Talk:The Consolations of Philosophy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Contemporary 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:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Contemporary philosophy

[Untitled]

We are told in the Critical Response section that "critics have generally been very kind to this book" and that it has "received glowing praise" in many reputable publications, yet every single review quoted or linked in the article is negative. Surely I'm not the only one to whom this seems ludicrous.

Agreed this is unbalanced. It should at least have a number of positive quotes (presumably more if this is the weight of them) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.46.147 (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|The Consolations of Philosophy|b00g46p0}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If the negative critics were fewer, why do they get the most space?

If the negative critics were fewer, why do they get the most space? 24.57.239.43 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This struck me as a strange feature of this article. I'll have a look and see what I can do. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are the TV episodes in the correct order?

Are the TV episodes in the correct order? They are presented on this page, and on Alain's page, in chronological order by philosopher. But IMDb says they were aired in this order: Seneca, Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Montaigne, Socrates, Nietzsche. I don't think it matters that much, since they don't really flow from one to the next in any case, but the first few minutes of the Seneca episode do suggest that it is meant to be the first one in the series. 24.57.239.43 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]