This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Agonistic liberalism was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into John Gray (philosopher). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
what about this abundance of quotations? shouldn't they rather be on wikiquote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.65.47 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
An anon IP just edited the intro, and I'm wondering whether the new edit is correct. It says: "John Gray (born 1948), School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, prominent British political philosopher, educated at Jesus College, Oxford (BA, MPhil, DPhil)."
First, what is the significance of saying he's the School Professor, rather than Professor? And I've read elsewhere that he went to Exeter College e.g. here His LSE website doesn't say. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes hello I edited the intro. Apologies for making the mistake about Exeter/Jesus - you are absolutely right, and I came on here today to change it but you beat me to it. Technically there is a difference between "School Professor" (how he's listed on the LSE profile page at http://www.lse.ac.uk/people/j.gray@lse.ac.uk/) and simply "Professor"; the former title was created while the LSE was under the Directorship of Giddens, and reflected what was originally (I think) some sort of special short term (6 year?) appointment while he left his chair at Oxford - though Gray may well stay at LSE permanently. As usual someone else may correct me again if I'm wrong on this.
Why has user named pedant changed the wording to "works/worked as" in numerous places ("He formerly worked as a lecturer in political theory at the University of Essex")? One hardly ever sees it written like that in the academe, it looks and seems highly awkward. Also why on earth link to a page on "currently", especially when that takes you to a page on the current date at time of clicking? Oh and thanks for helpful comments above, I will get round to registering soon!
greetings, I have just removed the line "in which he portrays humanity as a rapacious species engaged in wiping out other forms of life while destroying its natural environment.". I'm presently reading straw dogs, and while the preceeding is accurate, I think in the context in which it is likely to be viewed by the average reader, it is a misleading summary of the book. I've added "in which he denies humanity's special status with respect to other living things". duracell
I tihnk you may be missing the point. As I said, your comment is accurate. But, it is not the central theme of this book. *everyone* thinks that we are a "dominant and dangerous species". That is a completely unoriginal point. The point Gray is making is that liberal humanism sees humans as having a special status. This status, humanists think, will allow us to transcend the boundaries placed on other animals qua being animals. But, Gray argues, this is illusory - and in fact based on christian thinking, which liberal humanists ostensibly reject. We are in no sense "different" to other animals - by virtue of conscious reflection, free will or anything else (all of which he spends a good deal of the book setting forth). Hence, the line I inserted is more accurate. The book is "an excoriating attack on humanist progressivism abnd all its derivatives" (D. Marquand, "New statesman") "a hectoring attack on man-centered thinking" (Ian thompson "the independent") "A disturbing and thought provoking book. Are we really that different from animals?" (sunday tribune). All of which, of cuorse, come from the inside cover of the granta paperback of this book.
Lets just change it to "an attack on humanist progressivism" ok? duracell
sorry - just to clarify - the *point* of the foregoing was to show that a single line description of the central theme of this book as "humans are dangerous to the environment and other species" is just wrong. A single line description could be "denies special status of humans", but "attack on liberal, humanist progessives, who he sees as tacitly deriving their ideas from religeon" is best. Duracell 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've now added my edit to this article, which I insist on despite the fact that you are an "adminstrator" or whatever. As it happens, I consider these and related issues proffesionally, so I would urge you to consider my contribution. If you do not find it satisfactory, might I suggest we contact John Gray for his opinion? I do appreciate that his opinion is probably not as important as that of an adminstrator, however,
CDuracell 17:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Guardian article says he was born in 1947. It also has no mention that he taught in the University of Essex.
The copyright page of Liberalisms (1989), gives a birthdate of Nov. 5, 1948, which is also the date that libraries use to distinguish him from other authors with the same name. Brown's article contains at least one factual error: Straw Dogs wasn't published in 2000, but two years later, and, if Gray hadn't matriculated at Oxford until he was nearly 21, it probably would have come up in newspaper profiles before.
24.129.37.143 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't he have any personal life? Married? Kids? Hobbies? This looks more like a self-affirmation piece than a biography. I came to find out who he is, and all I found is what he thinks. 71.185.45.208 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
The section entitled literary criticism needs to go for several reasons.
Firstly, it is not about anything you'd normally call literary criticism. Secondly, it says nothing about the thought of John Gray. Thirdly, it is not NPOV in that it is critical of John Gray but supportive of the journalist Francis Wheen. Fourthly, it contains an unreferenced claim that Wheen's book had "otherwise received glowing praise". Fifthly, it quotes an article that is bordering on the abusive. Sixthly, it is about something that is deeply unimportant.
I have tried to delete it once but it was reverted. I think somebody else tried to. It needs to go.--Oldandrew (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Gtstricky - Fair enough, I'll get the references and add them. When you say you've "placed it into comment" what does that mean? Sorry, I've not had to do this before.
Oldandrew - I'm beginning to think you're John Gray himself! Point by point: 1. It is about a review which John Gray wrote of another writer's book, commonly known as literary criticism. 2. This page is about John Gray, not the "thought of John Gray", therefore any information about him is legitimate on this page. 3. NPOV does not preclude publicly available, verified quotes about people. Read the rules. 4. The claim on praise is entirely true, but I'll modify this phrase. Something you could have done yourself, but you preferred to delete the entire section. 5. People sometimes say nasty things about eachother, get over it. If they say it in public and they can back it up, there's nothing to say it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. 6. If importance is your measure of what should go on Wikipedia then perhaps you should delete all the pointless additions you have made over the years. They don't seem to be particularly important or well-thought out to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.196 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
The first paragraph says that he is still at LSE and the second says that he is not. Someone should resolve this. Klmarcus (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
To get rid of the tag I've removed this:
"I should liken Kant to a man at a ball, who all evening has been carrying on a love affair with a masked beauty in the vain hope of making a conquest, when at last she throws off her mask and reveals herself to be his wife." In Schopenhauer's fable the wife masquerading as an unknown beauty was Christianity. Today it is humanism.
What Schopenhauer wrote of Kant is no less true today. As commonly practised, philosophy is the attempt to find good reasons for conventional beliefs. In Kant's time the creed of conventional people was Christian, now it is humanist. Nor are these two faiths so different from one another.
Over the past 200 years, philosophy has shaken off Christian faith. It has not given up Christianity's cardinal error – the belief that humans are radically different from all other animals.
Philosophy has been a masked ball in which a religious image of humankind is renewed in the guise of humanist ideas of progress and enlightenment. Even philosophy's greatest unmaskers have ended up as figures in the masquerade. Removing the masks from our animal faces is a task that has hardly begun.
Other animals are born, seek mates, forage for food and die. That is all. But we humans – we think – are different. We are persons, whose actions are the results of their choices. Other animals pass their lives unawares, but we are conscious. Our image of ourselves is formed from our ingrained belief that consciousness, selfhood and free will are what define us as human beings, and raise us above all other creatures.
In our more detached moments, we admit that this view of ourselves is flawed. Our lives are more like fragmentary dreams than the enactments of conscious selves. We control very little of what we most care about; many of our most fateful decisions are made unbeknownst to ourselves. Yet we insist that mankind can achieve what we cannot: conscious mastery of its existence. This is the creed of those who have given up an irrational belief in God for an irrational faith in mankind.
But what if we give up the empty hopes of Christianity and humanism? Once we switch off the soundtrack – the babble of God and immortality, progress and humanity – what sense can we make of our lives?
— John Gray, Straw Dogs
This really explains Gray's insight and I can't see how it could be put any better. I'll try and write a synopsis under a section called "The core thesis of Straw Dogs" or something? Anyone got any better idea how to handle this? Sarah777 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Does this section breach WP:QUOTEFARM?Autarch (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
An image used in this article, File:Gray10.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply |
This article seems to me to in violation of NPOV, in that it summarises Gray's arguments and reports all the praise he's had but doesn't so much as mention the serious criticisms that have been made of him; for example, I read at least one article that described him as a political opportunist whose philosophical positions shift as the political climate changes, and who can be relied upon to challenge radical criticism of the political mainstream, whatever the political mainstream happens to be (except for when he was on the far left, but that was a time when the far left in Britain was experiencing a brief surge in popularity). I can't remember who wrote the article, but it's not the only scathing criticism of Gray I've read. He is much more controversial than this article suggests, and it needs more material to redress the balance. In the meantime, I would suggest that it needs at least a banner calling for a more comprehensive account of his reception, and not just a section called 'Acclaim', because he hasn't received nothing but acclaim. Lexo (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Agreed - where's the criticisms section? Richwil (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Gray (philosopher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Para 3 of this section appears to contradict para 1. Either "agonistic liberalism" describes Berlin's philosophy or it is an alternative to it; can't be both Encylopaedia Salesman (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I looked at the cited articles for the last two paragraphs in this section. These not only say almost nothing about Gray's views, but do not seem to clearly support the claims of these paragraphs, which at best might be related to the views of the cited authors, not of Gray. I hence deleted both paragraphs. If someone thinks the views of these two other philosophers shed light on Gray's views, I invite them to submit a longer, and better explained and documented, explanation thereof. Alternatively, a brief one-sentence reference with links to the articles on the authors mentioned, indicating that they also discuss political agonism but with differing interpretations, may be appropriate. A third option, perhaps even better, is to create a new wikipedia page on agonistic liberalism, describing and comparing at length the differing views of these authors.ScottForschler (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rulesinAACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply