Talk:Alan Watts/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Getting Started

To get you started: some notes I made while reading his biography: important dates -- Pweemeeuw, Aug 11, 2004

Excellent rewrite -- thanks pw 21:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Epicurean?

Judging by the references to his love for fine art, architecture, and food, not to mention female companionship, Watts seems to have had Epicurean tendencies. How does this comport with Zen philosopy, and should such a comparison be noted in the article? --Blainster 00:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine, and even makes sense. Zen has no doctrine, no scriptures and no formal teaching. It does not mandate any type of personal behavior. In fact, it's not even a philosophy. Zen is all about experiencing reality for yourself, first-hand, which is exactly what Watts did. Lazerf4rt 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

About Zen having no scriptures; could not a case be made for the Heart Sutra?

A case could be made for the Avatamsaka and Lakavatara Sutras, as well.

Also, there are two kinds of ethics that were generally recommended within Zen (Chan) Buddhism in China & Japan: the rules of the temples/monasteries (for monks, nuns & priests) and the more general social common-sense behavior (and ethics) deriving mainly from common customs and from Confucianism. Older monks often gave advice along those lines to young people in general and monks in particular, in terms of behavior outside of the monastery precincts. Joel Russ 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV

This is an encyclopaedia article, not a shrine. Watts was influential, and Wikipedia:NPOV lets us say that, but we can't blatantly say that he was exceptional, we have to let the readers make up their own minds. Fire Star 04:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when does a word like exceptional conotate a sharine?? h0riz0n

The mere fact that he has a Wikipedia article already proves that he was exceptional. It's redundant to actually come out and say it. You might as well say the same thing about every other person listed in Wikipedia. Lazerf4rt 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This article

Could be condensed. Has a lot of detail that, while factual, does little (his wife's mother's husband???).

Doesn't cover many of the topics that I've heard Watts speak on: the ego, the relationship between technology and civilization, etc.

my 2c.

This is true, but it is virtually impossible to write everything he had said in lectures and books. The main reason is to give an impression - in short notes - who he was and what is his basic philosophy was. I know that he deserves more attention and in depth analysis but that is where people can buy his books and audiotapes to get to know more about him. Based on my knowledge of Watts, i think that the wiki of alan watts is correct and a good example of who he was.

I share the feeling that most of the factual/biographical detail could be condensed here. There doesn't seem to be much point mentioning that, for example, Alan Watts' neighbors were good carpenters. After this article, the reader is left wondering why the article exists in the first place. Sure, that's his life: Why is it noteworthy? The article needs expand on his personal philosophy, then we'll have justification for the (more relevant) biographical points. Lazerf4rt 04:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about 1 things in the article:

His addiction to alcohol, i never read or heard that before so i cannot fully know if this is true. 213.93.32.246 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Jungsonn

Alan Watts and his work have and will help many generations to come. It is a pity that individuals look at the sum of his life rather then the whole. Anyone can debate anything with negative and positive consequences. Try actually understanding what he was trying to say, it's far more important.

Controversy

Most thinkers in wikipedia have a section detailing some of the problems evident in their thought. This is not true in Watts' case. Is there any particular reason for that? Is it that everyone agrees with Watts? Sounds doubtful at best.--83.252.70.232 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's because the current article says almost nothing about his work. What is there to disagree with? I'd like to contribute a summary of his core philosophy, then people can add their counterarguments. Although, keep in mind the article already says he was an outsider in academics. Lazerf4rt 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead links to audio

Links to audio in the PostHum section are dead. "Sorry ....but we can't find the iWeb page you've requested. It's possible that: · The address was entered incorrectly. Check your spelling and try again. · The .Mac member of this name has either created a page and removed it or has never published an iWeb site. · There is no .Mac member of this name. If you'd like this member name for yourself, sign up for a .Mac account right now and have your own iWeb site in minutes."

That goes for both "listen" citations. Here's the line:

Alcoholism

I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I think he had a history of alcoholism. If that's true, could we get it in the article? ...I think it used to be, and maybe some Alan-friendly person edited it out.

It would also be good to get the circumstances of his death into the article.--82.41.42.96 07:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the alcoholism thing, with a reference. I don't think there is any doubt about this, nor does it reflect badly on him to record his tropism. --82.41.42.96 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason not to mention his problem with alcohol, but I think it makes sense to do that in the later part of the chronology of his life (later paragraphs). His biographer, Monica Furlong, seemed to see the alcohol dependency as a problem of his later life. So I don't see why this connection with alcoholism is mentioned in the lead paragraphs that introduce Watts and his writing — way up at the top; I don't think other biographies in the Wikipedia are written this way. The years of his life are given right off (1915-1973), so it's already understood that he lived 58 years, then died.Joel Russ (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Family life

Unless I missed it, there is no reference to his wives and children in the article at present. Can anyone add this? --82.41.42.96 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

His notorious womanizing, and his use of his society to hide income from his ex-wives would also seem relevant and interesting.Verklempt 22:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Some needed info

Good article, but its missing some things: First off, it kind of leaves the reader hanging as to the nature of his "mystical experience while on a walk with his wife." (at the end of "Influences and Publication")Maybe a sentence or two more about this would help - or just removing the reference all together. I mean, what happened and ho did it affect him?

Secondly, the section entitled "Priesthood and After" starts off with a reference to his displeasure with the New York Zen scene. None of this is mentioned beforehand. Perhaps if it were rewritten as "Finding disappointment with the New York Zen scene..." instead of "Because of his disappointment..." the reader wouldn't feel as if he should already know something that he probably doesn't.

Lastly, referring to Watts as a libertarian will probably need to be backed up by a citation. I hate to see those ugly "citation need" tags, especially on an article as good as this one, but I may have to put one up in the near future if this is left unaddressed.--Wellesradio

About libertarian perspective: I could have missed something in Watts's writings, but I know of no one article or book that addresses his libertarian beliefs and attitudes. Instead, his libertarianism comes out clearly here and there in many books and essays. For instance, in the Prologue to the Joyous Cosmology, in his scholarly-journal article "Psychedelics and Religious Experience" in California Law Review (Vol. 56, No. 1, January 1968), in passages of an essay or two collected in This is It, in some passages in The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, etc. And certainly the libertarian flavor is there in his autobiography, In My Own Way. Joel Russ

Education

The section on his education is incomplete. can anyone confirm that he held a Master's Degree in Theology from Sudbury-Western Theological Seminary and an Honorary DD from the University of Vermont in recognition of his work in the field of comparative religions? Kendirangu 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Watts has been criticized by Buddhists such as Roshi Philip Kapleau and John Daido Loori for misinterpreting several key concepts of Zen Buddhism. Kapileau wrote in The Three Pillars of Zen that Watts' dismissal of the importance of zazen is based in having read only half of the koan Watts bases his criticism of zazen upon. In Loori's translation of Dogen's The True Dharma Eye, the author also mentions this and expands further to suggest that Zen in its essence is zazen, and cannot be grasped without the practice.

I'm pretty skeptical of this and it sounds like a partisan dig. Please provide quotes, actual page numbers, etc. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The spiritual aspect of sex

My B.S. detector almost self-destructed. I think it's pretty obvious that Pope Pius XII makes no mention of Alan Watts in "The conjugal act", and lacking any references on the matter, should be deleted. Removed text that has nothing to do with Alan Watts found below: Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a possibility is undeniable among a select few in the Church and outside of it (e. g. Freemasonry) for that matter but it would be rather naive to believe that the Pope might be all for it. Pope Pius XII in citing Pope Pius XI Encyclical Casti Connubii stands firm in the belief that only the sex act of holy matrimony leading to procreation is moral and he goes on "... This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law."^[1]

Philosopher?

How come this man is called a philosopher. He holds no degree in philosophy nor has he ever published a philosophical article/book. Theology, Zen != Philosophy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.147.173 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid question. If you read the article and it doesn't give you the answer you are looking for, then further work is needed. First of all, one does not need a degree in philosophy to be called a philosopher. As for publishing articles and books on philosophy, I would disagree with your assessment. Finally, I suggest you look up the definition of "theology" as it doesn't apply to either Watts or Zen. Please reply here if you wish to discuss it further. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Because he was one of the few who brought and introduced Eastern religious philosophies to the West, via his many well-written books, he was clearly a true philosopher. What he did was unique and challenging in the highest degree. He not only opened his own doors of perception, but helped us Westerners open ours, by acting as a personal bridge between East and West at its deepest levels. And the bridge that he built, and let us cross, became itself a new philosophy. He became a philosopher of philosophies.

IMHO, if he was not a philospher, than no one should be called a philosopher. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am posting on this page only because I am working on the Ayn Rand page and there is huge debate over whether Rand should be called a philosopher. The acid test there seems to be whether the academic community considers her to be a philosopher. My working theory is the academic community is always a day late and a dollar short, and that as long as Rand is considered a philosopher by most of her readers that is enough to call her one. I say that as someone who detests the works of Ayn Rand, but am aiming for an objective description. Stevewunder (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

People can debate all they want on a Discussion page, but they're just giving their "own" opinions. The key is whether some expert in her field, in a published citation, has called her a philosopher. If so, then all someone could say was that "John Doe" (with the source) considers her a philosopher. As for being a "professional" philosopher, I'm not sure there is such a thing. Even a professor in the field of philosophy wouldn't be called a a "philosopher," but a "teacher."

WP:OR, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

The research is simple: just do a web and/or book search for her name alongside philosopher and see if she was considered one by a reliable source. Anyway, that's my take. And keep in mind that the word "philosophy" is from the Greek and means "lover of knowledge." And that includes most anyone. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Watt's 'Cutting Through The Matrix'

What is a link to Alan Watt's 'Cutting Through The Matrix' books doing here?

First of all, those books are not meant to be free for download - the books are copyrighted by Alan Watt, and the argument that his books are really ripped off from Glenn Kealey doesn't really fly - there are only snippets of Glenn Kealey's papers in there. It could pass as fair use.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with Alan Watts.

I think this needs to be removed.84.28.82.149 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Shorokin (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Direct Democracy, and politicizing Alan Watts.

At the same time, he favored representative government rather than direct democracy (which he felt could readily degenerate into mob rule).  -(On spiritual and social identity)

I dont buy this at all, people keep quoting one another all over the internet, and putting politics in his mouth. I haven't heard even one lecture from him proclaiming this or that view on meta-politics or even mentioning this phraes. This seems like a cheap attempt to politicize him.

"Doctor of Divinity"

"Doctor of Divinity" is a diploma mill title not worth anything as the "institute" selling this is not accredited anywhere in the real world.

Alan Watts Renaissance through Internet-Video

Someone should really start a section on this. The web-video culture around his stuff is amazing, there are many lectures with over half a million views and many many others that have been privately reproduced tens of times... The wave of revolution that he started at his time is coming big 100 times more powerful today, through the Internet and his brilliant ability to articulate what so many are trying. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thers should be mention of the matt stone and trey parker animated piece and his use in 'spiritual atheism'. Gabbyyellow 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbyyellow (talk • contribs) Done

Lists

Do you think this should be added to the "list of British philosophers"? I don't know how to add it, myself :( 66.46.112.60 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know either.--Rainnelliott (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done --Arno Matthias (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mother

The early life section says his mother was a housewife, but according to Watts himself, his mother "taught physical education at a school in England which was specially designed for the daughters of missionaries to China". Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of a reliable public reference, the word of Alan Watts should be sufficient, if a reference to that can be found. David Spector (user/talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Koan

"Although in one Koan Zhaozhou is said to have answered that a Dog does not have Buddha nature, in a different Koan from the same period Zhaozhou answered the same question in the positive, demonstrating the disagreements between the sects of 'walking monks' and 'sitting monks' that go back thousands of years."

What?! How could anyone read the koan and come to that conclusion? Almost anything you about the koan anywhere will refute this, since the correct 'doctrinal' answer is that yes, a dog 'has' buddha nature, but of course Zhaozhou is not answering the question as a simple affirmation or denial. Maybe if you didn't know what a koan was and found it decontextualized somewhere (with the commentary removed) you would argue this but anyone with any knowledge of zen knows this is just dead wrong (just look at the wikipedia article for the koan, or basically any commentary written since it appeared). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.227.21 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

University offers the only course on Alan Watts -- Not that unusual

There is a section that says Saybrook University Saybrook Graduate School offers the only course in the world on Alan Watts. That's not all that unusual and I think it should be considered removed. Why? Because how a university comes to have a course is 99% of the time dependent on what interests the teacher (i.e., the professor, lecturer, or graduate student-teacher) has. I am a graduate student and I have offered my own courses before, courses that were not taught elsewhere before. It's not all that unusual, really, and nothing worth mentioning.

What would be unusual, however, would be if a university offered a degree on Alan Watts Philosophy. Now that would mean there is a whole programme to look at Alan Watts. Obviously, this isn't the case at Saybrook University Saybrook Graduate School.

Consider removing that point in the article that Saybrook University Saybrook Graduate School offers the only course in the world on Alan Watts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.220.162 (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the editor above that the entry for one University having a course about Alan Watts doesn't belong here. For one thing the entry is not sourced and could be removed on that matter alone. Second (especially without a source that says this) how do we know that there is no other course about Alan Watts at some university somewhere? --MLKLewis (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. While I agree that the fact of only one course is not unusual, it is still significant that some university does offer an ongoing course. I agree that a reference is needed. David Spector (user/talk) 15:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact of a course being offered may be significant, but as pointed out, it is impossible to reference its uniqueness, despite the claim of Saybrook College, and thereby raising an eyebrow about that claim itself. Jackaroodave (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Why has the reference to his alcoholism been removed? It feel it's essential to understanding Watts as a complex and multi-layered personality. Should we perhaps remove the same references on the Kerouac page aswell? --Torsrthidesen (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Very strongly agree with the above comment. If I had not lent out the biography in which this is well referenced I would re-insert a section on this. --Steve M Kane (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing hagiographies - it is an encyclopedia, and should include all relevant information - and this most certainly is. He could "talk the talk" but could he "walk the walk"? The whole dynamic of his drinking "He could not *be Alan Watts* (for public appearances) without drinking a bottle of vodka" And the necessity of doing ever more well paid talks to pay a lot of money in child support, possibly to salve his conscience at abandoning his wives and children - and how this shed light on his views on marriage. All this should be in and referenced. Like I said the biography "Zen Effects" by Monica Furlong (not a sensationalist person in the least) has all this in it, but I don't have my copy.--Steve M Kane (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This biography also appeared under the title "Genuine Fake"--Steve M Kane (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A philosopher, who writes and talks about religions therefore has to be a holy man? What an extraordinarily stupid argument. Nietzsche was no ubermensch? Down with his Zarathustra! --Arno Matthias (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that a philosopher of enlightenment need not be enlightened; also agree that his alcoholism and alleged family abandonments belong in the article if reliable references can be found. David Spector (user/talk) 15:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

He was not really a philosopher of enlightenment, but a preacher of enlightened. Being alcoholic indeed is relevant here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading about Watt's drinking, especially before his preaching, makes him a much more rounded and sympathetic person to me. Knowing him through some of his fans, I had always thought of him as a glib "No mind? No sweat!" zen entrepreneur. Frankly, I doubt anyone can really "walk the walk," and in a melancholy way, it's to his credit that his contradictions burned him so deeply. It also may shed light on Sunryu Suzuki's characterizing him as a great boddhisattva. He continued to hold the door open for others at great cost to himself. Jackaroodave (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reinserted mention of Watts' drinking, and here is my reasoning: According to the article revision history, the original mention of his potential alcoholism specifically stated that alcoholism contributed to his death. That statement was removed by an anonymous user on 06:49, 8 November 2011‎ as being speculative, and that removal seems appropriate given that the source (Furlong biography) does not state any medical opinion of his death being related to alcohol. However, Furlong does describe in detail in several places in the book that his friends and family were concerned over his drinking, so that is how I've described it in my edit. If reference to his drinking is to be removed, then an argument must be made that it is not relevant to the wiki article. The argument cannot be based on lack of citation, given that this same source is used throughout this wiki article. It's not fair to refute only one part of a source, unless the refutation comes from a different source. And in that latter case, the article should state that sources disagree on this point. Jmattthew (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Publications

Question: I find it very strange that none of Watt's books has an individual article. Some of his books were very popular and remain so today, while others are important scholarly works. Has this issue been discussed?

I will add a stub for TAO: The Watercourse Way, which is a broken wikilink here & on several other pages. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a misuse of the RfC process and an attempt at circumvent WP:NOTAFORUM. If you think an article should be written, then research and write it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this is just the usual case of missing content, which is why we are all still editing here. find sources, add an article. What we need is a free image. I think we can agree mr watts would be all for cc licenses, at least for some information.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken; I was just concerned that for some (perhaps good) reason an earlier consensus had been reached not to write articles for the individual books. My Watts collection is mostly in storage, but I will add a few articles as & when I can. I have commented out the inappropriate rfc. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates of KPFA broadcasts?

I have to question the statement that Watts's weekly broadcasts on radio station KPFA continued until his death. I lived in Berkeley from late 1967 to 1975 and was an avid listener of KPFA, but I do not recall ever hearing him on that station. During that time KPFA sent a monthly newsletter to subscribers which included a program grid, but I do not recall seeing his name there either. I just now searched for "Alan Watts" in the Pacifica Radio Archive. The search came up with over 100 items. I randomly examined a dozen or so -- I found a couple that said they were broadcast in 1966, and a fair number broadcast in 1960, but none between 1967 and his death. Tomtab (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A year after writing the above, I have investigated further and confirmed my doubts about the statement in this article that Watts' weekly KPFA broadcasts continued until his death. In fact, his last weekly program at KPFA was in 1962.

I got an initial confirmation of my suspicion -- from Watts himself -- several months ago when listening to one of his recorded lectures titled "The Spectrum of Love". At the very end of that lecture, while telling a story about Jacques Cousteau and an octopus, he mentions his Pacifica broadcasts in a way that makes clear they are in the past: "Some years ago, ... . I was at that time making regular broadcasts over the Pacifica radio. ..."

Now I have researched this more thoroughly. It happens that all the issues of the KPFA program guide, the "KPFA Folio", have been archived at archive.org. I examined all issues of the KPFA Folio from January 1962 to December 1969, searching for references to Alan Watts. (There was just one issue from this period that I was unable to access, covering the two-week period September 7-20, 1964.)

Here is what I found. Watts had a 30-minute weekly program "Philosophy East and West", the last scheduled broadcast of which was on April 22, 1962. After that date, programs involving Alan Watts continued to be broadcast from time to time, but not on any regular schedule.

Between May 1962 and December 1965, there were Watts programs in 12 of the 90 mostly-biweekly schedules that I examined. These include four rebroadcasts of programs from the KPFA archives, three vinyl LP recordings of Watts and others reading Japenese poetry or performing music, three recordings of lectures, and two recorded panel discussions. The KPFA Folio for March 11-24, 1963 states that "Dr. Watts is presently on a two-year traveling fellowship and is unable to produce regular programs for Pacifica."

Between January 1966 and December 1969, Alan Watts programs appeared in 16 of 48 monthly program schedules. These are mostly recordings of talks given at various locations.

These findings clearly establish that Watts' regular weekly KPFA broadcasts ended in 1962. I will now change the main article to reflect this.

I realize this is a lot of verbiage to justify one small change. But the statement that Watt's weekly programs continued until his death is wide-spread on the internet (perhaps arising out of this article), so I feel a detailed justification of this correction is in order.Tomtab (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Watts's experiences with psychedelics

A paragraph in the "Experimentation" sub-section of the "Middle years" section says: "In the 1960s, Watts began to experiment with psychedelics, initially with mescaline given to him by Dr. Oscar Janiger." It's a minor point, but I think his experimentation with these chemicals probably began before 1960. A footnote in his 1958 book Nature, Man, and Woman makes reference to the mescaline experience, in such a way that it would seem this was his personal experience and not something he'd merely read about. Janiger, a physician, may well have been the officiating guide and safety net in an experience Watts may have had in the late 1950s.Joel Russ (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Christian priest and after

RE: {{refimprove section|date=November 2014}} The principal references for this section are in primary sources, especially Watts' autobiography. I have added a couple of cites of his works, but more secondary sources would be helpful. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Images

We need an image for the infobox, and more for the rest of the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I found that this image of Alan is much nicer and less austere than the one previously hosted, as he is almost smiling.--Rainnelliott (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any image currently, just a photo of a stone sculpture. Is this deliberate? David Spector (user/talk) 15:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the current image is a pretty rare photo of young Watts, wouldn't his infobox be improved if the picture was of adult Watts? I mean, there's no reason not to just move the image of young Watts down the page a bit, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.27.69 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

New image

I replaced the unfree image with a now available image from commons; the justification for using the unfree image is that there was no other image available, but this is no longer the case. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: and you thought this was a good idea, why? Let's recap: you replaced the popular visage of an easily recognized figure with...an image of a seven year old child that is entirely unrecognizable as the subject? Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We can only use the non-free image if a free image is not available but a free image is available. You are anyway surely not seriously suggesting we use an unfree image in preference to a free one? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works, and black and white thinking is not helpful. There is no free image available depicting the subject as he is known. The image you added does not depict the subject as he is known, it depicts a child who is unrecognizable as the subject. This kind of ridiculous black and white thinking has to end. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the child is unrecognisable and absolutely dont think that justifies using an unfree image when a public domain image is available. I am not sure what you mean either by "black and white thinking" or by "this has to end". In spite of your unsubstantiated claim that you know more about the subject of image copyright than me I am left wondering if you are referring to general problems with images on wikipedia when you talking aboiut it having to end. perhaps you can enlighten me? And because wikipedia now sues this image on all its different language articles about Alan (none of which used the unfree image), its likely this image is already more associated with him than it was. You at the very least need to come up with some policy justifying your claims. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 23:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, and you are free to live in the fantasy world you created for yourself, but you won't find a single, sane individual who believes that this image looks like the popular visage of Alan Watts or is a reasonable replacement. Your argument is absurd, ridiculous, and harms the encyclopedia. You're not the first image warrior to make a ridiculous argument like this and use policy as a weapon to support your insanity, nor the last. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous thinking that this image of Alan Watts as a child is a substitute for the mature Alan Watts. I see the non-free image has now been deleted on the grounds that it hasn't been used for 7 days. All in all, this has been a big step backwards. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Death

How is it that the article does not explain how he died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.177.79 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Done

This sentence is missing something, it does not scan grammatically and I do not know what it is saying, either. " His ashes were split with half buried near his library at Druid Heights and half at the Green Gulch Monastery."

Wait, I get it now but this part is very weird sounding: "His ashes were split with half buried".. It could be much more clear with a comma or something. Or just rewritten.

"His ashes were buried in two places: 1. Near his library at Druid Heights, and 2. The Green Gulch Monastery." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlexxx (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Watts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Watts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525012918/http://deoxy.org/w_psyrel.htm to http://deoxy.org/w_psyrel.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wayneholland.org/nothingness.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alan Watts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151027061253/http://www.alanwatts.org/index.php to http://www.alanwatts.org/index.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151019061551/http://www.alanwattscenter.org/ to http://www.alanwattscenter.org/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wayneholland.org/nothingness.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://deoxy.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Early years

This section needs expansion and citations. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Watts devoted much of his writing from the 1930s until the mid 1960s to explicating Eastern philosophical concepts for an English-speaking readership. His autobiography, In my own Way, makes it clear his personal starting point was that he felt enculturation made him uncomfortable. Born in Britain, he focuses his criticism on Western culture in general and British-originated culture in particular. From the bottom of page 33 (hardcover edition) onward, this theme is woven in. He adopted Buddhism (for a while) because he felt more comfortable with it than he did with Christian culture as he experienced it.

To the point, Watt’s biographer Monica Furlong spotlights Watts's discomfort as well.

It could be difficult to deny that this is why Watts consistently put his focus on problems posed by culture, language, and so on instead of on incarnation “on the physical plane,” as very many other interpretations of Eastern religions do.

Much of his writing from the mid 1960s until the end of his life concerned itself with details of modern American culture and the practicalities of how these aspects might be altered.

Given this disposition in his early life, perhaps Watts's identity as a culture critic should, from the start of the article, be stated equally with that of philosopher. Comments?Joel Russ (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This section is also lacking significant dates; e.g. when was he married (1st marriage), when did he enter Zen Buddhist training -- and where. His autobiography is the obvious source, albeit primary. Unfortunately I no longer have my copy to hand, so I may have to leave this to someone else unless I can find good secondary sources online. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Alan Watts as philosopher

Why am I coming here to find that one person has magically decided who is and who isn't a philosopher as regards Mr. Alan Watts? He has been considered a philosopher for some time, and I cannot find any definition, from a dictionary, article or otherwise, which would necessarily exclude Watts from being considered a philosopher. Given the notes on this person's edits they are taking an unreasonably strict view of what a philosopher is.

Wikipedia is full of famous people who are considered philosophers (and whose Wikipedia articles are labeled as such) who could not possibly meet this person's criteria. Is this same person going to take it upon themselves to go edit them all? Or can we perhaps agree that this person needs to go participate in a debate over the meaning of a philosopher and come back with a pretty convincing consensus that it should be changed before we just start revising people's established attributes here?

SouthStExit (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Weak Oppose "Philosopher". There is definitely WP:RS referring to Watts as a "Zen Philosopher," like his obit in the NYT. But most philosophy departments, especially those in the analytic tradition would probably not consider him a philosopher. And I think he's not usually considered a citable as a scholar from the POV of traditional Buddhist academics. When challenged, Watts famously referred to himself as a "philosophical entertainer." Though I think this quote is still lacking a good source. I lean towards not calling him a philosopher, especially if that's not what he called himself, but this is a close call. Either way the edit warring needs to stop. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd Oppose the description as well, unless someone can find a RS which unequivocally calls him a philosopher. He did not practice philosophy in the usual sense of the word; he was not, for instance, a philosopher of science, a moral philosopher, an epistemologist. He was a popular writer on Eastern religion, including some of its philosophy, but that does not equate to being a philosopher of religion either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Moderate Oppose. Having recently read Russell's History of Western Philosophy, I ask myself, 'Should Watts appear in this book?' No. I believe the issue here is two different definitions of philosopher: 'someone who studies or writes about the meaning of life' (Cambridge Dict) or 'a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment' (MW, the colloquial meaning), as opposed to 'a person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline' (ODE). Watts may fit the first two definitions, but in an encyclopedia I think the latter, more formal definition is the criterion: strict, bot not IMO 'unreasonably strict'. Joseph Campbell, e.g., a somewhat similar writer and populariser, is not described in WP as a philosopher, but as a professor of literature and comparative mythology.

Noted that Watts does appear in the WP article List of British philosophers (without a cite), but so do GK Chesterton and CS Lewis, neither of whom are original philosophers in any formal sense. Russell, Bentham, Berkeley, Hume — yes, but surely not Watts.

And BTW, 'philosopher' is not one of Watts' 'established attributes'; the term was added to the lead 12 Feb. 2020 and did not appear there previously. Everything in the lead should be supported by the detail in the body—that's WP policy. If someone should add a quote or cite from a WP:RS to the body describing Watts as a philosopher, then 'philosopher' could go in the lead & I wouldn't oppose it. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I just changed it back to "philosopher" without checking here first, but I have two arguments. First, a quick google search brings up many published sources calling Watts a philosopher. There may be more which call him writer/speaker/lecturer/spiritual teacher etc., and it is fine to include these as well, but there is no reason for exclusion on these grounds. Second, consider Wikipedia's own definition of philosopher. Watts matches the modern sense reasonably well (his discourses contribute to numerous fields, he influenced other philosophers, he was associated with academic institutions etc.) and, I would argue, few other 20th century philosophers match the classical sense (a non-conventional figure engaged with questioning existential problems on a deeply personal level) better.--MASHAUNIX 20:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If he called himself an entertainer, and isn't quoted by Buddhist or Zen scholars, nor is he quoted by western philosophers it seems like "philosopher" is being used as an honorific and would fall under WP:PROMO. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Second response here. I did a search on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and found zero entries for "Alan Watts" "author:Alan Watts". Resusts here. Buddhist, Toast and Zen thinkers do show up under a similar search. Given that the SEP is pretty much the gold standard for Philosophy I'm changing my position from weak oppose to strong oppose DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I disagree on SEP being an insurpassable standard etc., I agree that this is a problem of neutrality and it is better to leave it general until wider consensus.--MASHAUNIX 20:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove philosophy-related sections in the infobox

Since Alan Watts was a writer on philosophy and religion, and NOT a philosopher, it would make sense if the infobox reflects that. Having the "Era", "School", "Main interests", "Influences", and "Influenced" sections gives the impression that Watts was a legitimate philosopher. Furthermore, the "School" section contains religions AND legitimate schools of philosophy, giving the impression that religions can be considered as valid schools of philosophy. The "Influenced" section contains two non-notable names which are redlinked and NOT mentioned anywhere else in the article: "Emerson Barrett Kropp" and "Saad Hameed". We should remove the aforementioned sections to clearly emphasize the fact that Watts was NOT a philosopher and was merely a writer who popularized and interpreted Eastern philosophy and religion. As a byproduct of this, we would remove the aforementioned dubious claims in the infobox. 168.91.58.37 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree in part. "Era" seems dubious; I'm OK with "School", "Main interests" which contain useful info & don't in my mind imply that Watts was a capital-P Philosopher. "Influences" and "Influenced" are fine; any writer can have these. But the redlinked "Influenced" names should go, otherwise I might just as well add 'D Anthony Patriarche', since he influenced me profoundly. Maybe when I get my own WP article? ;-) I will make minimal edits & see how they fly. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

He is the very definition of what it is to be a philosopher. To state otherwise is to reject the whole 'practice' itself. It is a shame that he is not considered as a philosopher, and even a greater shame as not one of the greatest.24.96.13.131 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, we may admire Watts and respect his contribution, but Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources, not by editors' personal feelings, which we call "original research". Find suitable sources and we'll use them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

'Religious naturalism' and its applicability to Alan Watts.

Okay, then. This is user '216.154.31.246' now making an 'official' account. You want sources? I'll give you the best kind of source--a primary source. Please tell me how these highlighted sections from the first chapter of The Wisdom of Insecurity [1st edition, here] do not trivially and obviously fit within a broadly conceived 'religious naturalist' framework. At the very least, the ideas involved can be vividly applied in such a direction. Alan Watts does not need to be a religious naturalist himself--though he arguably is anyways--for the nominal tag to be relevant, applicable, helpful, and certainly should not violate heretofore constructed policies in any meaningful sense. Such policies are constructed with the purpose toward limiting the errors and biases involved in things like 'original research'. Now if providing a primary source and describing how it is related to a very small edit also constitutes 'original research' by Wikipedia policies, then I will simply give up on contributing for the time being--for we clearly would need to re-define our standards to handle cases like this one. Hold in mind the entire first chapter could have just been spammed here in place of vividly relevant tidbits.

https://imgur.com/a/05mjjM1

Screenshots are limited textbytes from my own transcriptions from my own purchased copy of The Wisdom of Insecurity. If anyone throws 'this violates copyright' at me, I will immediately know the moderation standards here are fundamentally non-serious. Fair use in the U.S. is a controversial doctrine in how far it does and does not apply--I am invoking it here, which accords with Wikipedia's own policies which do state that fair use standards under U.S. copyright law are basically the de facto Wikipedia standard as well. I trust that it is understood this is not the topic under dispute.

Now let us attend to the first sentence in Wikipedia's present 'Religious naturalism' article: "Religious naturalism combines a naturalist worldview with ideals, perceptions, traditions, and values that have been traditionally associated with many religions or religious institutions." Now read or re-read the highlighted sections. Or just the entire first chapter, if you have direct access to the book.

This one book--you can find the same sentiments in his speeches, in his even more well-known 'Taboo' book, etc.--by itself substantially illustrates that 'religious naturalism' is an appropriate nominal tag to attach to this figure. Furthermore it is justified by the standards laid down by the 'Religious naturalism' article hosted on Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperkarma (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I see. I need to find a random scholar who agrees with the [again, very trivial] inferential connection that follows from a simple look at Wikipedia's definition of religious naturalism and Watts' highlighted and quoted words. Good to know that editing standards on Wikipedia are sub-par, overly rigid as if it were a bureaucracy, and contributing to it is pointless - at least as of right now. Have fun being digital hall monitors as random mods with no philosophical background whatsoever butcher pages such as this one--because if I don't cite [random credited scholar here who agrees with me and also literally anyone ever who reads the two pieces of information I provided, side by side.] it doesn't adhere to standards that were created to solve problems--not create them. (And creating problems is exactly what they are doing in this particular situation.) -- Hyperkarma —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of possessive: Watts' versus Watts's

The article sometimes uses "Watts'" and other times uses "Watts's" for possessives. This should be edited for consistency. I would favor "Watts'". Kleinhern (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Alan Watts.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Aoetube

Yandex 114.122.15.179 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

^ Pope Pius XII The conjugal act

[1] Pope Pius XII The conjugal act

[1]