Talk:Canadian idealism
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Cezna (talk · contribs) on 13 December 2023 with the comment: This concept does not have significant coverage, as the term only appears online in Meynell's book (this article's only source) and PhD thesis. Contemporary scholarly reviews rejected the idea that this was a distinct concept. Meynell also seems to be the creator and main author of this article. It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) with the comment: ... consider merge or redirect to British idealism as preferred WP:ATD |
Distinctly Canadian?
editIt seems that the word "this" in "three pillars to this philosophy" refers to Hegelian Idealism, rather than Canadian Idealism. Are we to infer then that the word "Canadian" simply means "Hegelian Idealism as found in Canada" rather than anything truly constituting a "philosophical tradition"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In fact the article on Philosophy in Canada explicitly says "There has since developed no particular "Canadian" school of philosophy. Rather, Canadian philosophers have reflected particular views of established European and later American schools of philosophical thought ...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Not a real philosophical tradition
editIt seems this tradition was just an idea proposed by a PhD student.
I can't find any use of the term "Canadian idealism" except Meynell's book, his PhD thesis it was based on, and this article.
Moreover, it seems that the book was never engaged with by other scholars, except to be rejected by early reviews (see especially Cooper, 2012 in Further Reading). And it seems that Meynell has not written much since this book's publication.
I think the article is misleading in its current form and should either be deleted or else substantially ammended. Cezna (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- It also seems most of this article was written by the author who coined this term, and his book is the only reference in this article. Cezna (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)