Talk:Simplicity

Philosophy Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

==I hate pointless articles likranswikied to a sentence or two in Wiktionary:Simhttp://wiki.riteme.site/skins-1.5/common/images/button_nowiki.pngplicityhttp://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.pngupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Button_hide_comment.png, where all dicdefs belong. --Ardonik.talk()^* 07:06, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Button_reflink.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Button_gallery.png

I do not agree with the following sentence:

"Simple things are usually easier to explain and understand than complicated ones."

Simple things are even as hard to grasp as comphttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Button_blockquote.pnglex things, for the reason: why seem simple things more clear than complex ones? the reason itself is as just complex and the mere complex things as counterpart. Take the golden mean for isntance, it is very easy and simple formula, but why that is very appealing to us is a mystery and very complex. My personal opinion is that simple things are very complex from some standpoints.

The golden mean and it's formla is simple and easy to explain, it's attractiveness is not. Why it's appealing is a irrelevant to it's simplicity. 82.148.96.68 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that to be the case things would have to be simple and in and of them self, and given that simplicity is a category of the human mind that is not the case. There are fundamental philosophical issues here.

Think about this sentence though - "although its really simple, its very difficult to understand". Well its not simple then is it? 213.208.114.181 (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire section copied from stanford's encyclopaedia

The entire "Simplicity in philosophy" section was simply copied from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/. I know this source is public domain, but guess the copy is not allowed even so, am I right?

--MirianBruckschen (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete false quotation

The phrase "Simplicity es the ultimate sophistication", quotated to Leonardo Da Vinci is an obviously fake quotation. The phrase and multiple variations of it, becomes viral in the Internet, but nobody indicates neither the source, nor its original Italian form. Moss Drake, in his blog, wrote an article entitled "The trouble with simplicity" (Oct/23/2010), where he try to find the source of the phrase, concluding that the phrase is false. Drake also search for the phrase at the two most important quotation books, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations and Encarta Book of Quotations, and the phrase was not there. Here, at Wikipedia, the phrase has a banner asking for the source, but it was also ignored.

So I think this phrase must be deleted. If not, Wikipedia is feeding the viralization of this obviusly false quote.

Kind regards.--Roblespepe (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]