Talk:Event (philosophy)

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

High

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Time Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson’s Theories of Events

The final sentence in this section reads: "However, one can argue that the warming of the ball and the rotation are possibly temporally separated and are therefore separate events." --Should this not be spatially separated? The heating and rotation are occurring at precisely the same moment, however the heating and rotation affect different spatial properties of the ball.

I'm speaking only from a logical point of view--I have never heard this discussed before.

I suppose it really comes down to what is spatial, and in fact we can easily argue that temperature and angle (or position) of the ball are two different properties, thus an event would the a change in a particular property at a particular moment in time, as caused by some stimulus.Logan1337 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleuze

Why isn't Deleuze mentioned? He dedicates an entire book -- The Logic of Sense -- to developing a notion of the event. --Le vin blanc (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Event is central to several readings of Deleuze. An article section has been started.Rgdboer (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Deleuze is still lacking from this article. It is confusing; relatively marginal works on the event are discussed (Nietzsche & Philosophy is great and important, but it doesn't really have a substantial engagement with the event beyond the introduction). Notably, the Logic of Sense is not discussed altogether, when this is Deleuze's major work on the event. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shital pandey

United Computer & Language Institute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.254.22 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]