Talk:Action theory (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:
/
	Metaphysics

Neuroscience

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rework[edit]

I have reworked the Philosophy of action article, but I cannot move it, as necessary, to "Action theory". Please do so if you can. A merger with this Action (Philosophy) should not be undertaken any more. What I left in Action (Philosophy) concerns definitional issues which should not be deleted but are not of immediate concern to action theory.--Dhh28 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Action Theory[edit]

I think this article and Philosophy of Action should be merged to "Action Theory" which is what the field seems to be called based on the links from SEP. Yesterdog 05:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, who wrote this?

Agreed - the articles should be merged into something coherent. I'm not even sure if this does form a coherent term in philosophy, or if it has actually been borrowed from sociologist like Weber and Habermas (social action, social relation, communicative action, etc) --Tomsega (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup request[edit]

This Taoist style is good for an essay. but not for an encyclopedia. mikka (t) 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it?[edit]

what exactly do you mean? I do not think this is as bad as you put it. Knowing what a subject is is to be acquainted to the questions it raises. Obviously, this is a stub, much more needs to be done, but that's all. Velho 21:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the question series is kind of icky, because it obscures why the questions are being asked. It's not good for an essay either, because it doesn't address the nature of the questions or answer them. It just lists them. If anything, it's good for a lecture when you expect the students to figure out the importance of the questions on their own. I got rid of them, which reveals a need for some references of people or schools of thought which define action in all these different ways. NickelShoe 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beh, I'm taking down the sign myself, because I think the tone is fine now. Put it back up if you disagree. NickelShoe 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

This page used to be the location of the article now moved to action theory (philosophy) so that action theory (sociology) may gain a level pegging. --Tomsega (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment[edit]

i am a real amateur in VP and philosophy, and my language wants. but if the further comments would be regarded as meaningful and helpful by participants - i made my best. "Action (philosophy)" seems to be rather an essay, indeed. But to the content: Only by the way mentioning at the end of the article the peculiarity of examples of catching a cold, thought, intention, and their state of action -is inappropriate (no offense), when whole philosophies concern mind processes as action - for the mentioned example, catching a cold may be estimated as 'intentional' action, saying that the subject was weak, to be in a passive condition/ in state of tendency (same roots with intention!!) to catch a cold. And that weakness is intentional because the subject choose to be or not to be; to be strong, or to be weak. Philosophic discussion on this level are to be introduced in the very body of statement about action philosophy, is it not? When stating 'On the other hand, catching a cold is not considered an action because it is something which happens to a person, not something done by one. Generally an agent doesn't intend to catch a cold or engage in bodily movement to do so (though we might be able to conceive of such a case). Other events are less clearly defined as actions or not' - the author claims that the above example is definitely clear. But that is not the situation. The event is not clearly defined - the author then intended to introduce 'common' understanding of 'action'. {{ironic0n|shlomon rudich}} --Ironic0n (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged again[edit]

I merged this article into Action theory (philosophy) a few months ago, and someone undid it. I've merged it again, because the material is still identical. It's a huge waste of time and effort to have two articles on the same thing, or even intimately related things, when any effort should be spent on best organizing what material there is. Sestibel (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]