Talk:Free will
Dear Maria Botros,
It has been a bit difficult to recover the content of the last adds you made since you didn't handle the contents published with sufficient care and enter, for example, the last modifications into the previously approved version (from last summer). I had to take one by one your adds into your article's version from Jan 20th. In any case, I hope that despite the troubles arisen, you have enjoyed the journey.
Most cordial regards,
José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2025 (CET)
Dear Maria Botros,
As indicated during the discussion of your contribution, it is far for having reached the length requirement (considering the combination of the first and second proposals). On the other hand, as regards originality, a likelihood analysis of AI composable texts yield that about one third of your content is AI composable. Nevertheless, even though it was short, I have to say that it offer a good interplay with Elena Schindler's contribution. I have tried to combine both texts better, introducing changes in both, and sometimes substituting your colleagues text by yours.
In any case, and considering all the evaluation criteria, I regret to inform that your contribution does not suffice to pass the course now. However, if you wish, you could complete the course in the next semester using the same registration you have done for the current one. The contributions you have already done will count, it would suffice an additional effort.
Most cordial regards,
José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (CEST)
Dear Elena Schindler,
I hope you have enjoyed the elaboration of the work, which provides a good preliminary outlook on the topic, learning a lot about the different understandings and problems entangled with free will as determinism, moral action. I have corrected some parts of the text which had gramatical issues but also in a couple of places I have added some conceptual corrections and additional understandings (I hope I have not violated your conceptual intention too much).
I would have order the authors differently because Descartes precedes Spinoza and in a certain way the latter finds a solution of the problem posited by the former. I have added what that problem is and the fact that also Leibniz and Malebranche contributed to it. What I have notice in your consideration of authors is that you didn't capture the historical relations among the different understandings, also you were not fully conscious that it the philosophical system each author develops what imposes consequences in the understanding of the problems you have dealt with. The add on Rousseau is important since it argues the problem you have stated from the beginning. Take a look on that.
You can find my changes using the 'view history' tool. Do not hesitate to change the content if you think it is worth. I have removed some parts of the text because it was redundant and in one occasion too obscure. I one paragraph in which Maria Botras had expressed the same idea I have blended both, preserving in some places the expression I judged it was more clear and grammatically correct.
I have also corrected the bibliographic references adapting them to APA style.
All in all, it has been a pleasure dealing with the topic and listening your leanings and thoughts.
Most cordial regards,
José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (CEST)