Talk:Explication

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

Philosophy: Logic / Analytic Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Analytic philosophy This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KalenTheGreat.

Above undated message substituted from

I have also changed the headline. I don't find any argument in the section, so I don't think it is appropriate to call the section "Carnap's argument". The next headline should probably be changed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.155.226 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed the headline of the section about explication as a proses v. as an outcome. "Explication" is a noun in both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.155.226 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Carnap's argument provides a helpful foundation in understanding.." expresses a point of view. In my opinion we should probably either delete it or rephrase it: "According to nn, Carnap provides a.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.155.226 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the passage: Sadly the differences between explication and explication de texte are sometimes ignored, so that explication de texte is often wrongly labelled as explication. The confusion is sometimes compounded by search engine results which tend to group 'explication' and 'explication de texte' in the same list of results.

because it was uncited, doesn't seem to represent common knowledge, and possible reflects the opinion of whoever authored it. If you have a problem with that, feel free to argue it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.22.159 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I noticed that the section about semantic explication said that "these explications can fit into natural language, even if it sounds very awkward." I think it would be useful to explain what it means for an explication to "fit into" natural language. My first guess would be that wherever the original word appears, it can be replaced by its explication without any other modification of the text. The example given doesn't follow that understanding: The clown looks [happy] is replaced by The clown looks like [the explication for happy] (emphasis added). So it would be good to clarify what it means for an explication to fit, or to find a different example. Thanks for reading! JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of a replacement example: The clown looks like the clown is happy Versus The clown looks like the clown is [explication for happy] But I still think a clearer explanation of what it means for an explication to fit into natural language is necessary. Plus, this rephrasing doesn't adress how to handle the original example. JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section was previously titled "Explication as a process versus explication as an outcome" and was uncited. I have changed the section and cited it accordingly. Ainsmcf (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added an additional sentence to the lead to summarize the section about explication in analytical philosophy and literary analysis/criticism. CaptainKiser (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]