 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Ding an sich edit
Perhaps the phrase is common in German from time out of mind. For example, in R.B.Blakney's "Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation", the German phrase is used, reflecting, I suppose, its use by Eckhart. (Sermon "Honor thy Father", page 148 in the 1957 reprint of 1941 edition (Harper: New York)) Nick_cool (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
See also the German wikiarticle. Nick_cool (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your query, Bageense. The entry for "Thing in itself" opens by saying that this describes a concept originating with Im. Kant. But the phrase is used in the translation of Meister Eckhardt referred to above. And the footnote refers us to "Timmaeus" 49, 50, 58! So perhaps someone versed in history of philosophy could recast the article, taking the pre-Kantian use into account? Nick_cool (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hyphenation edit
Some sources use it; some don't. I think it's useful at points in body text to avoid syntactic ambiguity, but should it really be in the title? small jars tc 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why not? Why not avoid what you call "syntactic ambiguity" in the title also? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no syntax to be ambiguous about in the title, just the term on its own. small jars
tc22:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)- Maybe if you could give me an example of the syntactic ambiguity in the body text I would understand better what you mean by it. Myself, I like the clear concept of the thing-in-itself as a separate, well known concept in philosophy. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- "In itself" is already a common phrase so it can cause confusion. If I said something like "just the fact that there is a thing in itself doesn't mean we can perceive it", you wouldn't know whether I was talking about the thing-in-itself, or if "in itself" was added on for separate reasons. I assume the point of the hyphenation is to lump the phrase together so this never happens, but it looks silly to repeat it in the title, which already has the lumping together built in. small jars
tc16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- "In itself" is already a common phrase so it can cause confusion. If I said something like "just the fact that there is a thing in itself doesn't mean we can perceive it", you wouldn't know whether I was talking about the thing-in-itself, or if "in itself" was added on for separate reasons. I assume the point of the hyphenation is to lump the phrase together so this never happens, but it looks silly to repeat it in the title, which already has the lumping together built in. small jars
- Maybe if you could give me an example of the syntactic ambiguity in the body text I would understand better what you mean by it. Myself, I like the clear concept of the thing-in-itself as a separate, well known concept in philosophy. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is no syntax to be ambiguous about in the title, just the term on its own. small jars