Talk:Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
|
[edit] Sainte Foy-the-Lyon
Shouldn't that be Sainte Foy-de-Lyon? By the way, the end of this article seems to be missing. What happened? --Tamas 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It is Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon. I have corrected it. olivier 23:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] External links seem biased against Teilhard.
I will see what else I can find, but these links seem predominantly anti Teilhard. --Peacenik 21:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would strongly suggest the editors of this page investigate further some of the external links you have on the bottom of the page. In particular, the link titled "Teilhard, Darwin, And The Cosmic Christ" links to a particularly extremist point of view, that is it seems to present a a view point that is only representative of the particular authors point of view. The other material on this persons website is really fruitloop sort of stuff. I would argue that it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Cheers. 61.29.35.190 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A humble request
I certainly appreciate, from the tone of much of the discussion, that Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy is a deeply controversial matter, even today. Perhaps that is why so little information on it is to be found in the encyclopedia article. But that is a very serious problem. I looked up this article, as I imagine most people do, in order to learn something about that philosophy--that is, after all, the most significant reason why the man is of interest today, right? But the article is almost totally unhelpful in this regard, as it consists primarily of a resume of where he attended school, what jobs he worked at, and when he wrote various books and essays. These writings seem to have caused some degree of upset in the Catholic church, but why this is, is never discussed.
Can you imagine the same sort of article about, say, Augustine? Or Aristotle?
Is there any way the obviously energetic and well-informed community represented in this talk page can produce even a couple of paragraphs on the content of Teilhard de Chardin's ideas? That, I can assure you, is what the non-initiated visiting this page want to know about.
Thank you, Craig B. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.65.192 (talk • contribs) 09:08, June 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Church" vs "church"
Some edits have been changing occurances of "the Church" to "the church" (decapitalizing). I'm sure that this discussion has happened elsewhere in wikipedia, maybe somebody can refer us there. It is my understanding that a capitalized "the Church" is understood to refer to the political/organizational heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and is therefore appropriately capitalized in many places in this article. Any WP precedent on this? --Staecker 21:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Art drawing vs. photograph
Excellent drawing of Teilhard, yet I must ask why this subjective rendition MUST be the principal image of teilhard? Since photographs exist, it would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia in providing the clearest facts to not use art but actual images of Teilhard. Not that the drawings of Teilhard don't have a place on the page. THEY DO. Yet I would suggest that they not be used as the main picture. This will have to be remedied eventually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.43.190 (talk • contribs) 19:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC) (CLAVIO July 31, 2005)
- I totally agree with you, but we have to use Free (as in "Free licence") material whenever possible. Obviously, if a Free photograph can be found, it will be far superior to the portrait and will have to replace it. The lack of Free images is a common problem, which I try to address in this way (see List of sex positions, CPR, ...) :p Cheers ! Rama 03:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Al Gore and Pop Culture
I think that the reference to Teilhard de Chardin by Al Gore is appropriate for the category. The reason for this being 1) English Popular articles on Teilhard frequently cite this connection, including the Wired article 2) The amount of intellectual discussion provoked by Al Gore's book in the context of popular history, ie. "Bible Christian" Republicans picking up on this connection. 3)The influence of Teilhard on some of the existing "pop ecology", which I would argue Al Gore's book is a part of. 4) Generally if something seems "too trivial" it rather needs to be edited or expounded on rather than axed or erased. As a rule wikipedia is not perfect, and some things on this page seem sort of based on different projects, like the massive paragraph on Ong, or the integrist block but i believe rather than deleting them that they can be integrated into the article, for instance if there is ever a category on "influence" then the Ong paragraph will go there, including the integrist block. This being said the Al Gore reference belongs in "pop culture" because of the continuing popular vibrations from this inclusion of Teilhard into the book: Earth in the Balance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.27.67 (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC) (CLAVIO September 10, 2005)
[edit] Chardin
I would normally shorten Teilhard de Chardin to Teilhard as is done in the article. However, on reading French names#Particles (5th & 6th paragraphs), it seems more appropriate to abbreviate his name to Chardin. This does feel a bit strange to me, but it might be a good idea not to abbreviate his name at all in the article. --Gareth Hughes 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Chardinist, Chardinism Help with definitions, Please!
ESR refers to 'Chardinist idealism' in 'The Art of Unix Programming,' however I cannot find a definition of the term anywhere on the web or the Wikipedia. Is this a nuance of the 'noosphere?' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuffduff (talk • contribs) 13:32, October 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Collaborative development and the sharing of source code was a valued tactic for Unix programmers. To the early ARPANET hackers, on the other hand, it was more than a tactic: it was something rather closer to a shared religion, partly arising from the academic "publish or perish" imperative and (in its more extreme versions) developing into an almost Chardinist idealism about networked communities of minds. The most famous of these hackers, Richard M. Stallman, became the ascetic saint of that religion. Eric Steven Raymond, The Art of Unix Programming
- Chardin was deeply optimistic about the future, believing that the ultimate fate of the cosmos was a mystical, universally-unifying Omega Point. This is very similar to Satchitananda (being-consciousness-bliss) of Eastern philosophy. A Chardinist idealism sees collaboration as a wholly good thing, a virtuous circle that builds on itself and steadily increases in accuracy and information. Much like wikipedia. --goethean ॐ 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A bit of help please
I am only 14 and this will seem a ridiculously basic question to you but van someone tell me where I can find some text or anything on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's view oon future evolution, more specifically about communication. Many thanks in advance to anyone who bothers to read this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.173.173 (talk • contribs) 05:48, December 4, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps "The Phenomenon of Man". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loyola (talk • contribs) 00:39, March 28, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Really needs more
I have to agree that the section on teilhgard's ideas really needs beefing up...defining of his special terms (noosphere, etc.)...outlining his argument...and then, fairly, presenting both the implications and the conflict he represents with traditional notions of original sin, human nature, Christ etc.HarvardOxon 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge noogenesis here?
I found the very short stub noogenesis. It is not much more than a substub, which defines the word as a term coined by de Chardin. His work should be included in the article about himself, and unless someone feels like writing an article about the concept of noogenesis I guess it is better to merge that article here for now. // Konvalj 02:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a bit to it. I think the article bears further development as a part of his work. Teilhard wrote about noogenesis in many of his books. If it is merged, it would be better to move it into an overall discussion of his work like the omega point. --Blainster 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be some discussion of noogenesis in the "Teachings" section of this de Chardin page. There should also be a section of internal links that include the noosphere and Omega Point pages.Sarahstoune 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not in favour of merging the two articles. As all articles bearing the name of a person Pierre Teilhard de Chardin should be biographical. But it would be good somebody gathers 'Noogenesis', 'Omega point' and other themes and theories of the man under another article called Teilhardism (not Chardinism). The word Teilhardism is already in use. Zerged 16:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Interpretations of Genesis
The second paragraph of the article used to read.
Teilhard's primary book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos. He abandoned a literal interpretation of creation in the Book of Genesis in favor of a metaphorical interpretation. This displeased certain officials in the Roman Curia, who thought that it undermined the doctrine of original sin developed by Saint Augustine. Teilhard's position was opposed by his church superiors, and his work was denied publication during his lifetime by the Roman Holy Office.
I am certainly not a specialist on Teilhard, but this can't be right. Saint Augustine himself favoured an interpretation of Genesis that was far from literal. The Catholic Encyplopaedia attests that biological accounts of evolution and creation were seen as mostly compatible with Catholic docrine early in the 20th century. What I gather from secondary sources and the current Wikipedia article is that the real issue was Teilhard's idea that original sin was a unavoidable byproduct of biological evolution, leaving no room for man's disobbedience as the cause of the Fall. THis led me to substitute traditional interpretations for a literal interpretation and less strict for methaphorical above, but this paragraph probably needs some extra care from some Teilhard specialist who also understands Church doctrine. Rimfo 16:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More Teilhard Information!
Hello, I'm new on Wikipedia. I agree that the noogenesis article should be expanded and merged into Teilhard's page. The page has an excellent biography, it just needs his thought now.
I can draw a an outline of his thought, define a few key concepts (omega point, noosphere etc. ), and lay out the issues which question his orthodoxy.......
Do I just edit the page?
Ridabewa 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. However, if we are going to merge some pages into this one, you may want to wait for us to do that before adding info, so that you don't repeat what others have done. Or we can merge all three of the stub articles into a new one called Philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin like this one. — goethean ॐ 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
ok cool, so i'll just wait?
that Philosophy of Teilhard article sounds like a good idea.
Ridabewa 08:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
