User talk:Alexscara

Welcome!

Hello, Alexscara, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My question is - surely you can be a philosopher without holding the title of "agrégé of philosophy. The question would be - does he have sufficient originality of thought. I don't know if the admitted plagiarism is enough to discount all his thinking, but it sounds as if it doesn't. jmo. Springnuts (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Part of the problem is your edit summary, imho, which makes it appear as if the lack of the specific qualification is what you think stops a person being a philosopher. But you pack a lot of POV when you say "the rational tradition of philosophy can sometimes be at odds with a more mystical understanding of the world by religious thinkers." I think it depends what he is writing - is he writing philosophy or not. If he is, then I would say he is a philosopher. But I am happy to let others make the judgment - eg this since your revert: [1]. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: you've reversed my edits twice. Not me, me hearty. One to me; one to Barrelproof. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)-[reply]