Talk:Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
[edit]- This is the archived discussion of a merged page.
.-
[edit]A large part of this article appears to be patent non-sense. The book itself may be that too but the Wikipedia article should still be accessible to those that haven't read the book. It might be better to shorten this article and just mention that it's a book that deals with whatever subject. The mathematical concepts strung together in the article don't make any sense. Jason Quinn 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is inaccessibly written. The majority of the paragraphs consist of one rambling sentence which makes the subject matter almost wholly opaque. I agree with the comment above that it the description of the ideas involved reads like nonsense. Whether it is nonsense or not, it should at least be written in a manner that does not presuppose knowlege of what, for example, a 'spatium' is, what it means for something to be 'structurated' etc. 86.157.163.54 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is involved, yes, but most of the difficult, loaded terms are hyperlinked. It is quite possible, using these, to reach an understanding of the general area of philosophy in which the book is said to deal. This, in itself, is no different to any of the pages on, say, theoretical physics, or some such. Terms are deployed, without explanation, and hyperlinked for the convenience of the reader.
Where terms are not hyperlinked, where the terms user 86.157.etc. mentioned as being too obscure are used, the section is explicitly signposted as a using the specific, idiosyncratic terminology of Deleuze: "De Landa recreates his argument thus far using the idiosyncratic and neologistic terminology of Deleuze..." As such, this section of the article is explicitly for people already acquainted with Deleuze, who want to make sense of Delanda from that point of entry - and mentions the terms carried across in the discourse.
I think the article caters for numerous different audiences, and numerous different entry points into the topic. It isn't nonsense, by the way; just highly specialised philosophy. Fionnmatthew 10:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)