Talk:Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Metaphysics / Modern Mid‑importance

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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Metaphysics
	Modern philosophy

Removed "Other Views" Section[edit]

I removed the section called "Other Views", because it consisted of a single sentence that asserted that Berkeley's phenomenalism had been refuted by so and so, which clearly looked like an unsubstantiated opinion. Now, there were two sources, but they were the books of the supposed refuters themselves, and can therefore hardly be called neutral sources on the matter. --Le vin blanc (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

These two excerpts, at least, strike me as prohibited OR:

His argument would prove to be a devastating attack on the nearly 2000 year old platonic view.

and

The philosophy presented is often misinterpreted. The criticism is that Berkeley claims that we live in an illusory world, when in fact, Berkeley advocates for the acceptance of ideas as real "things." When we refer to an object, we don't refer to a material form, but to the idea of the object that informs our senses. Berkeley doesn't propose that nothing is real; he proposes that ideas themselves comprise reality.

128.223.222.107 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is relatively uncontroversial but the first one, at least, should really go. This article generally needs cleanup as it is full of OR and uncited interpretation. Bunnyhugger (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]