This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Ethics / Modern / Contemporary Mid‑importance 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. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Metaphysics Epistemology Ethics Modern philosophy Contemporary philosophy Linguistics: Philosophy of language This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Epistemology#Infallibilism, indefeasibility|infallibilist]] The anchor (#Infallibilism, indefeasibility) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Someone keeps reverting the sentence He was famous for his non-pluralistic approach to philosophy... eliminating the non- or anti- prefix before the word pluralistic. I have read everything Bradley published; and I can assure you with 100% accuracy that his philosophy was not pluralistic. It is very clear to anyone who has read Bradley, that he bases his philosophy on a concept similar to the Hegelian Absolute—an idea which Bradley claims is the sole basis of reality. This is clearest in his famous book Appearance and Reality. There is nothing pluralistic about this book.Aletheia (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section of published works, surely the editions referred to should be the first editions. That way a reader of the wiki article can determine the exact point in the history of a subject that the author's work on that subject appeared - which will help the reader to gauge its importance and correct place in the history of the subject. For example, in the works section of this article, Bradley's Principles of Logic is dated as 1923. However, as far as I can tell, it came out at least as early as 1883. And I seem to recall that other author's, who died before 1923, had criticized that work. Plotinus (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Philosophy" section, the following words appear: "…strongly influenced by Kant and the German idealists, Johann Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, and Hegel, although Bradley tended to downplay his influences." Whose influences are downplayed, Kant or Hegel? Why is "influences" plural?Lestrade (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I guess that it means that Bradley was influenced by (1) Kant, and (2) the "German Idealists" (which consists of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel); the influence of Hegel being downplayed by Bradley. If this is so, then it can be said that the sentence in the article is very poorly written, possibly as a result of being exposed to the works of the "German Idealists." 96.235.173.81 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)De'Shawn Carter[reply]

First, I should mention that this is a good article. What I have to say is just a tiny quibble.

Some of my changes (e.g., replacing "In recent years, however, there..." with "However, in recent years, there...") were just a personal preference in style, so it's understandable to view them as not improvements (although they are also not detrimental). However, others were indeed improvements (only tiny, but still improvements):

• I added relevant internal links, which is in keeping with WP:BUILD.
• I de-capitalised the first letters in "Pragmatism" and "Anti-individidualism", in keeping with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Doctrine (which this article already almost entirely followed).
• I replaced single quote marks with double quote marks.

The third of these appears to be the contested issue for CorinneSD. I understand that, for things like spelling, it is totally acceptable for the dialect of English most relevant to the subject (in this case, UK English) to be preferred. However, double quote marks actually increase clarity (through things like being harder to confuse with apostrophes) compared to single quote marks, and thus it is recommended to use them in all cases (except for quotes inside other quotes) in MOS:QUOTEMARKS. In addition to increasing clarity, the fact that they are recommended in all cases in the MoS means that use of them increases consistency. (In fact, even in this very article, double quote marks were used before I got here for "The Absolute enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress.")

Also, just to make sure that this is actually what is being done on the most analogous articles, I checked out the list of Philosophy articles with Featured Article status, clicked on a bunch of the first ones that came up, and when they were focused on a British philosopher or their work I checked if they used single or double quote marks. Double quote marks were used by every one of the first 6 I clicked on (Bernard Williams, Alfred Russel Wallace, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, A Vindication of the Rights of Men, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Priestley). I didn't bother looking at more. FA Philosophy articles are what this article should be modelling itself on and the Manual of Style is what it should be guided by, so when they both point in one direction it seems like that's a good direction to go in. BreakfastJr (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous and detailed comments. I'll reply to each item:

• I know that the difference between "X, for example, ...." and "For example, X...." and between "Y, however, ..." and "However, Y...." is just a stylistic choice, so is not a big deal. Sometimes I use one pattern, sometimes the other. It's just that putting "for example" or "however" after the subject minimizes it (makes it stand out less) so is less distracting to the reader. It's a nice way to vary sentences so that you don't always use "For example ..." and "However,..." I will not argue over this. (I should have gone back in after my edit and added the commas around "for example" but forgot to do so. But now that's not necessary.)

• The links are all right. I just wondered whether a link at "self" was necessary. But I won't argue over that. It's all right.

• I thought "pragmatism" was the name of a school of thought so should be capitalized, but I see you are correct. Thank you for the link to the relevant section of MoS.

• I thought single quotation marks were British style. I didn't realize that MoS recommends the use of double quotation marks consistently (except for a quote within a quote). Thank you for the effort you expended researching other articles. I'm happy about the double quotation marks because I grew up with double quotation marks. So, again, you are right. Sorry about that.

• The only edit that I still feel strongly about is putting the adverb "never" between "to" and "confer", thus splitting the infinitive "to confer". I really do not like splitting an infinitive, so I always put the adverb either before or after the infinitive. Thus, to me, "never to confer" is correct. CorinneSD (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thank you for your courteous and detailed response.

I've reinstated the "never to confer". Splitting infinitives isn't actually a problem and is another one of those stylistic choices, but not splitting them is likewise not a problem and you've granted me all my other stylistic choices, so I thought I'd compromise on that one :)

This was a wonderfully reasonable dispute resolution. BreakfastJr (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that normally I would probably have considered each one of your edits more carefully, including doing the research in the MoS, and discussed the edits with you. I think I was tired and in one of those moods where I couldn't think about each edit separately. CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling. And they were only quite minor edits anyway, so it's understandable that you didn't feel the need to think that hard about their value (it's not like I added content or substantially reorganised things). BreakfastJr (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you can relate to the feeling. On edits that are stylistic, sometimes I just change it, other times I suggest the change to the other editor. You'll see that I'm usually quite diplomatic about it. I can see that you are quite knowledgeable and can write well. I should have taken more time and considered your edits more carefully. CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Francis Herbert Bradley.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good thing to add here. 2601:18F:F00:7010:2024:F460:622:FAF6 (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]