Talk:History of Materialism and Critique of Its Present 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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Idealism[edit]

"Ideal metaphysics ... have a value as the embodiment of high aspirations." Is it possible that the author of the 1911 Britannica article didn't know that philosophical Idealism is epistemological, not metaphysical? It is an investigation into the relation between mental ideas or images and the external objects that they represent. It is not an investigation into objects that have complete, perfect, or excellent characteristics. Lestrade 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Other Books[edit]

I deleted the paragraph on Logische Studien and Arbeiterfrage. These books are not related to The History of Materialism. Whoever copied this article from Encyc.1911 did not limit the process to the copying of information about only the one book.Lestrade 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Requested move[edit]

English speakers would be more familiar with the English edition of Lange's work. Jimaingram 05:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Readers of Ernest Chester Thomas’s English translation should note that in many cases he mistranslated the German word “Verstand.” Instead of translating it as “Understanding,” he often rendered “Verstand” as “Reason.” “Reason” is “Vernunft” in German, not “Verstand.” This can only mean that Thomas was unfamiliar with Kant’s philosophy in which, for example, the Categories are pure concepts of the Understanding, not of Reason. The difference between “Verstand” [Understanding] and “Vernunft” [Reason] in Kant’s philosophy is of the greatest importance.Lestrade (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]