Talk:Energeia

Untitled

This is the discussion of a moved/redirected page

Merge

What's the status of the merge proposal? Gimmetrow 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about it. I think trying to combine Aristotle's terms with terms derived from them much later is asking for trouble. People misunderstand whether they are the same or not. It could perhaps be done if someone wants to spend a lot of time on it, but right now we can not even find enough people to make a decent "Nicomachean Ethics" article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Lancaster. Especially the switch from the original Greek to the latinized scholastic enquiries of later times is troublesome to me. Energeia and dynamis deserve their own pages! --fernie b.

I think Potentiality and actuality is also a better merge target than Actus et potentia (which also has merge tags from Energeia and Dunamis).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, well that is truly confusing, and this situation should be fixed up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article names should be Greek or English with redirects for Latin terms. Seems like people have just haven't had the time. Merging four articles is a bit daunting.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not enormous articles, so it should not be too difficult to just dump them all into one draft page and reorganize them there? Your proposal of eventually using Potentiality and actuality sounds reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can pick up from this starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality/Draft It is based on the Potentiality and Actuality article, but with some material already added in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Have tried to give some structure to the mass I put together in the draft. Looking at what is left, I propose also deleting the two sections now near the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality/Draft#Potency_and_possibility and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality/Draft#Senses_of_act - unless someone can save them somehow. They just seem like an off topic ramble to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but many of the Greek philosophy schools IN GREECE, do not accept the Latin use, teaching or definition of the terms. And there is nothing at all about this in the Aristotle terms article(s) really, so a more subtle and non-confrontation way of handling that would be I think to leave the terms as Greek. Combining them into an article outside of the Latin and scholastic captivity they are currently a victim to, maybe an alternate. There is right now a whole entire drama being played out about this in the academic world at Oxford and Cambridge. As can be seen in the first slow and almost non public attention getting debates between the Westerns philosophers like Graham Ward and actual Greek philosophers from Greece like Constantinos Athanasopoulos [1]. Athanasopoulos went ahead and bite the bullet and learned English (among other languages) and is one of various modern Greeks philosophers whom completely rejects the way that Aristotle is taught in Latin by the West. The modern Greeks deny that the West even now has a complete understanding of Aristotle and this they say includes and explains why the West attacks Gregory Palamas. This book is a book by a Western philosophy professor that is one at the heart of the conflict [http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-East-West-Metaphysics-Christendom/dp/0521035562/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281101230&sr=8-1]. As is modern Greek philosophy professor George Metallinos [2]. This is a complete mess of things. If you read the Bradshaw book (it is but one and is more approachable than others as a history of the word energeia) you see that it is probably better to leave this the way it is and allow the Latin Western articles to be separate from the Eastern. I am not saying that this article can not be improved. BTW I also included the Bradshaw to source some of your passages in your draft on Potential and Actuality in your draft under that article name. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see your edit on the draft. Did you get the right one? Anyway, it is a bit hard to understand what the practical point is above. Are you proposing we should keep the articles split? Maybe it helps to say that I do not think anyone wants to simply equate Aristotle's terms with the later derivative ones in Latin, but Wikipedia should aim to explain what is meant by the Greek, Latin and English terms, in VARIOUS contexts, and they are inter-related. That clearly means we'll have to explain some variations, but that does not seem an insurmountable problem?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a practical question: is the present draft good enough to be called an improvement? If so let's move it in, and redirect everything to it. In this way we can also focus discussions between Wikipedians about IMPROVING the content. (Keep in mind the current draft is basically just a cut and paste and copy edit of what was ALREADY in the articles being proposed for merging. None of the base articles are particularly good.) I think we currently have different people looking at different articles, and that is not helping. So, should we take the next step?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it is so much more than this. Case in point in the ancient Mediterranean the tradition of this word energeia is almost 100 percent metaphysical. However even metaphysical is different. All of that should some how be tied to these concepts whatever the formatting of that is supposed to be (or that is decided). Let me try and explain it this way, the ancient Gods as uncreated things (unmoved mover, prime mover) are various energeia. The God of war is an energeia, the highest categorization of the category (ontology) of war-being is the thing that as uncreated, actualizes this activity in the dunamis or potential the formless of now. Somehow this is missing from all of this. And this is just one tiny thing that Bradshaw and the Greeks address as how the Latin or scholastic tradition has distorted the word. And this without the even further distortion of the word as some"thing" that can not be created or destroy is the hypostasis of the word energy in the West. This is a very strange road and very foreign yet not necessarily bad one from the whole cultural context of the word energeia via Greece. Also your work is better than mine and it appears to be very correct (speaking to your draft). BTW I meant that I linked here on the talkpage as Bradshaw could be used to source this entire page and almost all of the draft. Forgive me I would request that maybe you read the book for the articles to be sourced from Bradshaw and his sources.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bradshaw and Plotinus

In Aristotle East and West Bradshaw properly expresses Plotinus as having two types of energeia (sort of). The energeia of potential (that is first) and then the energeia of actualization via activity (sort of). Also this was the validation of philosophical idealism by way of making the actualization of something in reality a piece of something (forms and structures) of the nous or mind, the actualizing (energeia) of the nous (noesis or noetic) uses these forms uncreated or first principles to compose real in the flux of consciousness (as templates or uncreated components, heuristics if you will in the brain). A piece, generalization, or approximation, meaning only a shadow, a reflection, an aspect of what the being actually is in it's infinite completeness.

Divine Nous, dyad, energeia or demiurge uses these first principles to compose a composite we call being or existence on top of and from the first principle arche or formless (called the abyss). This is a sharp (razor sharp) and distinct difference from hypostasis as the highest (foundation) thing and as a foundation for the energeia (see the Essence–Energies distinction). Some hypostases (which is another concept not the same as potential or actualization) can therefore be outside of our composite, created being (i.e. the uncreated ones). This is what Christianity is above and against even the Roman Catholic church's Thomism (scholasticisms using energeia as the highest principle (to use any type of energeia as the uncreated highest principle is pantheism) and even Iamblichus' panentheism 's attempt to create a metaphysical, ontology that encompassed even the Christian cosmology still treats the various concepts as energeia's or actualities. If one uses an uncreated hypostasis one then transcends the 3rd man without vilifying reality by calling it a composite (which makes it not real but an illusion). i.e. it's all about and contrast to and limited by human consciousness (nous). The concept hypostasis transcends energeia therefore it makes reality objective in a way not truly or properly expressed via either pantheism or panentheism.

What is East and West? The East under paganism taught that the Gods where energies. Uncreated things that then by mix and match manifested reality (the arche or first principles). The first systematization of this concept in this way, known to mankind, was the work of Hesiod. Hesiod is the father of philosophy. It was Hesiod's system or cosmology of the Gods (called the theogeny) that allowed people to reason or rationalize being or beings and then lead to Thales. It was this "break through" that made it so people could peel the onion (being) back it's core. It was at the core or the top of the categories that people got to the uncreated of things. It was Aristotle whom answered the paradox of the third man in Parmenides by coming up with a concept that explained the manifestation of paradox as the ousia of generalization. And that this ousia and all things paradoxical are in ousia uncreated things (sort of). Aristotle named this energeia.

The early Jewish and later Christian communities rejected the various philosophical cosmologies because they began to over simplify beings and or actualities. There by removing too much from such things causing them to no longer be true to their ousia. However the uncreated in Judeo-Christianity is not an anthropomorphic reflection. But reverse. So essence comes from uniqueness rather then uniqueness coming from essence (ousia) (however this is to the uncreated because it, in order to "be" something uncreated it would have to run opposite of what is is contrast and compared to the created). Uniqueness or personalism is in Judeo Christianity the highest category in ontology. The name given to this concept is hypostasis. Therefore the East can not accept the Latins. The East consider the teaching that God is energy in essence (Actus purus) a pagan thing from Aristotle. They consider this teaching an enemy to the idea of freedom or free will. Since it takes a lesser concept (energeia) and elevates it to the highest concept. This causes all kinds of paradoxes and justifications for destructive behavior and ultimately leads uninformed persons to the justification of evil and violent things (necessitarianism see We (novel) and Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground for examples).LoveMonkey (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LoveMonkey, but I have to say it is hard to get simple suggestions for the article from this. :) As I mentioned I do not particularly think the current articles we are merging are very good but I was trying to focus, but with the time and energy I have right now, on getting an agreement on the article merger. The present articles seem easy to improve by merging them and doing a bit of tidying. Just to start with that very simple suggestion, which I know does not address everything, what do you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have abstained from adding any of it. Because it is very difficult and outrageously confusing. Merging them as a modern or post scholastic article of some name is I think the right direction. Something that makes Aristotle and his concepts pagan instead of a organon to Roman Catholic Christianity.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree that Aristotle qua Aristotle mustn't be confused with Aristotle qua Peripatetics, Aristotle qua Early Islamic philosophy, Aristotle qua Scholasticism, Aristotle qua Neoplatonism, Aristotle qua Catholicism or Aristotle qua Contemporary philosophy, (eastern or western). He's one busy guy! :o)

In the case of merging the singular Energeia and singular Dunamis with Potentiality and actuality; it's not so clear–cut as merging Actus et potentia, which despite what its scope potentially might be, is actually, in its current form, a poor subset of Potentiality and actuality (itself, a rather good article given a bit of sprucing–up, IMO). Actus et potentia was created based on a Catholic Encyclopedia entry and hasn't been substantially revised, except for the user who suggested the merges, (good faith but inappropriate and anachronistic references to Work (thermodynamics)).

If anyone has the links at hand for relevant guidelines on article naming, that should be reviewed. As I recall, names should typically be in English unless commonly referred to (by English speakers) with an untranslated name. So, it might be inappropriate to systematically differentiate treatments by Greek/Latin/English names.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, it'll take some time to parse this (and the § above). Lets move the discussion of when to move the draft live to Talk:Potentiality and actuality. I agree, there's no reason not to clean it up live... but this Achilles hasn't caught up yet good tortoises and I want to make it through to those final two paragraphs... thx :o) Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Machine Elf, as far as I am concerned, I think it would be fine if you next get the draft how you want it, then paste it in, changing the other articles to redirects. Once we have one article to discuss we can have a more rational conversation about what should be done further.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll incorporate the draft revisions into the live Potentiality and actuality article and redirect Actus et potentia unless there are any objections. After some thought, I don't think Energeia and Dunamis should be redirected at this time. It sounds like they could be expanded as stand–alone concepts, (perhaps in some regards as LoveMonkey mentioned above?)... but I'll remove the merge tags from those articles and make sure they have a hatnote pointing to Potentiality and actuality.

Also, please see: Talk:Potentiality and actuality. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My own take on the current situation is that the draft I made incorporates most of what was in ALL those articles. So at least with the material we have now, there is little case for making any of the stand alone unless you also expand them. This does not mean that they can not be split off later, but I think such splitting off will in fact be a more effective way of re-building such new articles than just leaving them as they are right now. (Go back to the beginning of the conversation where people expressed doubts about the current versions of these articles working properly.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree so perhaps you'll humor me? No one was itching to merge them before I brought it up, and I think they're better left as they are, at this time. Let's discuss the matter when I'm done with the merge, which I'm still working on. (I'll save your draft). Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to humour you. :) Obviously any steps which will improve the current situation are, well, an improvement.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged, I'll post here when Actus et potentia is done.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well in the case of this article it can be seen that the word energy comes from the word energeia. It may not be obvious to some people the word entelecheia is intellect. And in the case of Bradshaw he uses the Greek word spelled in English in order to clarify his positions. The article as it stand can be sourced a good bit from his book as it stands.LoveMonkey (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Intellect does not derive from Greek "entelecheia"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK here is Bradshaw on energeia and entelecheia.[3] Perhaps I mis-spoke. I got into something close to this when I revamped the noesis article. The word entelecheia is that which is perceivable by a conscious agent is it not? When something passes from thought to actuality? It is intelligible, correct? Maybe intelligible is the better term then of the intellect. I also don't mean derived per se, I mean something more categorical i.e. intellect then intellection then intelligible. i.e I have an intellect (mind) I think of a circle (intellection) I draw the circle (make intelligible, entelechy). Please provide counter examples for clarification.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikt has ἐντελέχεια, entelécheia, from entelēs: "complete" (en: "in" + telos: "end") + echein: "to have". Outside of Aristotle, that and engergeia are open to interpretation (acquired meaning, whether as synonymous or no). As well as dunamis/dynamis and, as you mention, there's also an Entelechy article. Energeia as "energy" struck me as one way in which it should be kept separate, (especially as modern "potential energy" is dreadfully anachronistic). I don't know if you would agree, but the points you've raised convinced me that we shouldn't be too quick to merge these articles. Treating potentiality and actuality just in terms of Aristotle is hard enough, (I've gotten a little bogged down bringing in the Categories, but I'll have another rev done today). It's especially touchy in terms of medieval Scholastic/modern Catholic usage, actually, it's a total cluster–φυκ... ousia/hypostasis/hypokeimenon/substance/essence/horismos/accident... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree. I have kept to editing these concepts to a minimum for this. Ontology is "to be" or "on to" and this is in Greek by categorization. Ontology (and metaphysics by proxy) are nothing more than to categorize something. If you get a chance to look at the Bradshaw link to his book, notice that he uses the Greek words in Greek with Greek fonts. This is because the meaning to the words have been so drastically changed that for people to say them now in some cases means that the original lessons and knowledge (epistemology) has been lost. Hopefully the categorization example I gave shows some flexibility but it is also safe to say by the book that no one translates entelechy as intelligibility. For this User:Andrew Lancaster is correct.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW the Categories for Aristotle is actually better then I would expect. But I think it does need a re-vamp. Because as tools the categories have to be axiomatic when you speak them to people they have to be self evident and or noetic. They should be so obvious as to have at the most extreme only minor disagreement. Substance theory and ousiology are painful as the best Ousiology here in wiki is Essentialism.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki articles that are literally about a particular work of Aristotle tend to benefit from having that focus. His Categories is written so lucidly one would almost suspect there may be some truth about it being spurious. Not that I do! It's absolutely clear therein what he meant by substance (contrary to certain arguments that found their way into the Metaphysics). I suppose that's still a bitter pill for some ecclesiastic theorists—or maybe no. I'm not infallible.

The P&A article seemed a bit hazy in certain spots and, really, I should have just kept my focus on merging, but I digressed. I did look at the Bradshaw link and all I can say is I immediately clicked "back" and I dare not look again until I've posted the next merge rev. ^_^  It will come in handy soon, at the very least because I didn't have a source that specifically said entelecheia was a "neologism", (and energeia too?! don't tell me yet)...

What you said categorization being self–evident, brings to mind category theory in math, ironically, as it's sometimes referred to as proof by abstract nonsense (but in a good way). There's nothing more bizarre and difficult than unraveling intuition.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Most excellent, to noesis then. You know intuition is the realm of Russian philosophy.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't clearly see an enormous problem, but maybe I am missing something. Don't all versions of the energeia/dunamis distinction go back to Aristotle?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but have different meanings over time. The Bradshaw book is literally a history of energeia (dunamis) and how over time it changed (who changed it and when). The concept as locked into the realm of Greek and Byzantine culture. Bradshaw then reflects this with scholastic and Western interruptions of the word strictly from the perspective of philosophy. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was thinking, but if this is the case shouldn't article structure begin with Aristotle and then discuss variations as variations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes!yes! Exactly. I think this is what we are shooting for. It's just that there are two tiny problems with that. The first other then Bradshaw's book I can think of no work off hand that is so precise in its focus. I was hoping you guys might know of another. And two if it is possible (of course it is) that we not hinge the article just on this one source. But we not use Aristotle directly but stay secondary academic. That is regardless of if we merge this article into a bigger Aristotle terms like article or not.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, now we have a problem definition: good sourcing for Aristotle and his terms which is not too mixed up with various traditions that derive from him, but can differ. This is a basic problem for most Aristotle articles I'd say and my approach, which I can't say is brilliant, is just to summarize Aristotle as a first step, using only secondary sources such as commentaries and translator notes, relying a lot on quoting Aristotle's OWN definitions, and THEN as a second job, see if I can find tertiary sources that agree with each other in a non-controversial way. It is the lack of agreement amongst tertiary sources which makes it difficult to be very satisfied, but I think that because Aristotle himself provides many definitions, there is a way of working which is relatively WP:Neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is a very good way to say it. And is really what I have been trying to say also. I feel (is my opinion) as though with people like Aquinas that their approach was and is wrong and yet it has to have some sort of a mention or the information on Aristotle will seem incomplete or misinformed etc etc. You don't have this problem with the wikipedia for India for example. This however is dispensed with, when the term itself is given accessibility by way of an article (of terms maybe) dedicated to it as it is in it's original language. I stand by the secondary source not as a fan or not because I necessarily agree but because it is WP:Verifiability.

However there is zero in WP:Policy stating that one can not just quote Aristotle and distinguish the quote or quotes and just leave the interruption up to the reader. Balance is to do both (as I think Andrew indicates) but again is there an organic connection between the sources and the actual Greeks themselves or is this a matter of Western Europe (as in Aquinas and scholasticism) using academic institutions to leverage their position and their interruption. Bradshaw spends a good part of the book about the subject energeia to show that this is the case. That scholasticism wholesale ignores the Greeks objections and go ahead and do what they (the scholastics) want to.

And that in a post-scholastic environment people should be able to at least hear and see what the Greeks say about their own cultural ideas and historical figures. Think of it this way. It is very common for Western experts to be completely ignored by the Greeks. The reason for this I hope I have at least not only shed light on but also provided a Western source with acceptable scholarship to give weight to that perspective.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so going back to my proposal, it was to merge and simplify, removing any sections that look debatable, and then build from that uncontroversial starting point. Looking ahead though, I am not familiar with Bradshaw, but just in principle if he is the type of commentator who is controversial, making a stand for a point not everyone agrees on, then we can not use him as the core of the article. But on the other hand I feel that the distinction you mention between original Aristotle and Latinate interpretations is NOT controversial and can be cited from many sources if that becomes necessary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge with what? It's been sounding like you're still talking about Potentiality and Actuality. Hopefully not.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still my proposal indeed that ALL these articles should be merged. No one has made any clear case for any other proposal? The doubts which were raised were effectively about how to avoid having Aristotle's own work over-written by scholastic variants, but I think this problem is resolved: Aristotle's work is the core and basis of all the other derivative ones, and there is presently not enough material or clear distinction to justify making a separate article about Scholastic VARIANTS of the basic theory. Maybe there will be one day, but surely the first priority is making what improvements we can and avoiding having a confusing set of articles. Imagine you were coming to Wikipedia to understand this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have lost track. Let me make a concrete proposal, or updated version of the original one. I have made a draft some time back. This could right now become the single article for ALL the articles as follows: Energeia, Dunamis, Potentiality and Actuality.

Please note that the draft I made was basically made by pasting together ALL the articles, and while doing this I found no signs of any way we could really split up the 3 articles the way they are currently written. They cover the same material. Any ideas about future possible articles containing material no one has yet written are simply a distraction to the practical question for today, which is to clean up a mess that exists right now.

I however the following further adaptations to my draft before bringing it in:

1. The article should be under Energeia and Dunamis, the Greek terms, with the other three re-directed to it.
2. Unless someone can make them much better, I suggest at least for now the complete removal of two sections: Senses of act and Potency and possibilty. These are simply someone's notes and not yet in a form for Wikipedia.

If there are any counter proposals these should be clearly stated please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to point out the merge tags you restored have been up since 2008. You quickly threw together a draft which put the Actus et potentia material on top. Obviously, I thought the other article, Potentiality and actuality, was the better of the two; (in fact, I agree with the "C class" rating for Potentiality and actuality, as well as the "Start class" rating for the former Actus et potentia article).

I've felt very pressured by you, Mr. Lancaster. There was no rush, and frankly when you mentioned "summarizing Aristotle" I had to stop and wonder if it's worth the effort to even continue. I have made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with merging all the articles into a single article, which remains "your proposal" and, at least in terms of Energeia, Love Monkey agreed it could stand on it own as well. Thus, your draft is out of the question, as I'm sure was abundantly clear considering the changes I've been making to Potentiality and actuality and the discussion on that article's talk page Talk:Potentiality and actuality. I've requested that this discussion move there, but you continued it here... very confusing.

Since you left it up to me, I did what I said I intended to do. I merged Actus et potentia to Potentiality and actuality. That's done. Also as I said I would, I saved your "draft"... you can find it at User:Machine Elf 1735/Potentiality and actuality draft.

You are not the arbitrator of what's clearly stated, except in your opinion. I'm not going to kowtow to a "problem definition" as you would like it stated, when I don't think there is a problem.

I think there's plenty of standalone material to augment Dunamis (Potential, Force, etc.), which until now has been standing on its own, in fact. I don't see why you're speaking as if Dunamis and Energeia can't be "broken out" from your "draft" when you've only just "pasted" them together from long–standing separate articles!

I'm not going to collect my reasons in order for them to have been asserted. Although I was willing to implement changes I would like, there's no need for me to do anything, just to disagree with changes you would like. It's not AfD.

Quite simply, there has been no consensus to merge all of these articles, only for the one that I have merged. The tags you restored on Dunamis and Energeia to merge to Actus et potentia don't really make sense anymore because that article has been merged to Potentiality and actuality.

Needless to say, Potentiality and actuality is a work in progress, and, of course, the general rules for editing wiki articles apply. I think the article can expanded in several areas with regard to Aristotle as well as Neoplatonism, Scholasticism, Thomism (?), modern and contemporary philosophy. I think this discussion, in addition to being in the wrong place, has lost sight of the material with its focus on editing generalizations and merging everything.

I'm quite amused that now, you want to remove two sections from your draft that were from the original Potentiality and actuality article, when, previously, you had only talked of removing the "last two" sections, (i.e. "Mathematics" and "Other", neither of which was from Potentiality and actuality). In fact, you said "near the bottom", which indeed they were. My bad, and I'm not the least bit amused by any of this.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm not amused that you're talking about ditching what I've done, as if I've done nothing, and as if that's been the plan all along.

I suggest we move this discussion the proper talk page and focus on the material in the Potentiality and actuality article. In fact, some of the material you want removed, I had left commented out for the time being.

In case it's not clear, I continue to reject your "new" proposals because you fail to acknowledge that it discards what I've done; also for the various reasons that I rejected your old proposal. Those reasons have, of course, been mentioned throughout these discussions.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed your new proposal fails to mention Actus et potentia, the one article that has been merged. If you want to intelligently incorporate material from Dunamis and/or Energeia, as opposed to just "pasting," please do. I believe the English language term "Potentiality and actuality" is most likely the proper title; after all, Entelechy is synonymous with Energeia in Aristotle.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't see where Senses of being was included in your draft, (note that § is different from "Senses of act"). I'm sure it was a simple oversight, but it would be more accurate to work from the original articles (if Dunamis and possibly Energeia are to be merged into the current Potentiality and actuality as well). As I said, I'd prefer the edit history to reflect the specific changes since that's practical.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I will wait to hear Machine Elf's response. I personally believe that Andrew's draft should be an article and that each term as a Greek term should also have an article onto itself. I am inclusionist on the subject of philosophy. These articles are tiny bits of information and I think it is no problem with Jimbo (who won't talk to me anyway) to have both. However merging into a overview is a very very good idea because it treats them very philosophically by categorizing them and therefore putting them in a logical context i.e. ontologically. And this is absolutely critical to Aristotle (the formulator of this very Greek thing that is the essence of philosophy). Leaving the individual term articles allows for the controversies unique to the term to be addressed as it should be in an encyclopedia fashion. I would go so far as to say that the other terms can be merged into a single article and then their individual articles dispensed with, with except being this energeia article. I think that Andrew (whomever they are) is an excellent contributor and is acting very much in a refreshingly professional and philosophical manner and I do not wish to obstruct what Andrew is doing. I would rather contribute by supporting his effort which is the right frame of mind.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey Could you please clarify the part about "Andrew's draft should be an article", unless you think everything I've done should be tossed or there should be two separate P&A/A&P articles once again? A suggestion might be that he integrate material not in the current article. Thanks!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think your articles should be tossed I was trying for a compromise. I would like to see an overview of the terms done in a ontological matter but the each individual articles to remain. Meaning having Andrew's article published with just and overview and then linking to the terms articles. What I am afraid of is that the article as an overview will become WP:too long. If we just use and overview article to show how the terms tie together but keep individual article to flesh out the specifics of the concept will not run the risk of WP: Too long. But as a Compromise to Andrew I suggested that at the very least we keep this article.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise to Andrew? He pasted the articles together. Please look at the current Potentiality and actuality article. I'm sorry but after the time I've spent on this, we are not going to throw it away for something that's been "pasted together". Please, have a closer look at this Love Monkey. I don't think you're saying what you mean to say. If you're not worried about merging Energeia and Dunamis, I'm perfectly fine with that material being merged intelligently into the current Potentiality and actuality article.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright I was under the impression that Andrew wanted to create a second article of Aristotles terms and leave them in Greek and then delete the individual articles. This while leaving your Potentiality and actuality article alone. If Andrew wants to merge the individual articles into your article and then delete the individual articles I am OK with that but I would prefer that at least the energeia article stay as it is the one with the most controversy and complexity in individual meaning.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm fine with intelligently merging only the Dunamis article into the current Potentiality and actuality article (and, if you're OK with it, the Energeia as well).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First a clarification: I do not see any big problem with merging all the articles to potentiality and actuality instead of creating a new article. That is not a problem at all. My only concern is with maintaining a situation where a single subject is split between different articles. So indeed I have a concern about maintain two articles which are BOTH going to be about Energeia. Please everyone consider WP:CFORK.

Secondly, Machine Elf, I do not recall you making any particular criticisms of the merging I proposed, which was a draft. (It was a draft, but it is also the only clear proposal right now, and I think it would at least be an improvement from the current situation?) However, without any prior discussion you recently tried to remove the draft and the merge tags, and now you appear to be saying the draft is not "intelligent". Nice style you have LOL, but anyway just sticking to practicality, what are the problems with the merger proposal which make it unintelligent please? If this is going to move ahead you need to get a bit more concrete.

Also, you have to explain a lot better what you are proposing. You have not clearly explained any material which would be in the proposed separate Energeia article but not in the other articles, but appears that what you might be proposing is to have some aspects of the term discussed there, which will not be discussed in the other article which is in fact also going to be about Energeia (along with Dunamis, but recall our early agreement that at least concerning some aspects of Energeia, it can not be understood without explaining the contrast) but from another perspective. That sounds like a textbook fork. Please state your case about how you intend to avoid creating a redundant and/or content fork article. Here is a basic question: If there is something worth saying about Energeia, why would that not be something worth simply adding to the potentiality and actuality article? Why put it in two different articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

break: response

First a clarification: I do not see any big problem with merging all the articles to potentiality and actuality instead of creating a new article. That is not a problem at all. My only concern is with maintaining a situation where a single subject is split between different articles. So indeed I have a concern about maintain two articles which are BOTH going to be about Energeia. Please everyone consider WP:CFORK.

As you've no doubt read by now, ok.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, Machine Elf, I do not recall you making any particular criticisms of the merging I proposed, which was a draft. (It was a draft, but it is also the only clear proposal right now, and I think it would at least be an improvement from the current situation?) However, without any prior discussion you recently tried to remove the draft and the merge tags, and now you appear to be saying the draft is not "intelligent". Nice style you have LOL, but anyway just sticking to practicality, what are the problems with the merger proposal which make it unintelligent please? If this is going to move ahead you need to get a bit more concrete.

You can reread I wrote if you want. I didn't say I "criticized".

As you've no doubt read by now, your (clear?) proposal was met with a counter proposal, and I see you've made corrections, thank you.

YES, I removed the inappropriate tag which you have now corrected, thank you.

Correct, I would not characterize "just pasting" together 4 articles together as intelligently performing a merge.

Not half as "nice" as your style Mr. Lancaster. I'm not laughing.

I didn't say the merger proposal was unintelligent. As you've no doubt read by now, I referring to how the draft was "pasted together".

If this is going to move ahead I need to be a bit more concrete? That's rich!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have to explain a lot better what you are proposing. You have not clearly explained any material which would be in the proposed separate Energeia article but not in the other articles, but appears that what you might be proposing is to have some aspects of the term discussed there, which will not be discussed in the other article which is in fact also going to be about Energeia (along with Dunamis, but recall our early agreement that at least concerning some aspects of Energeia, it can not be understood without explaining the contrast) but from another perspective. That sounds like a textbook fork. Please state your case about how you intend to avoid creating a redundant and/or content fork article. Here is a basic question: If there is something worth saying about Energeia, why would that not be something worth simply adding to the potentiality and actuality article? Why put it in two different articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As you've no doubt read by now, you can work it out for yourself.

I wasn't proposing material for Energeia. I'm not going to try to sort your fork speculations.

Now, why on Earth would you be asking me "if there's something worth saying about Energeia"? I don't know why it wouldn't be worth adding to the Potentiality and actuality article... Last I heard, it wasn't really a "problem", given time and effort.

Why are you asking me about putting things in two articles?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Machine Elf, I also then see your longer posting which was for some reason inserted above within older conversation, but after the post I replied to just above. I think there are a lot of misunderstandings and you seem to be assuming a lot of things about my ideas. It is better not to do that. Maybe just to go through some of it...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was one post up and I was replying solely to you and then replying solely to Love Monkey. You can see the timestamps, don't characterize it as "for some reason inserted above within [sic] older conversation".

I'm assuming? Whatever. Note how I have been and am still going through it...—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I've felt very pressured by you, Mr. Lancaster. There was no rush" The rush is not coming from me. As you say: "the merge tags you restored have been up since 2008." I just made a draft to try to move things along. It was you who suddenly removed the tags and declared a different solution to any which had been discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I've commented at length on your draft and on those tags and you can hunt through these discussions for what I said I was going do, or not. I don't care. In the future, try reading what I write, or just drop it and move on Mr. Lancaster.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "You quickly threw together a draft which put the Actus et potentia material on top. Obviously, I thought the other article, Potentiality and actuality, was the better of the two". You did not mention that before. Can you explain?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What's to explain? Don't waste my time.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "frankly when you mentioned "summarizing Aristotle" I had to stop and wonder if it's worth the effort to even continue." Why? Why didn't you try to respond to what I wrote?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I should have done?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I have made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with merging all the articles into a single article". But you have never really explained why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

CLEARLY, not to your satisfaction. Moving on?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Love Monkey agreed". And what are his reasons? Honestly, I do not see anything being explained.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why ask me Mr. Lancaster? Ask him yourself. And please don't snip partial statements from me like that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I've requested that this discussion move there (Talk:Potentiality and actuality), but you continued it here... very confusing." My apologies. Apparently I did not have it on my watchlist, and anyway, discussion was on-going here, coming from LoveMonkey, not me. It is very confusing though, and that is why I propose merger. My proposal is multistep and actually I think it addresses your valid concern here: first make an improvement by merging all the articles we currently have, intelligently of course, and second once we have it all in one place, discussion about bigger ideas will be easier.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "bigger ideas" you want to discuss but consider "merging all the articles we currently have" one at a time.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "You are not the arbitrator of what's clearly stated, except in your opinion. I'm not going to kowtow to a "problem definition" as you would like it stated". Absolutely correct. But I did not ask anyone to kowtow to my problem definition. I was discussing LoveMonkey's concern and trying to define the problem he saw. If you think it was not a real problem you should have replied. That is precisely why people with good intentions discuss things - to try to understand each other better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What's that you're implying about good intentions?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I don't think there is a problem." You did before? You agreed with my comments about merging and that was the start of this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you think because I disagreed with you, there was a problem. I disagreed with you because there was no problem to solve. The articles were fine where they were, no forking immanent. I had edited Potentiality and actuality so I didn't want to see most of that article get cut, but I trust that won't be a problem in the future.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I don't see why you're speaking as if Dunamis and Energeia can't be "broken out" from your "draft" when you've only just "pasted" them together from long–standing separate articles!" Well, you did see it before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In your imagination? That's pretty sad.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The tags you restored on Dunamis and Energeia to merge to Actus et potentia don't really make sense anymore because that article has been merged to Potentiality and actuality." I'll fix that then. No drama.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, no drama at all.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "On the other hand, I'm not amused that you're talking about ditching what I've done, as if I've done nothing, and as if that's been the plan all along." "I continue to reject your "new" proposals because you fail to acknowledge that it discards what I've done" No idea what you mean here. Let me know what you want acknowledged and I'll acknowledge it, but I am not too clear who wrote what in the current articles. Wouldn't it be better to just talk about what is good or bad about certain words and paragraphs rather than talking in terms of who wrote it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't waste my time here and then go posting "thanks" to me. If you truly have no idea, why would I think I could change that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I suggest we move this discussion the proper talk page and focus on the material in the Potentiality and actuality article." If we are going to discuss several articles, then what is the "correct" one? Again, I propose first merging, to recover what is least controversial, and then we will have a "proper" place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Potentiality and actuality! Merge first then we can discuss it there?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "your new proposal fails to mention Actus et potentia, the one article that has been merged." Mea culpa.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• "If you want to intelligently incorporate material from Dunamis and/or Energeia, as opposed to just "pasting," please do." I thought my pasting was intelligent. It was not just pasting of course, even if I referred to it that way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do better in the future.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I believe the English language term "Potentiality and actuality" is most likely the proper title; after all, Entelechy is synonymous with Energeia in Aristotle" Fine by me--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not merge another article. You have all the time in world. Or rather, it won't take any time at all? Anything else?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Additionally, I don't see where Senses of being was included in your draft, (note that § is different from "Senses of act"). I'm sure it was a simple oversight, but it would be more accurate to work from the original articles (if Dunamis and possibly Energeia are to be merged into the current Potentiality and actuality as well). As I said, I'd prefer the edit history to reflect the specific changes since that's practical." I am in two minds about this, but it is acceptable to me that we try to keep everything in the merge even if it is unclearly written. I am tempted to call your proposal "unintelligent pasting" (LOL). But keep in mind that the material is still subject to people wanting to criticize it or remove it after any merge.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not at all amused and I have very little confidence in your plan Mr. Lancaster. Have fun, I see you've wasted no time getting started.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately communication has broken down with Mr Elf. I remain open for conversation. I'll edit as best I can based on Wikipedia policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Innocent huh? Well, I can't say it's been a pleasure, but if you're closing down... that's on you. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am simply noting here above that your responses to my remarks are a break down in communication. In other words they are not intended to communicate, and there is no point for me to respond further to them. You wouldn't me to, and it would achieve nothing. I point it out because I think it is best to explain what assumptions I am making so there is no misunderstanding. If you can explain that this assumption is a misunderstanding that would be great. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals?

I am only doing this to cut from the section above since we are now into how to and what to merge.12:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with a merger of all the relevant articles to Potentiality and Actuality and by the way, thanks to Machine Elf for his work on it. In order to avoid confusion, I propose doing this first, trying to avoid removing too much, so that we at least have starting point and place for further discussion. I have to however add that there is yet another article in this story: Entelechy. I have tagged it accordingly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals?

I am only doing this to cut from the section above since we are now into how to and what to merge. I am totally for merging dunamis. And will not fight merging energeia but I would hope that it not be merge since I think it is a subject that onto itself warrants an article and also a mention in the other Aristotle articles.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so concerning Energeia: What is it about Energeia which you would prefer NOT to be discussed in an article which also discusses Dunamis, and why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

update

I think everyone had agreed at least about Dunamis, so I have turned that into a dab. (There were a couple of other subjects already mentioned on it.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is felt that there are multiple meanings of the term energeia, it might be logical to also create a dab for Energeia. I am not convinced there are multiple notable meanings, but if there were... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's important that links to Energeia continue to go to a proper article, not a dab. As with Dunamis how would someone who isn't familiar with the subject know to click on "potentiality and actuality"?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving an answer. However, I don't follow. Consider the two possibilities:

• Let's say for example that there really are these notable non Aristotelian meanings of dunamis in English. So someone could be reading whatever works use the term in those ways, in your proposal, they would go to Wikipedia, and they get no help because they see no alternative meanings. In my proposal they would get a dab, which is surely what they need, and this is exactly why dab's exist?
• Let's say all meanings stem from Aristotle's or similar classical Greek ones. Then in this case under your proposal the reality is that there are a handful of articles covering the same core material, but with different styles and emphases, in other words, content forks. How does this help them? Under my proposal we would not even need dabs, just redirects, and they all end up at one place. For this reason, it will be important to mention all the redirected words near the top of the merged article.

Let me know whether this makes sense to you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have changed how dunamis searches work, so that now it does go to a "real article" as requested, not to a dab. That real article has a dab header which allows people interested in other meaning to still go to the dab. That seems to cover the concerns raised and I think it works because the minority meanings of dunamis (ones not contrasted to energeia, or developed from that contrast) are pretty rare in English.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Update on events relating to this article

A few things to note about events relating to this article:

1. As can be seen at potentiality and actuality, that article, which is the proposed target for material from this and other over-lapping articles, is blocked from editing for a few days. This is one result from the edit warring of Machine Elf yesterday. He was also asked to stay away from the article for a week, in reply to which he has said he will stay away permanently. That's an unfortunate way for the road block in discussions to end, but at least that is over for now.

2. While the article is blocked, it is time to try to get a vision together about this article and the ones that overlap with it. Obviously I have my own ideas, which continue to change, and obviously I intend to improve this article and the over-lapping ones so while the article is blocked I have set up a working draft on my user space. I learned last time I tried a draft in this complex case of over-lapping articles that it is possibly sometimes naive to ask others to work with me on such proposals, i.e. on the drafting itself, because people have different visions and can not understand where others are headed until the job is complete anyway. So I'll work on it myself during the block, and I hope I can this time bring it alone to a point where the target is more clear and I create less panic. I have made an effort already to incorporate material from this article to show how I think a structure might work which covers it. I suggest comments be made here on this talk page or else at Talk:Potentiality and actuality.

3. There are obviously lots of open discussions now: discussions I was trying to have with Machine Elf and others which petered out. So where were we? To move forward I will also try, if I can find the time, to write an analysis of differences between my draft and other versions, including old and draft versions, of this article, and the other articles in discussion (entelechy, energeia, Actus et potentia, and dunamis.

I hope that makes sense to others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potentiality_and_actuality#re-starting_merge_discussions_for_remaining_candidates --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE. In discussions on our talk pages User:LoveMonkey agrees with the energeia merge. Discussion of the entelechy merge continues on Talk:entelechy with User:The Tetrast. I shall act on that basis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Energeia is now a redirect, so please discuss any issues concerning it there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)