prima facie''?
:Next, ''Dasein'' comprises ''In-der-Welt-sein'', where ''Welt'' means ''world''. What kind of ''otological'' world is it, please? Moon, Mars, Venus...? Do we live there or on earth? So, why do you need Richardson or anybody else to tell, what is the place of reference of Heidegger's philosophy!
:As far as Heidegger's reluctance goes, can you picture a conceited genius, who does not want to have much in common with the disciples using his sophisticated work for their cheap political purposes, please? If you need to find truth, you rather need to analyze by yourself. Otherwise, you may not be able to understand even references.
:Anyway, the 1st sentence of the lead now is garbage, and I will fix it as well as I can for the last time. I believe that editing there is more efficient than discussing here. [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 06:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::First of all, that you do not even know the difference between welt and erde in Heidegger's thought, I can't see how you should be fit to edit this article. All your other edits don't seem to have any coherence to them either, so it's hard to tell whether you have a field of expertise at all. That you keep insisting on editing and reverting without discussing or listening to arguments is not a particularly good sign either. Furthermore, if you are to make claims about what Sartre did or did not do, you should have to do better than a reference to existentialism is a humanism, which you don't even appear to have read. If we ''have'' to refer to secondary literature instead of the conglomerate of the original literature, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is as good as any:
:::"''It is sometimes suggested, therefore, that existentialism just is this bygone cultural movement rather than an identifiable philosophical position; or, alternatively, that the term should be restricted to Sartre's philosophy alone. But while a philosophical definition of existentialism may not entirely ignore the cultural fate of the term, and while Sartre's thought must loom large in any account of existentialism, the concept does pick out a distinctive cluster of philosophical problems and helpfully identifies a relatively distinct current of twentieth- and now twenty-first century philosophical inquiry''"[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/]
::That not even Sartre, then, as I have also claimed, can be called the "father" of existentialism, the fact that Heidegger partially influenced Sartre (if you had read any of Sartre's works, you would know that he also criticised Heidegger) shouldn't make much of a difference; Sartre and Heidegger are just theorists within a field of philosophy called existentialism; a theory of dasein would be Heidegger's and a theory of pour-soi would be Sartre's, but neither of these theories make up existentialism, and neither of these theories is the same. To have a historical overview isn't a bad thing - far from it - but the introduction should not contain falsities of the kind that implies that either Sartre or Heidegger ''invented'' existentialism. I added one of those edit-war warning boxes to your profile, and if you keep editing, I will report it to the moderators (or, perhaps, KD Tries Again should, since he is less involved?). Then they can decide: Either I or you will have to be banned if you keep editing.[[User:Der Zeitgeist|Der Zeitgeist]] ([[User talk:Der Zeitgeist|talk]]) 09:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::*You do not have a whole and synthesized picture of, what you read; you do not understand [[WP:LEAD]], you do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia and, who the target reader is. Only, what you say is that this wrote that and that wrote this... . Stanford Encyclopedia is not a good base for the lead, because it just avoids to say, what ''Existentialism'' actually is (too polite to make a judgment), so they go ballistic on the college level and you afraid to use your own words or do not know, how to synthesize and simplify that.
::*Because it is difficult to say simply that "''Existentialism'' is this and that...", I linked it with the key term ''Dasein'' (meaning ''existence''), added the general terms ''metaphysics'' and ''ontology'' and connected historically the two main contributors and their pivotal works in just two simple sentences (per one of the [[WP:LEAD]] options for complex terms) you improved, so the Wikipedia's target readers (layperson; see [[Talk:Diabetes_mellitus#Mediator|Mediator]]) can get something understandable instead of your gibberish full of logical mistakes, which I left untouched for you to fix, if you can... .
::*It seems, that you cannot use own words, but only to quote others. You can copy from others, but not edit by yourself. You cannot argue (discuss), you can only quote. You cannot process information, but you can just repeat it. Try to be your own person - an editor - and not a copier. [[Special:Contributions/71.247.12.83|71.247.12.83]] ([[User talk:71.247.12.83|talk]]) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

'''I believe that editing there is more efficient than discussing here.''' No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are edited by consensus, and the discussion page is the place to achieve consensus. In order to save going over old ground, I'd ask User 71.247.12.83 not to make edits which aren't supported by citations. Please be familiar with the basic Wikipedia policy on citation: "... Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No original research]I'd also strongly advise User 71.247.12.83 to open a Wikipedia account if he/she intends to get heavily involved with editing articles: see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account%3F Why create an account?]. Perhaps if we can proceed in accordance with policies, we can make some progress.[[User:KD Tries Again|KD Tries Again]] ([[User talk:KD Tries Again|talk]]) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Revision as of 08:05, 11 October 2008

Effingham, New Hampshire
Town
Location in Carroll County, New Hampshire
Location in Carroll County, New Hampshire
CountryUnited States
StateNew Hampshire
CountyCarroll
Incorporated1778
Area
 • Total39.7 sq mi (102.7 km2)
 • Land38.5 sq mi (99.8 km2)
 • Water1.1 sq mi (2.9 km2)  2.80%
Elevation
597 ft (182 m)
Population
 (2000)
 • Total1,273
 • Density33.0/sq mi (12.7/km2)
Time zoneUTC-5 (Eastern)
 • Summer (DST)UTC-4 (Eastern)
ZIP code
03882
Area code603
FIPS code33-23620
GNIS feature ID0873588

Effingham is a town in Carroll County, New Hampshire, United States. As of the 2000 census, the town population was 1,273. Effingham includes the village of Effingham Falls. Pine River State Forest is in the south.

History

Post Office in 1908

This town was settled by members of the Leavitt family of Hampton, and originally was named "Leavitt's Town." In 1749, the land was granted by Colonial Governor Benning Wentworth, and he named it "Effingham" for the Howard family, who were Earls of Effingham. The town was incorporated in 1778. North Effingham would be set off in 1831 to become the town of Freedom.

Effingham was home to the first normal school in New Hampshire, established in 1830 on the second floor of the Effingham Union Academy Building, erected in 1819. James W. Bradbury, later a U.S. Senator from Maine, took charge of the school only on condition that it should be for the "instruction and training of teachers." The idea was his own and, at that time, entirely novel.

Geography

According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 39.7 square miles (103 km2), of which 38.5 sq mi (100 km2) is land and 1.1 sq mi (2.8 km2) is water, comprising 2.80% of the town. Green Mountain, elevation 1,884 feet (574 m) above sea level, is the highest point in town. Effingham is drained by the Ossipee River and the Ossipee's tributaries, the Pine and South rivers. The community is bounded on the east by the Maine state line, and on the north by the Ossipee River. Effingham lies fully within the Saco River watershed.[1]

Demographics

Freedom Road, Effingham Falls in 1915

As of the censusTemplate:GR of 2000, there were 1,273 people, 490 households, and 336 families residing in the town. The population density was 33.0 people per square mile (12.7/km²). There were 791 housing units at an average density of 20.5/sq mi (7.9/km²). The racial makeup of the town was 98.35% White, 0.39% African American, 0.31% Native American, 0.24% Asian, 0.08% from other races, and 0.63% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.39% of the population.

There were 490 households out of which 29.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 53.5% were married couples living together, 10.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 31.4% were non-families. 23.3% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.6% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.43 and the average family size was 2.88.

In the town the population was spread out with 26.0% under the age of 18, 6.6% from 18 to 24, 29.2% from 25 to 44, 25.6% from 45 to 64, and 12.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 106.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 106.1 males.

The median income for a household in the town was $36,000, and the median income for a family was $38,000. Males had a median income of $29,650 versus $22,188 for females. The per capita income for the town was $17,089. About 8.1% of families and 15.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 13.4% of those under age 18 and 6.3% of those age 65 or over.

References

  1. ^ Foster, Debra H. (1995). Water Use in New Hampshire: An Activities Guide for Teachers. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Existentialism&oldid=244532035"