Talk:Trichotomy (philosophy)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Charles Sanders Peirce#Philosophy: metaphysics|active principles in the cosmos]] The anchor (#Philosophy: metaphysics) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

disambig[edit]

This page seems to be short enough to be included on the disambiguation page. Perhaps someone should explain where this belief came from, who would believe it today, and the difference between a soul and spirit. --Can Not 13:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely it should be body, *mind* and spirit???? baby_ifritah 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several different trichotomies. I prefer Mind, Body, and Heart, but the one listed is the classical Gnostic / Greek trichotomy. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a thoroughly researched historical perspective on the component parts of man, and not just from a Christian perspective; it accounts for Hindu, Greek, Gnostic, and other views of the composition of man. --75.173.4.172 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This stands in stark contrast to dichotomy." Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.211.248 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ego, superego, and ID theory[edit]

Shouldn't that count?173.180.214.13 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Generally Freud's theory is regarded as a theory of empirical psychology of homo sapiens, not as a philosophical theory of mind in general. For example, Tetens and Kant argued at a philosophical level for a division of mind into will, feeling, and cognition. Issues of body, mind, and spirit are likewise at some level of philosophical generality, though I haven't included them in the table, because I don't know enough about the philosophical/theological doctrines involved. My other concern here is that, when an earlier version of the table was in the wiki 3 (number), numerous threes that were not distinctly philosophical ended up getting added - not only psychological ones (ego, superego, id, were there) but also body types and so on. Actually I kind of liked it that way (unlike some other editors, which is why it's gone from there), but the article was on threes in general, while this wiki, "Trichotomy (philosophy)", is for philosophical trichotomies only. Now, it's not enough to say that one can think of ego, superego, id, philosophically; instead one has to show that it has been treated as a philosophical trichotomy by reputable philosophers or at least reputable researchers; in other words, if Freud had presented ego, superego, id, as having a philosophical character, that would probably be enough to include it in the table. For another example, if there were a wiki on "Tetrachotomy (philosophy)", I would include the OODA loop of John Boyd (military strategist) in a table of tetrachotomies, even though he wasn't a philosopher, because he was a thinker highly respected in his field and because he argued that its four stages have philosophical generality, irrespectively of the strategic concern with defeating an opponent.