Talk:Alterity

Philosophy: Continental Stub‑class Low‑importance

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

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Move to Wiktionary

This ought to be more than a dictionary entry - see Other. Possibly redirect there. Charles Matthews 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Continental philosophy, the relation between the terms "same" and "identity" is not the same as the relation between the terms "Other" and "alterity". The term "Other" is usually used in the context of ethics (see also Face-to-face), while the term "alterity" is usually (but not exclusively) used in the context of ontology (sometimes along with the term "indeterminacy"). Thus, I would be reluctant to support a merger of the two articles. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. To not merge. LookingGlass (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e.g Lacan et al

I think it would be helpful to expand the entry here to ouitline the ways the term has been used/appropriated by "others" e.g in the article on Lacan on the "Big other".
LookingGlass (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Brackets

The paragraph on uses of the term in popular media has a lot of words bracketed for unclear reasons. I'm guessing that these were meant to be links, perhaps. Does someone want to try to establish real links there (if there are other Wikipedia pages to which to link on those terms)? If not, it seems best to remove the brackets and clean up the article. Thanks. Mgllama (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important term

I'm surprised to see someone has marked this as "low importance" on the philosophy scale. I would have thought it was very important. However, perhaps that is because the term is more central to literary theory than to philosophy. But we do need a good article here, and at the moment this is not at all good. It reads like a series of unconnected sentences from somebody's lecture notes. Sorry. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]