Talk:Thomas Nagel

Expansion

This article could really do with some discussion about his other work, such as "The view from nowhere", and "The possibility of Altruism". - Alex Gregory 26/10/05

This is one of the more interesting philosophers living. Someone really ought to expand and improve this article. I would do it myself, except that I'm certainly not up to the task. Hopefully, at some near date, this article will be as good and as comprehensive as some of the others on contemporary leading philosophers, like Searle, Putnam and Dennett.

I agree with both of the above. I recently expanded the article, but it could still use some a lot more expansion, especially on his views outside the philosophy of mind. I'm more familiar with his views in the philosophy of mind, as opposed to ethics, so I am not best suited to contribute in that department. -- Jaymay 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it'll be nice to add to the article how to pronouce his name. I am Israely philosophy grad student, and I (and my colleages) are not sure - is the 'g' in Nagel like in 'bagel' or 'angel'? and is the 'a' like 'table' or like 'Amish'. For, after all, he was not born in an english-speaking country. Doombir 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nagel rhymes with bagel.Lestrade (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Errors

There is an error here: Nagel received an Oxford BPhil in Philosophy. BPhil is a famous master's level degree at Oxford, NOT just another bachelor's degree. Department of Philosophy is the only dpt. at Oxford that stil holds on to this old style, although the meaning of BPhil has changed elsewhere in Europe.

It's not true that Dennett thinks that the consciousness is an illusion, that's a huge misunderstanding! I think it's safer just to delete the sentence about Dennett because all discussion over Dennett's theory should go into his own entry.

The sentence about Dennett wasn't really necessary anyway, so I deleted it. This is an article about Nagel and his views, not a survey article about consciousness and so on. -- Jaymay 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like the 'g' in 'bagel' 71.116.79.36 09:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible that his family is Jewish yet he is not described as being Jewish himself? If he has biologically Jewish parents, then he is Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zichenstein (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I just italicized all of book titles in this article.

His classes are really boring even though he is a genius?

Atheist?

Is it accurate to list Nagel as an atheist? If so, please cite a source. The anti-reductuinalist/quasi-anti-materialist/quasi-dualist view (or, in other words, that "consciousness and subjective experience cannot be reduced to brain activity") he takes up in "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?" seems, in my mind (pun sort of intended) to imply otherwise. Ejectgoose 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think his views on the Philosophy of Mind are irrelevant to his theistic beliefs; I cannot think of a single time in his papers that he mentions God, and indeed dualism is not a theological belief necessarily (and indeed Nagel is not a dualist). Seeing as we have no reference either way, though, let us not mention anything about his religious beliefs. Batmanand | Talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nagel wrote an article titled "Public Education and Intelligent Design"(PDF). It shed a favourable light on public education of intelligent design. Stampit (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is still curious about sources: http://www.interdisciplines.org/secularism/papers/1/10#_10 and http://www.interdisciplines.org/secularism/papers/1/10/2#_10 . DeepBlackWater 17:29, 1 Nov 2007 (EST)

Although Nagel is surely not an anti-religious man, his atheism is well-known. In fact, the following statement made by him about the fear of religion in the book The Last Word (page 130, Oxford University Press,1997), has become quite famous: "I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."123Calvario (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Would anyone object to the addition of a section on Nagel's recent work on ID? It doesn't seem to fit neatly into the Mind & Ethics sections, so I would think a new section appropriate. Here's a rough first draft of what I thought could be added: Nagel has attracted considerable criticism over his views on Intelligent Design (ID). Although he does not accept ID, he also does not accept the rejection of ID as non-scientific or merely religious, writing in 2008 "ID is very different from creation science...Whatever the merits, however, [it] is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else." In 2009 Nagel recommended the Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell as one of his "Best Books of the Year" in The Times Literary Supplement. As a leading proponent of ID Meyer's book argues that naturalistic accounts of the origin of life face severe difficulties that only a designing intelligence can account for. While Nagel did not accept Meyer's conclusions he endorsed his approach to "this fiendishly difficult problem" of the origin of life. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Added material from Signature in the Cell as it looks like that article is going to be deleted soon. See Talk:Signature in the Cell

Deleted sentence about Nagel being "a leading proponent" of Nagel's book. That's misleading and contradicted by the next sentence. It's also unsourced, and probably unsourceable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Picture

Is there a better usable picture of him? On the picture that is currently on the page he looks kind of aggressive :/ --178.1.51.198 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and citation issues

It looks to me like the above two issues are major in the section 'What it's like to be something'. The section reads like a sustained defence of his views, and has only one citation, which is to his own work. Can anyone suggest some opposing views with citations which would give a more balanced picture? I am not familiar enough with his work to do this. TonyClarke (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. All the unsourced material, and OR, has to go. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs largely deleting

This is mostly an essay appreciating the work, not in any way substantiated. The entire section on Work has only one reference which is to Nagel's work and is the writer's comment. Others are just unsubstantiated opinion with weasel words such as "probably most widely known". The comments may be a good appreciation, but this is not encyclopedic. Most of it needs deleting. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the description of the article, even if not necessarily with your proposed solution. As it stands the article is in dire need of 3rd party assessments of his work. Is he influential? Or do most philosophers think he is a crack? Ignore him? Find it interesting but irrelevant? Ashmoo (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Very impressed by your displays of your joint ignorance. For your information, professional philosophers across the globe view Thomas Nagel as one of the most influential of living philosophers. There are no Nobel Prizes for philosophy (did you know that? I guess not. Do you know what a Nobel Prize is?) but there equivalent honors and - guess what? They have been awarded to Thomas Nagel. Now go back to your comic books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.201.5.145 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. His "What is it like to be a bat" is a foundational text in the philosophy of subjectivity and consciousness.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Nagel

Are they related? http://www.philosophy.utoronto.ca/directory/jennifer-nagel/ -- 79.65.15.149 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Mind and Cosmos

Why is the only person quoted of all those who rubbished the book someone with a red link? And why is he called by the WP:WEASEL words "some from the scientific community"?

The article Mind and Cosmos quotes Daniel Dennett and Stephen Pinker as well as [1]. The problem is that the biological layman Nagel simply does not understand evolution. It is no wonder that he is praised by those whose job it is to not understand it, and pooh-poohed by those who do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Without looking to take a side, one way or the other, Mind and Cosmos is actually an article, not a book. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM, though it's also prudent to point out (for the sake of situating the reception of Nagel's work) that philosophers who make it their business to work on issues in philosophy of science, or philosophy of biology are usually sufficiently acquainted with the science. The manuscripts of their books are passed out far and wide before publication, and there is a peer-review process in place even for book-length academic publications. So any claims of "not understanding the science" shouldn't be sloppily presumed, but referenced from existing reliable sources, ideally in the same field. My two cents. I actually remember when the book came out. It was controversial, and as predicted, had many detractors. But among the most informed critiques of the book of which I'm familiar (ie, fellow philosophers who were informed not only on the science, but the metaphysics and epistemology), very few of them tried to argue that he didn't understand the science. —Approaching (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Mind and Cosmos is actually an article, not a book" - The Wikipedia article about the book "Mind and Cosmos" is an article, yes. What's your point?

"WP:NOTAFORUM"? What are you talking about? I am mentioning that this article, by selecting the sources in a particular way, tries to make it look as if Nagel's critics are just a few unimportant, unkonwn people.

"philosophers [..] are usually sufficiently acquainted with the science" - Usually, maybe. In this case, no.

"ideally in the same field" - so, by philosophers, a.k.a. biological laymen.

"sloppily presumed" - bullshit. The people I named above pointed that out, and they actually know what they are talking about, as opposed to Nagel and you.

"fellow philosophers who were informed not only on the science" - That's your claim. But you are not qualified to decide that.

All your points are ridiculous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Replaced the unknown chemist by a short sentence including Pinker and Dennett. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That's really not enough ... simply stating that Pinker and Dennett dismissed Meyer's book doesn't inform readers of this article. What is informative is that the entire scientific community rejects Meyer's book, and that Nagel embracing it is seen as a huge embarrassment. This article is sorely lacking a critical section ... it talks about Nagel's rejection of physicalism, but doesn't mention what a low opinion physicalists have for Nagel's views and why. -- Jibal (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a spouse

I am the subject of this Wikipedia article. I have never tried to edit it before, but in 2022 I got married for the third time, to Susan Chace. Since my first two wives are listed (twice) in the article, I thought the third should be too. But when I submitted an edit to this effect, it was removed by Aviram7 because I did not cite a reliable source. I wrote back to him saying there was no source, because the marriage had not been announced in any publication, but that I would be glad to send him the marriage certificate. In reply, he repeated the need for a reliable source and also suggested that it was inappropriate for me to edit an article of which I was the subject. Can anyone suggest what I might do to make this small but essential change? Thank you. Thomas Nagel 2600:4041:5D1F:A00:ECD3:D6A3:266F:3BBD (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a personal website or a university profile that mentions your wife? Those type of sources would be acceptable in this case. Thriley (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The difficulty is that any information included in Wikipedia should be verifiable, which in our language means that other readers should be able to check it for themselves. Proving the fact of your marriage to Aviram7 or any other individual editor is not sufficient; the information needs to be publically available. If you have a social media account, Twitter/Mastodon etc., posting the information there would work, or on a personal website as mentioned above. Otherwise you might have to go the Emily St. John Mandel route and find a journalist to interview you. Sorry if this sounds overly bureaucratic, but you understand that from our point of view, you're an anonymous internet user claiming to be Thomas Nagel, and we can't simply take your word for it. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions. I've never mentioned my marriages on my University web pages, don't have a private personal website, and don't use social media. Perhaps there's no solution. TN 2600:4041:5D1F:A00:CE8:8156:93AB:A696 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Another thought. My wife is not active on social media except for Instagram. If she posted the information of our marriage there, would that work as a publicly available reference? Thomas Nagel 2600:4041:5D1F:A00:992F:F307:204C:89F7 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it work to post the information on Instagram?

Thomas Nagel 90.2.173.7 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Jewish - important for him and for the world

His Jewish identity was important to him as he stated and the reference I showed proves that. My edit was reverted as "irrelevant to 1st section" but the reference proves that is very relevant. Please return it. Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

OK reading this again, along with the discussion about his atheism, I'll add it to the end of the opening statement. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)