Talk:Propositional attitude

Untitled

I'm new to philosophy and am having trouble here. Does the first word of the second sentence, "They", refer to "propositional attitude" or "proposition". The position of the sentence, immediately after the introduction of "propositional attitude", implies it refers to "propositional attitude" but its meaning seems to equal that of "proposition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Little john was also called so because of his size, how do you fit him in this so called theory? -- césar -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.254.73 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention?

Can anyone with a solid grounding in this topic opine as to whether it's in need of a minor cleanup with additional citations, or whether it has deep-seated issues? It tends to make claims in a didactic manner: "You may think X, but in fact, it's the case that Y" by making reference to primary sources, without detailing the history or disagreements on the topic, or providing sufficient context. This makes me worry that it may not represent an encyclopedic view, and may even largely consist of original research.

--Ctbeiser (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

agree, and could be made easier for non expert who doesnt already know their way around, for instance the sentence "Despite the name, propositional attitudes are not regarded as psychological attitudes proper, since the formal disciplines of linguistics and logic are concerned with nothing more concrete than what can be said in general about their formal properties and their patterns of interaction." - what proportion of ordinary readers could explain what this means?, if as I suspect its pretty much nil & and its not written in a form that allows looking up meanings to illuminate it, then whats the point of writing it...

143.159.213.255 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Propositional attitude image disscusion.

The image, while looking "too simple" for some, is actually a really good illustration that allows for laypeople to understand the concept on a deeper level, thus making this wikipedia page more accessible to the general public. Propositional attitudes are folk psychology anyways, so such a simplistic illustration of them doesn't actually mislead that much. Crazykazoo (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Propositional attitude concern cognitive relations people bear to propositions. Imagining or thinking about a proposition then is a totally fine example of a propositional attitude. I see no valid reason for the removal of the image except it looking too simple for what some would think is a rather complicated topic. Crazykazoo (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a blatantly unhelpful image, and edit warring to include it is disruptive. MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning. Crazykazoo (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It conveys no useful information to the reader whatsoever, and is so low quality as to appear that the article has been vandalized. MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"It conveys no useful information to the reader whatsoever"

restatement =/= explanation

"and is so low quality as to appear that the article has been vandalized"

That's a bad reason. The image is helpful, as I've heard from some academics I know online. An image looking simplistic is no justified reason to remove it. Crazykazoo (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

'People who aren't commenting here agree with me' isn't much of an argument, and I don't actually need to satisfy you with my precise method of disagreement. I suppose we'll just have to keep an eye out and see if any established editors show up to lend their support. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)