Talk:Aldous Huxley

Template:Vital article

Untitled

"On November the 22nd of 1963, unaware of the assasination of John F. Kennedy earlier that day and under the influence of an unspecified entheogenic substance." Can someone supply a verb for this non-sentence?

Missing information

Could someone update the article to include the quotes from his work - "Confessions of a Professed Atheist"

Religion

Can a section be added explaining what Aldous Huxley's religious views were? Some websites seem to say he was an atheist, but according to some parts of the article he studied vedanta hinduism, but what were his actual religious views?. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does he need to have any fixed religious views? Span (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He wrote a book called "perennial philosophy" which basically explained there is a common element of truth in all religions. He wrote another book about God where he described his vedanta view of God. However in other essays he expressed his atheist beliefs. It is confusing. You do not need to have fixed religious views, but to write a book about the truth in all religions to then support atheism or vedenta hinduism. Makes no sense. For the article, it is misleading if someone wants to know his actual beliefs. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley's Grandfather, Thomas Huxley, coined the word agnostic, to mean that in a strictly scientific sense, God cannot be proved in this physical world, but there is also nothing to disprove it. Huxley described himself as an agnostic - as he had not confirmed the "proof" of God for himself. In the journal published by the Vedanta Society of Southern California, and in his introduction to the Bhagavad Gita (translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood), he explains the "Minimum Working Hypothesis", which I think is the core personal belief and philosophy of Huxley: There is an underlying reality (Brahman), the nature of that reality is of the same nature as what is within each human being, that it is possible to identify and experience that True Nature within each of us, and that the goal of life is to realize that divinity. In other statements of the MWH, he adds that there are means (paths, Tao, etc.) that exist to help attain that realization. Scholars have stated that Huxley's religious views were along the lines of the high philosophy of Vedanta and Buddhism (as separate from the cultural aspects of those religions). That he could offer no independently verifiable proof of the existence of that underlying Reality, he held himself to be agnostic - as opposed to atheist (who flatly don't believe in God). Ellis408 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Position during WWII ?

What was Huxley's position during WWII ? Did he opposed it as a pacifist or supported it all the same ? Did he write something about it ? Some articles ? Some books ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.84.25 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Huxley was a pacifist and began working on political means of ending war shortly after WWI. He was a member of the Peace Pledge Union movement in England and Europe. For instance, the group tried to stop Canada from selling nickel (a critical war material for making armaments) to Nazi Germany. But ultimately, Huxley was disappointed in the political process and in a letter described how his views had changed, and that he felt the problem of war comes down to a religious problem - how to get people to see that we are all human beings with a common purpose to realize our own potential. After the war, he applied for US citizenship, but was denied because he wouldn't declare that he was willing to fight for the US.Ellis408 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No citation for "provocative marriage"

This article quotes the phrase "provocative marriage" with no explanation or citation for what made the marriage "provocative". When you do a google search, at least as of May 2015, for "aldous laura huxley provocative marriage" the only references are to wikipedia and the film documenting their relationship. My guess: it is a phrase from promotional materials for the film and was used here because it sounded neat. I think use of this phrase, without reference or citation, is wrong. I am going to eliminate it, unless someone can demonstrate why it is provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.44.153 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree - a reference should be provided for the wording. The phrase probably refers to the reaction of Huxley's family and friends to the seeming sudden marriage to a friend of Maria [Huxley's first wife]. No family was invited - it was a spur of the moment, Las Vegas wedding, with no announcement. There may have also been resentment from Maria's friends, who just didn't like Laura. In any case, it should be changed lacking a reference. I'll look for anything to confirm. Give me a week to look for something - a case could be made, but there needs to be a reference.Ellis408 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Semi protection

Vandalism by IPs continues. There is a case for indefinite WP:Semi protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

Doubts about whether philosopher was Aldous Huxley's occupation

Do we really have to go there? This is deja vu all over again. How many drama boards and how many citations will this one take before we learn that FKC actually agreed all along but just wanted his own source cited in this article, too? [1] Msnicki (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Your comment above has nothing to do with Aldous Huxley, and has no relevance to improving this article. Either stay on subject for this page or do not comment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am commenting on the content and I'm asking what is it going to take this time to gain agreement. Is it just sources you need or do you actually not agree that he's a philosopher? Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant. I am not interested in discussing whether Huxley or anyone else was a philosopher. What matters is whether there are reliable sources that show that "philosopher" was Huxley's occupation. Do you have any? Incidentally, it is wrong in any event to list Huxley's occupation as "Writer, Novelist, Philosophy". "Philosophy" is not a term comparable to "writer" or "novelist"; I presume that "philosopher" is what is actually meant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have any serious doubts you care to put into words explaining why you don't think Huxley was a philosopher, wouldn't it make more sense (common sense?) to simply add a {{cn}} tag rather than remove the claim? Msnicki (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Mystic" may be a better word. Or "New Age adept avant-la-lettre." Maybe it depends on the kind of philosophy; I'll bet Bertrand Russell didn't regard Aldous Huxley to be a philospher. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He did write a book called The Perennial Philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

Msnicki, your reply misunderstands the issue. The question is whether "philosopher" was Huxley's occupation, eg, something he was paid to do. One can obviously be a philosopher without being one by occupation. What I am requesting are sources showing that Huxley was by occupation a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

Since you don't appear to disagree with the claim and would merely like additional sources, the proper way to make your request is with a {{cn}} tag. Then please allow time for others to do the research you don't wish to do yourself. WP:There is no deadline. Msnicki (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

By all means research the matter. The claim that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher" appears to be wrong, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Msnicki, I am afraid that your edit here suggests that you still misunderstand this issue. The question is not whether Huxley was a philosopher. The question is whether Huxley's occupation was "philosopher". Obviously one can be a philosopher without being such by occupation. The sources you added call Huxley a philosopher, but unsurprisingly none suggest it was his occupation. It has already been established above that Huxley "was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood". Please stop confusing and distorting the issue by adding such misinformation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what the term occupation means to an intellectual. You seem to be focused on how the individuals monetizes his work, which I believe misses the point of what it even means to be an intellectual. An intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how he puts bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. I'm reverting to re-add my citations but I'll also take it to WP:ORN for additional discussion. Msnicki (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedic biography of Huxley should not mislead readers by asserting he was a philosopher. The word "philosopher" is often used in a colloquial sense but such mentions do not give substance to a false claim about Huxley's occupation. People write books about all sorts of topics, but writing such a book means you are a writer. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can or cannot Aldous Huxley be described as a philosopher ? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC).
  • That is another question. Clearly anyone can be described as a philosopher, and if it were WP:DUE an attributed opinion could be added to the body of the article. My primary objection is the over simplification of adding misinformation to the infobox. Lots of people have written books about science but many of them are not scientists. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)