Talk:Aesthetics

Hate to be that guy, but in it's current state this isn't an article, let alone a RW article. How is it on-mission? Tielec01 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The only thing vaguely relevant to us that I can think of would be the claim of people like Schlafly that nature is designed to be aesthetically appealing to us. But that's an enormous stretch, even by my inclusionist standards. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"in it's current state this isn't an article, let alone a RW article. How is it on-mission?". In it's current state? Well, hate to be that guy, but I didn't realize articles needed to be complete on the very first edit and not be subject to later revision and addition content. Silly me.~Æ 07:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC) AstralEtheric

I've redirected it to argument from beauty. RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. Sophie^Wilder 08:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

AE, the reason I bring it up is to save you wasted effort. WP already has a comprehensive article on aesthetics - how could we compete? We know our strengths, and being a general resource on philosophical concepts is not one of them. Tielec01 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)