Talk:Ernst Bloch

Marxist quotes

"Due to Bloch's marxistic view it also contains such declarations as:

"Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem" [Where Lenin is, there is Jerusalem]

and

"the Bolshevist fulfillment of Communism" is part of "the age-old fight for God.""

The article already says that Bloch was influenced by Marx; what other work do these quotes do? Jordansc 15:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure the date of Subjekt-Objekt is 1949? Worldcat has 1951 as earliest date of publication.Honnisoitquimalypense (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloch influenced by Karl May?

This is not a joke. End of the 60's, I studied philosophy with Bloch in Tübingen, and he oftenly mentioned Karl May and Karl Marx as the guiding stars of his early days. --Shoshone (German WP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.44.164 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of the Future

I think the booklist is incomplete as I've come across a Bloch book titled "Philosophy of the Future". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.192.95.152 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism in need of attention.

The following passage, which I've removed from the article namespace, was lifted word for word (with slight modification) from the source cited:

Bloch, influenced by Naturphilosophie, believed that reality is an ongoing "mediation" between object and subject. The basic stuff of existence (Urgrund) has a teleological drive towards the end of the life process (Endziel). Causally, this is driven by a fundamental cosmic force, "hunger", which Bloch sees as translatable into "hope" in our own species. Politically, the end-point translates into a utopia where the exploitation of humans by fellow humans has ended.

I don't have the time to rework this in the next couple months, but if somebody does that would be great. In any case, plagiarized text can't be in the article, even if that means the article has to be truncated. Sindinero (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's not plagiarism. No one is ever guilty of plagiarism if they acknowledge their sources. I fail to see any respect in which that passage either could be rewritten or needs to be rewritten. Rewriting it just for the sake of rewriting it is foolish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you even bother to check the source before deciding this isn't plagiarism? With one small alteration, it's a word-for-word quotation from Honderich's book without quotation marks and necessary framing such as, "Michael Ruse has argued that [quote]." In any context at all, that's plagiarism. Here's the full entry from the Oxford Companion for comparison (wording and specific ideas reproduced in the wp entry are bolded:

"Bloch believed that reality is an ongoing 'mediation' between object and subject. This somewhat baffling claim should be read in the light of the fact that, although his reputation in the West was as a leading Marxist philosopher, in respects Bloch's debts were to the deeper and more ancient roots of *Naturphilosophie. Apparently, the basic stuff of existence (Urgrund) has a kind of teleological drive towards the end of the life process (Endziel). Causally, this is driven by a fundamental cosmic force—'hunger'—which Bloch sees as translatable into 'hope' in our own species. Politically, the end-point translates into a utopia where the exploitation of humans by fellow humans has ceased."

This is a classic case of a certain kind of (often) unintentional plagiarism, where a writer (or student) thinks that naming the source means they don't have to make it clear for a reader what wording and ideas actually come from that source. But all standards for this sort of thing are pretty clear that just citing the source doesn't eliminate the necessity of distinguishing the voice of the text proper from the voice of one's sources. It needs to be rewritten not for the sake of rewriting it, but to credit the specific wording and ideas of the scholar who wrote the Oxford entry.

Sindinero (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I've just checked and noticed that you were the one who originally added the material in question, so you are familiar with the source. This is a helpful reference on the relevant wikipedia (and incidentally, academic) policy on this question, especially the third example. Again, I should stress that it's plagiarism irrespective of intention, and I have no doubt that your intentions were sound. The point is just that we can't reproduce someone else's work without making it clear where their voice ends and ours begins. Reworking the language of the relevant claims (the influence of Naturphilosophie, the role of teleology, the subject/object mediation) would help remove this problem and put the material back into that section. (Although to be honest, I don't think the Oxford entry on Bloch is very good, since the author seems baffled by his own subject matter, but that's a larger question.) Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are recommending is simply bad writing. The words, "Michael Ruse has argued that...", are a perfect example of the kind of verbiage that I loathe and avoid when possible. In some cases, that sort of expression may be appropriate and necessary, but not here, because it implies something that is factually inaccurate. It isn't controversial what Bloch thought, and Ruse isn't "arguing" anything in that passage: he is simply stating what Bloch's known views are. "Ruse has argued that..." would be a proper addition if Ruse were offering a controversial or original interpretation of Bloch, which he is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You are of course perfectly free to propose a reworked version of the material on Naturphilosophie, teleology, and the subject/object mediation. In fact, I'd encourage you to, if you feel up to the task. Frankly, however, it's not clear to me that this material could be reworked in any useful way. It was written for a work of reference, and seems to be already ideal for such works, so what worthwhile changes could be made? Probably none. I'd have nothing against using a different source entirely, however, as I don't have such a high opinion of Michael Ruse either. The obvious alternative choice is Leszek Kołakowski's Main Currents of Marxism, which has a very full discussion of Bloch. I have a copy. Do you have one you can access? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you still seem to be missing the point. This isn't primarily a question of style, but one of plagiarism. We cannot, by any academic standard I know and certainly not by wikipedia's relevant policy, simply use the words of another without proper attribution (which in this case would involve the use of quotation marks and more direct, in-line attribution). That's it. Everything else is secondary to that consideration. But no encyclopedia entry is totally neutral, simply because translation and selection always involves some degree of what to privilege and focus on for the sake of space. In teaching texts like this, one can easily learn (and help students see) how much tacit interpretation already goes into what seems like a straightforward summary. That's not to say that Ruse is incorrect, but it does mean that his gloss of Bloch is his own work, and not how everyone would interpret him. To give just the most obvious example, the fact that the Oxford entry finds the idea of reality as mediation "baffling" (and thereby turns immediately to Naturphilosophie for an explanation) is a tacit way of downplaying a Hegelian influence. Again, my point is not that Ruse is incorrect or that we should privilege one particular interpretation of Bloch, but we have to mark Ruse's work and ideas as his own. Sindinero (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you see me restoring the text you removed? No. So you have nothing to complain about, as far as my behavior is concerned. Stop shouting at me in bold text, and discussion might become easier. Rest assured, I am quite capable of understanding written English without its being placed in bold face.

If your only interest is in brow-beating me, then you can have the article to yourself. I certainly won't touch it (though I will be interested to see what you can - or can't - do to improve it). I'd be happy to collaborate on improving the page, but you don't seem interested in this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see boldface as shouting and browbeating; that was certainly not my intention (caps seems to be the more common choice for that). Rather, it was to make a long paragraph easy to navigate instantly (by you or any other editors) at a glance. And I'm very interested in collaborating on this page and happy that people are working on such an important topic, so please carry on, by all means. I do think it's a distinction worth making that my point is not about style (so the judgment on "bad writing" is not really what I'm after) so much as a point of policy. Forgive me if I misread your initial objection, but it did strongly seem to me that you in fact didn't think it constituted plagiarism; I felt it necessary to explain the reasons for why I thought it was.

That said, I'm interested in reworking this article, but like I said in my first post, this isn't something I can get to for awhile. Since you have an ear for style, do you have any ideas about how we might reincorporate the points made in the Oxford entry while respecting wikipedia's attribution policy? Sindinero (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What I did was not plagiarism in the sense that I, or I think most people, would define it. I'm not actually interested in discussing how plagiarism should be defined. What matters is that I'm not going to restore text that is seen as problematic. At this stage, I don't see any useful way that the text based on the Oxford Companion could be reworked; it might be better to use a different source altogether. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that the "Thought" section did not describe any of Bloch's thought. I have attempted to correct this. In the process, I added a new reference and moved most of what was already written to "Life," which makes more sense to me. There is still plenty of work to be done. DIlARWzJXpwE (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Date Confusion?

The Spirit of Hope is listed as 1918 in the list at the end of the article, yet the article states that it was written in the US after Bloch fled there from Hitler. In 1918 Hitler was still in the trenches!89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing two different books by Bloch: The Spirit of Utopia and The Principle of Hope. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

notability

I have changed it to "Joel Kovel called Bloch the greatest of modern utopian thinkers." instead of "Bloch has been called the greatest of modern utopian thinkers". the citation for him being called the greatest of modern utopian thinkers is from a joel kovel book, and it is a matter of notability as to who called him that and should be included in the page.--120.144.96.13 (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what you think "a matter of notability" means. In Wikipedia terms, "notability" is the policy that governs which subjects may have articles created about them. See WP:NOTE. It is not even a relevant policy here. Anyone who wants to see who called Bloch the greatest of modern utopian thinkers can simply check the citation. There is no reason why Joel Kovel's name should be thrust at the reader in the lead. He is simply one of many commentators on Bloch, and it gives a wholly exaggerated idea of his importance to mention him by name in the lead. So please stop doing it. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable to the article is what I meant I wasn't referring to Wikipedia:notability. Its important to know who called him the greatest and that it exaggerates the idea of blochs importance by not saying who. Do you know anyone else who called bloch the greatest modern utopia thinker or is it only joel kovel?--120.144.96.13 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to edit Wikipedia, it helps to use terms in the way in which they are used on Wikipedia. As I said, anyone who wants to know who called Bloch the greatest modern utopian thinker can simply check the citation. There is no need to mention the name in the lead. Bloch happens to be a famous and well-known thinker, and it does not in any way give an exaggerated impression of his importance to say that he has been called the greatest modern utopian thinker. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

and yet I think it does exaggerate his importance by not including who said he was the greatest utopian thinker and that it is worth adding a couple more words into the lead. I'll ask I dream of horses to arbitrate this, I don't think we can settle this discussion any other way.--120.144.96.13 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

120 has asked me for a third opinion. I think s/he is right; however, s/he isn't talking about notability, but about weasel words. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the edits by the other IP address are degrading the quality of this article. It really does not help to have the name "Joel Kovel" thrust at the reader in the lead. If the IP feels so strongly that the "greatest utopian thinker" claim must be attributed to Kovel, then I suggest to him or her that he or she remove the material from the lead entirely and place it somewhere else in the article. It would be OK to have something to the effect that Kovel called Bloch the greatest of modern utopian thinkers so long as it is not in the lead. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

it says under = = influences = = "Psychoanalyst Joel Kovel has praised Bloch as, "the greatest of modern utopian thinkers" so i will remove the material from the lead entirely because it is elsewhere--124.180.248.55 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand how the lead is supposed to work. It is meant to summarize other material in the article. That is precisely its purpose: see WP:LEAD. Material is never removed from the lead simply because it is present somewhere else in the article. 122.60.173.222 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernst Bloch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805113135/http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina Folder/kell1.htm to http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina Folder/kell1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)