text:
Essentialism

Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity. In early Western thought, Platonic idealism held that all things have such an "essence"—an "idea" or "form". In Categories, Aristotle similarly proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it, "make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing". The contrary view—non-essentialism—denies the need to posit such an "essence". Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. In the Parmenides dialogue, Plato depicts Socrates questioning the notion, suggesting that if we accept the idea that every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence to be beautiful or just, we must also accept the "existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt".

Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist. In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin. The role and importance of essentialism in modern biology is still a matter of debate. Beliefs which posit that social identities such as race, ethnicity, nationality, or gender are essential characteristics have been central to many discriminatory or extremist ideologies. For instance, psychological essentialism is correlated with racial prejudice. Essentialist views about race have also been shown to diminish empathy when dealing with members of another racial group. In medical sciences, essentialism can lead to a reified view of identities, leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment.

In philosophy
An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the forms and ideas in Platonic idealism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal, and is present in every possible world. Classical humanism has an essentialist conception of the human, in its endorsement of the notion of an eternal and unchangeable human nature. This has been criticized by Kierkegaard, Marx, Heidegger, Sartre, Badiou and many other existential, materialist and anti-humanist thinkers. Essentialism, in its broadest sense, is any philosophy that acknowledges the primacy of essence. Unlike existentialism, which posits "being" as the fundamental reality, the essentialist ontology must be approached from a metaphysical perspective. Empirical knowledge is developed from experience of a relational universe whose components and attributes are defined and measured in terms of intellectually constructed laws. Thus, for the scientist, reality is explored as an evolutionary system of diverse entities, the order of which is determined by the principle of causality.

In Plato's philosophy, in particular the Timaeus and the Philebus, things were said to come into being by the action of a demiurge who works to form chaos into ordered entities. Many definitions of essence hark back to the ancient Greek hylomorphic understanding of the formation of the things. According to that account, the structure and real existence of any thing can be understood by analogy to an artefact produced by a craftsperson. The craftsperson requires hyle (timber or wood) and a model, plan or idea in their own mind, according to which the wood is worked to give it the indicated contour or form (morphe). Aristotle was the first to use the terms hyle and morphe. According to his explanation, all entities have two aspects: "matter" and "form". It is the particular form imposed that gives some matter its identity—its quiddity or "whatness" (i.e., "what it is"). Plato was one of the first essentialists, postulating the concept of ideal forms—an abstract entity of which individual objects are mere facsimiles. To give an example: the ideal form of a circle is a perfect circle, something that is physically impossible to make manifest; yet the circles we draw and observe clearly have some idea in common—the ideal form. Plato proposed that these ideas are eternal and vastly superior to their manifestations, and that we understand these manifestations in the material world by comparing and relating them to their respective ideal form. Plato's forms are regarded as patriarchs to essentialist dogma simply because they are a case of what is intrinsic and a-contextual of objects—the abstract properties that make them what they are. One example is Plato's parable of the cave. Plato believed that the universe was perfect and that its observed imperfections came from man's limited perception of it. For Plato, there were two realities: the "essential" or ideal and the "perceived".

Aristotle (384–322 BC) applied the term essence to that which things in a category have in common and without which they cannot be members of that category (for example, rationality is the essence of man; without rationality a creature cannot be a man). In his critique of Aristotle's philosophy, Bertrand Russell said that his concept of essence transferred to metaphysics what was only a verbal convenience and that it confused the properties of language with the properties of the world. In fact, a thing's "essence" consisted in those defining properties without which we could not use the name for it. Although the concept of essence was "hopelessly muddled" it became part of every philosophy until modern times. The Egyptian-born philosopher Plotinus (204–270 AD) brought idealism to the Roman Empire as Neoplatonism, and with it the concept that not only do all existents emanate from a "primary essence" but that the mind plays an active role in shaping or ordering the objects of perception, rather than passively receiving empirical data.

Naturalism
Dating back to the 18th century, naturalism is a form of essentialism in which social matters are explained through the logic of natural dispositions. The invoked nature can be biological, ontological or theological. Its opponent is culturalism.

Human nature
In the case of Homo sapiens, the divergent conceptions of human nature may be partitioned into essentialist versus non-essentialist (or even anti-essentialist) positions. Another established dichotomy is that of monism versus pluralism about the matter.

Biological essentialism
Before evolution was developed as a scientific theory, the essentialist view of biology posited that all species are unchanging throughout time. The historian Mary P. Winsor has argued that biologists such as Louis Agassiz in the 19th century believed that taxa such as species and genus were fixed, reflecting the mind of the creator. Some religious opponents of evolution continue to maintain this view of biology.

Work by historians of systematic biology in the 21st century has cast doubt upon this view of pre-Darwinian thinkers. Winsor, Ron Amundson and Staffan Müller-Wille have each argued that in fact the usual suspects (such as Linnaeus and the Ideal Morphologists) were very far from being essentialists, and that the so-called "essentialism story" (or "myth") in biology is a result of conflating the views expressed and biological examples used by philosophers going back to Aristotle and continuing through to John Stuart Mill and William Whewell in the immediately pre-Darwinian period, with the way that biologists used such terms as species.

Anti-essentialists contend that an essentialist typological categorization has been rendered obsolete and untenable by evolutionary theory for several reasons. First, they argue that biological species are dynamic entities, emerging and disappearing as distinct populations are molded by natural selection. This view contrasts with the static essences that essentialists say characterize natural categories. Second, the opponents of essentialism argue that our current understanding of biological species emphasizes genealogical relationships rather than intrinsic traits. Lastly, non-essentialists assert that every organism has a mutational load, and the variability and diversity within species contradict the notion of fixed biological natures.

Gender essentialism
In feminist theory and gender studies, gender essentialism is the attribution of fixed essences to men and women—this idea that men and women are fundamentally different continues to be a matter of contention. Gay/lesbian rights advocate Diana Fuss wrote: "Essentialism is most commonly understood as a belief in the real, true essence of things, the invariable and fixed properties which define the 'whatness' of a given entity." Women's essence is assumed to be universal and is generally identified with those characteristics viewed as being specifically feminine. These ideas of femininity are usually biologized and are often preoccupied with psychological characteristics, such as nurturance, empathy, support, and non-competitiveness, etc. Feminist theorist Elizabeth Grosz states in her 1995 publication Space, time and perversion: essays on the politics of bodies that essentialism "entails the belief that those characteristics defined as women's essence are shared in common by all women at all times. It implies a limit of the variations and possibilities of change—it is not possible for a subject to act in a manner contrary to her essence. Her essence underlies all the apparent variations differentiating women from each other. Essentialism thus refers to the existence of fixed characteristic, given attributes, and ahistorical functions that limit the possibilities of change and thus of social reorganization."

Gender essentialism is pervasive in popular culture, as illustrated by the #1 New York Times best seller Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, but this essentialism is routinely critiqued in introductory women's studies textbooks such as Women: Images & Realities. Starting in the 1980s, some feminist writers have put forward essentialist theories about gender and science. Evelyn Fox Keller, Sandra Harding, and Nancy Tuana argued that the modern scientific enterprise is inherently patriarchal and incompatible with women's nature. Other feminist scholars, such as Ann Hibner Koblitz, Lenore Blum, Mary Gray, Mary Beth Ruskai, and Pnina Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram have criticized those theories for ignoring the diverse nature of scientific research and the tremendous variation in women's experiences in different cultures and historical periods.

Racial, cultural and strategic essentialism
Cultural and racial essentialism is the view that fundamental biological or physical characteristics of human "races" produce personality, heritage, cognitive abilities, or 'natural talents' that are shared by all members of a racial group. In the early 20th century, many anthropologists taught this theory – that race was an entirely biological phenomenon and that this was core to a person's behavior and identity. This, coupled with a belief that linguistic, cultural, and social groups fundamentally existed along racial lines, formed the basis of what is now called scientific racism. After the Nazi eugenics program, along with the rise of anti-colonial movements, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity. New studies of culture and the fledgling field of population genetics undermined the scientific standing of racial essentialism, leading race anthropologists to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation. A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.

Historically, beliefs which posit that social identities such as ethnicity, nationality or gender determine a person's essential characteristics have in many cases been shown to have destructive or harmful results. It has been argued by some that essentialist thinking lies at the core of many simplistic, discriminatory or extremist ideologies. Psychological essentialism is also correlated with racial prejudice. In medical sciences, essentialism can lead to an over-emphasis on the role of identities—for example assuming that differences in hypertension in African-American populations are due to racial differences rather than social causes—leading to fallacious conclusions and potentially unequal treatment. Older social theories were often conceptually essentialist.

Strategic essentialism, a major concept in postcolonial theory, was introduced in the 1980s by the Indian literary critic and theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. It refers to a political tactic in which minority groups, nationalities, or ethnic groups mobilize on the basis of shared gendered, cultural, or political identity. While strong differences may exist between members of these groups, and among themselves they engage in continuous debates, it is sometimes advantageous for them to temporarily "essentialize" themselves, despite it being based on erroneous logic, and to bring forward their group identity in a simplified way to achieve certain goals, such as equal rights or antiglobalization.

In historiography
Essentialism in history as a field of study entails discerning and listing essential cultural characteristics of a particular nation or culture, in the belief that a people or culture can be understood in this way. Sometimes such essentialism leads to claims of a praiseworthy national or cultural identity, or to its opposite, the condemnation of a culture based on presumed essential characteristics. Herodotus, for example, claims that Egyptian culture is essentially feminized and possesses a "softness" which has made Egypt easy to conquer. To what extent Herodotus was an essentialist is a matter of debate; he is also credited with not essentializing the concept of the Athenian identity, or differences between the Greeks and the Persians that are the subject of his Histories.

Essentialism had been operative in colonialism, as well as in critiques of colonialism. Post-colonial theorists, such as Edward Said, insisted that essentialism was the "defining mode" of "Western" historiography and ethnography until the nineteenth century and even after, according to Touraj Atabaki, manifesting itself in the historiography of the Middle East and Central Asia as Eurocentrism, over-generalization, and reductionism. Into the 21st century, most historians, social scientists, and humanists reject methodologies associated with essentialism, although some have argued that certain varieties of essentialism may be useful or even necessary. Karl Popper splits the ambiguous term realism into essentialism and realism. He uses essentialism whenever he means the opposite of nominalism, and realism only as opposed to idealism. Popper himself is a realist as opposed to an idealist, but a methodological nominalist as opposed to an essentialist. For example, statements like "a puppy is a young dog" should be read from right to left as an answer to "What shall we call a young dog", never from left to right as an answer to "What is a puppy?"

In psychology
There is a difference between metaphysical essentialism and psychological essentialism, the latter referring not to an actual claim about the world but a claim about a way of representing entities in cognitions. Influential in this area is Susan Gelman, who has outlined many domains in which children and adults construe classes of entities, particularly biological entities, in essentialist terms—i.e., as if they had an immutable underlying essence which can be used to predict unobserved similarities between members of that class. This causal relationship is unidirectional; an observable feature of an entity does not define the underlying essence.

In developmental psychology
Essentialism has emerged as an important concept in psychology, particularly developmental psychology. In 1991, Kathryn Kremer and Susan Gelman studied the extent to which children from four–seven years old demonstrate essentialism. Children believed that underlying essences predicted observable behaviours. Children were able to describe living objects' behaviour as self-perpetuated and non-living objects' behavior as a result of an adult influencing the object. Understanding the underlying causal mechanism for behaviour suggests essentialist thinking. Younger children were unable to identify causal mechanisms of behaviour whereas older children were able to. This suggests that essentialism is rooted in cognitive development. It can be argued that there is a shift in the way that children represent entities, from not understanding the causal mechanism of the underlying essence to showing sufficient understanding.

There are four key criteria that constitute essentialist thinking. The first facet is the aforementioned individual causal mechanisms. The second is innate potential: the assumption that an object will fulfill its predetermined course of development. According to this criterion, essences predict developments in entities that will occur throughout its lifespan. The third is immutability. Despite altering the superficial appearance of an object it does not remove its essence. Observable changes in features of an entity are not salient enough to alter its essential characteristics. The fourth is inductive potential. This suggests that entities may share common features but are essentially different; however similar two beings may be, their characteristics will be at most analogous, differing most importantly in essences. The implications of psychological essentialism are numerous. Prejudiced individuals have been found to endorse exceptionally essential ways of thinking, suggesting that essentialism may perpetuate exclusion among social groups. For example, essentialism of nationality has been linked to anti-immigration attitudes. In multiple studies in India and the United States, it was shown that in lay view a person's nationality is considerably fixed at birth, even if that person is adopted and raised by a family of another nationality at day one and never told about their origin. This may be due to an over-extension of an essential-biological mode of thinking stemming from cognitive development. Paul Bloom of Yale University has stated that "one of the most exciting ideas in cognitive science is the theory that people have a default assumption that things, people and events have invisible essences that make them what they are. Experimental psychologists have argued that essentialism underlies our understanding of the physical and social worlds, and developmental and cross-cultural psychologists have proposed that it is instinctive and universal. We are natural-born essentialists." Scholars suggest that the categorical nature of essentialist thinking predicts the use of stereotypes and can be targeted in the application of stereotype prevention.

title: Essentialism


text:
Great circle

In mathematics, a great circle or orthodrome is the circular intersection of a sphere and a plane passing through the sphere's center point.

Any arc of a great circle is a geodesic of the sphere, so that great circles in spherical geometry are the natural analog of straight lines in Euclidean space. For any pair of distinct non-antipodal points on the sphere, there is a unique great circle passing through both. (Every great circle through any point also passes through its antipodal point, so there are infinitely many great circles through two antipodal points.) The shorter of the two great-circle arcs between two distinct points on the sphere is called the minor arc, and is the shortest surface-path between them. Its arc length is the great-circle distance between the points (the intrinsic distance on a sphere), and is proportional to the measure of the central angle formed by the two points and the center of the sphere.

A great circle is the largest circle that can be drawn on any given sphere. Any diameter of any great circle coincides with a diameter of the sphere, and therefore every great circle is concentric with the sphere and shares the same radius. Any other circle of the sphere is called a small circle, and is the intersection of the sphere with a plane not passing through its center. Small circles are the spherical-geometry analog of circles in Euclidean space.

Every circle in Euclidean 3-space is a great circle of exactly one sphere.

The disk bounded by a great circle is called a great disk: it is the intersection of a ball and a plane passing through its center. In higher dimensions, the great circles on the n-sphere are the intersection of the n-sphere with 2-planes that pass through the origin in the Euclidean space $P'$.

Derivation of shortest paths
To prove that the minor arc of a great circle is the shortest path connecting two points on the surface of a sphere, one can apply calculus of variations to it.

Consider the class of all regular paths from a point $$p$$ to another point $$q$$. Introduce spherical coordinates so that $$p$$ coincides with the north pole. Any curve on the sphere that does not intersect either pole, except possibly at the endpoints, can be parametrized by

 * $$\theta = \theta(t),\quad \phi = \phi(t),\quad a\le t\le b$$

provided $$\phi$$ is allowed to take on arbitrary real values. The infinitesimal arc length in these coordinates is

ds=r\sqrt{\theta'^2+\phi'^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}\, dt. $$

So the length of a curve $$\gamma$$ from $$p$$ to $$q$$ is a functional of the curve given by

S[\gamma]=r\int_a^b\sqrt{\theta'^2+\phi'^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}\, dt. $$

According to the Euler–Lagrange equation, $$S[\gamma]$$ is minimized if and only if
 * $$ \frac{\sin^2\theta\phi'}{\sqrt{\theta'^2+\phi'^2\sin^2\theta}}=C$$,

where $$C$$ is a $$t$$-independent constant, and
 * $$ \frac{\sin\theta\cos\theta\phi'^2}{\sqrt{\theta'^2+\phi'^2\sin^2\theta}}=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\theta'}{\sqrt{\theta'^2+\phi'^2\sin^2\theta}}.$$

From the first equation of these two, it can be obtained that
 * $$ \phi'=\frac{C\theta'}{\sin\theta\sqrt{\sin^2\theta-C^2}}$$.

Integrating both sides and considering the boundary condition, the real solution of $$C$$ is zero. Thus, $$\phi'=0$$ and $$\theta$$ can be any value between 0 and $$\theta_0$$, indicating that the curve must lie on a meridian of the sphere. In a Cartesian coordinate system, this is
 * $$x\sin\phi_0 - y\cos\phi_0 = 0$$

which is a plane through the origin, i.e., the center of the sphere.

Applications
Some examples of great circles on the celestial sphere include the celestial horizon, the celestial equator, and the ecliptic. Great circles are also used as rather accurate approximations of geodesics on the Earth's surface for air or sea navigation (although it is not a perfect sphere), as well as on spheroidal celestial bodies.

The equator of the idealized earth is a great circle and any meridian and its opposite meridian form a great circle. Another great circle is the one that divides the land and water hemispheres. A great circle divides the earth into two hemispheres and if a great circle passes through a point it must pass through its antipodal point.

The Funk transform integrates a function along all great circles of the sphere.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Great circle


text:
Sesame Workshop

Sesame Workshop, Inc. (SW), originally known as the Children's Television Workshop, Inc. (CTW), is an American nonprofit organization that has been responsible for the production of several educational children's programs—including its first and best-known, Sesame Street—that have been televised internationally. Television producer Joan Ganz Cooney and foundation executive Lloyd Morrisett developed the idea to form an organization to produce Sesame Street, a television series which would help children, especially those from low-income families, prepare for school. They spent two years, from 1966 to 1968, researching, developing, and raising money for the new series. Cooney was named as the Workshop's first executive director, which was termed "one of the most important television developments of the decade."

Sesame Street premiered on National Educational Television (NET) as a series run in the United States on November 10, 1969, and moved to NET's successor, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), in late 1970. The Workshop was formally incorporated in 1970. Gerald S. Lesser and Edward L. Palmer were hired to perform research for the series; they were responsible for developing a system of planning, production, and evaluation, and the interaction between television producers and educators, later termed the "CTW model". The CTW applied this system to its other television series, including The Electric Company and 3-2-1 Contact. The early 1980s were a challenging period for the Workshop; difficulty finding audiences for their other productions and a series of bad investments harmed the organization until licensing agreements stabilized its revenues by 1985.

Following the success of Sesame Street, the CTW developed other activities, including unsuccessful ventures into adult programs, the publications of books and music, and international co-productions. In 1999, the CTW partnered with MTV Networks to create an educational channel called Noggin. The Workshop produced a variety of original series for Noggin, including The Upside Down Show, Sponk! and Out There. On June 5, 2000, the CTW changed its name to Sesame Workshop to better represent its activities beyond television.

By 2005, income from the organization's international co-productions of the series was $96 million. By 2008, the Sesame Street Muppets accounted for $15–17 million per year in licensing and merchandising fees. As of 2021, Sherrie Westin is the Workshop's president.

Background
During the late 1960s, 97% of all American households owned a television set, and preschool children watched an average of 27 hours of television per week. Early childhood educational research at the time had shown that when children were prepared to succeed in school, they earned better grades and learned more effectively. Children from low-income families, however, had fewer resources than children from higher-income families to prepare them for school. Research had shown that children from low-income, minority backgrounds tested "substantially lower" than middle-class children in school-related skills, and that they continued to have educational deficits throughout school. The topic of developmental psychology had grown during this period, and scientists were beginning to understand that changes of early childhood education could increase children's cognitive growth.

In the winter of 1966, Joan Ganz Cooney hosted what she called "a little dinner party" at her apartment near Gramercy Park. Attending were her husband Tim Cooney, her boss Lewis Freedman, and Lloyd and Mary Morrisett, whom the Cooneys knew socially. Cooney was a producer of documentary films at New York public television station WNDT (now WNET), and won an Emmy for a documentary about poverty in America. Lloyd Morrisett was a vice-president at Carnegie Corporation, and was responsible for funding educational research, but had been frustrated in his efforts because they were unable to reach the large numbers of children in need of early education and intervention. Cooney was committed to using television to change society, and Morrisett was interested in using television to "reach greater numbers of needy kids". The conversation during the party, which according to writer Michael Davis was the start of a five-decade long professional relationship between Cooney and Morrisett, turned to the possibilities of using television to educate young children. A week later, Cooney and Freedman met with Morrisett at the office of Carnegie Corporation to discuss doing a feasibility study for creating an educational television program for preschoolers. Cooney was chosen to perform the study.

In the summer of 1967, Cooney took a leave of absence from WNDT, and funded by Carnegie Corporation, traveled the U.S. and Canada interviewing experts in child development, education, and television. She reported her findings in a fifty-five-page document entitled "The Potential Uses of Television in Preschool Education". The report described what the new series, which became Sesame Street, would be like and proposed the creation of a company that managed its production, which eventually became known as the Children's Television Workshop (CTW).

Founding
For the next two years, Cooney and Morrisett researched and developed the new show, acquiring $8 million funding for Sesame Street, and establishing the CTW. Due to her professional experience, Cooney always assumed the show's natural network would be PBS. Morrisett was amenable to broadcast it by commercial stations, but all three major networks rejected the idea. Davis, considering Sesame Street's licensing income years later, termed their decision "a billion-dollar blunder". Morrisett was responsible for fund acquisition, and was so successful at it that writer Lee D. Mitgang later said that it "defied conventional media wisdom". Cooney was responsible for the show's creative development, and for hiring the production and research staff for the CTW. The Carnegie Corporation provided their initial $1 million grant, and Morrisett, using his contacts, procured additional multimillion-dollar grants from the U.S. federal government, the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Ford Foundation. Morrisett's friend Harold Howe, who was the commissioner for the U.S. Department of Education, promised $4 million, half of the new organization's budget. The Carnegie Corporation donated an additional $1 million. Mitgang stated, "Had Morrisett been any less effective in lining up financial support, Cooney's report likely would have become just another long-forgotten foundation idea". Funds gained from a combination of government agencies and private foundations protected them from the economic problems experienced by commercial networks, but caused difficulty for procuring future funding.

Cooney's proposal included using in-house formative research that would inform and improve production, and independent summative evaluations to test the show's effect on its young viewers' learning. In 1967, Morrisett recruited Harvard University professor Gerald S. Lesser, whom he had met while they were both psychology students at Yale, to help develop and lead the Workshop's research department. In 1972, the Markle Foundation donated $72,000 to Harvard to form the Center for Research in Children's Television, which served as a research agency for the CTW. Harvard produced about 20 major research studies about Sesame Street and its effect on young children. Lesser also served as the first chairman of the Workshop's advisory board, a position he held until his retirement in 1997. According to Lesser, the CTW's advisory board was unusual because instead of rubber-stamping the Workshop's decisions like most boards for other children's television shows, it contributed significantly to the series' design and implementation. Lesser reported in Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street, his 1974 book about the beginnings of Sesame Street and the Children's Television Workshop, that about 8–10% of the Workshop's initial budget was spent on research.

CTW's summative research was done by the Workshop's first research director, Edward L. Palmer, whom they met at the curriculum seminars Lesser conducted in Boston in the summer of 1967. In the summer of 1968, Palmer began to create educational goals, define the Workshop's research activities, and hire his research team. Lesser and Palmer were the only scientists in the U.S. studying the interaction of children and television at the time. They were responsible for developing a system of planning, production, and evaluation, and the interaction between television producers and educators, later called the "CTW model". Cooney observed of the CTW model: "From the beginning, we—the planners of the project—designed the show as an experimental research project with educational advisers, researchers, and television producers collaborating as equal partners". She described the collaboration as an "arranged marriage".

The CTW devoted 8% of its initial budget to outreach and publicity. In what television historian Robert W. Morrow called "an extensive campaign" that Lesser stated "would demand at least as much ingenuity as production and research", the Workshop promoted the show with educators, the broadcast industry, and the show's target audience, which consisted of inner-city children and their families. They hired Evelyn Payne Davis from the Urban League, whom Michael Davis called "remarkable, unsinkable, and indispensable", as the Workshop's first Vice President of Community Relations and manager of the Workshop's Community Educational Services (CES) division. Bob Hatch was hired to publicize their new series, both before its premiere and to take advantage of the media attention concerning Sesame Street during its first year of production.

According to Davis, despite her involvement with the project's initial research and development, Cooney's installment as CTW's executive director was questionable due to her lack of executive experience, untested financial management skills, and lack of experience with children's television and education. Davis also speculated that sexism was involved, stating, "Doubters also questioned whether a woman could gain the full confidence of a quorum of men from the federal government and two elite philanthropies, institutions whose wealth exceeded the gross national product of entire countries". At first, Cooney did not fight for the position. However she had the help of her husband and Morrisett, and the project's investors soon realized they could not begin without her. She was eventually named to the post in February 1968. As one of the first female executives in American television, her appointment was termed "one of the most important television developments of the decade". The formation of the Children Television Workshop was announced at a press conference at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City on 20 May 1968.

After her appointment, Cooney hired Bob Davidson as her assistant; he was responsible for making agreements with approximately 180 public television stations to broadcast the new series. She assembled a team of producers: Jon Stone was responsible for writing, casting, and format; David Connell assumed control of animation and volume production; and Samuel Gibbon served as the show's chief liaison between the production staff and the research team. Stone, Connell, and Gibbon had worked on another children's show, Captain Kangaroo, together. Cooney later said about Sesame Street's original team of producers, "collectively, we were a genius". CTW's first children's show, Sesame Street, premiered on 10 November 1969. The CTW was not incorporated until 1970 because its creators wanted to see if the series was a success before they hired lawyers and accountants. Morrisett served as the first chairperson of CTW's board of trustees, a job he had for 28 years.

Early years
During the second season of Sesame Street, to capitalize on the momentum the Workshop was enjoying and the attention it received from the press, the Workshop created its second series, The Electric Company, in 1971. Morrisett used the same fund-acquisition techniques as he had used for Sesame Street. The Electric Company stopped production in 1977, but continued in reruns until 1985; it eventually became one of the most widely used TV shows in American classrooms and was revived in 2009. Starting in the early 1970s, the Workshop ventured into adult programming, but found that it was difficult to make their programs accessible to all socio-economic groups. In 1971, it produced a medical program for adults termed Feelin' Good, hosted by Dick Cavett, which was broadcast until 1974. According to writer Cary O'Dell, the show "lacked a clear direction and never found a large audience". In 1977, the Workshop broadcast an adult drama called Best of Families, which was set in New York City around the turn of the 20th century. However, it lasted for only six or seven episodes and helped the Workshop decide to emphasize children's programs only.

Throughout the 1970s, the CTW's main non-television efforts changed from promotion to the development of educational materials for preschool settings. Early efforts included mobile viewing units that broadcast the show in the inner cities, in Appalachia, in Native American communities, and in migrant worker camps. In the early 1980s, the CTW created the Preschool Education Program (PEP), whose goal was to assist preschools, by combining television viewing, books, hands-on activities, and other media, in using the series as an educational resource. The Workshop also provided materials to non-English speaking children and adults. Starting in 2006, the Workshop expanded its programs by creating a series of PBS specials and DVDs largely concerning how military deployment affects the families of soldiers. Other efforts by the Workshop concerned families of prisoners, health and wellness, and safety.

According to Cooney and O'Dell, the 1980s were a problematic period for the Workshop. A series of poor investments in video games, motion picture production, theme parks, and other business ventures hurt the organization financially. Cooney brought in Bill Whaley during the late 1970s to work on their licensing agreements, but he was unable to compensate for the CTW's losses until 1986, when licensing revenues stabilized and its portfolio investments increased. Despite financial troubles, the Workshop continued to produce new shows throughout the decade. 3-2-1 Contact premiered in 1980 and ran for seven seasons. The CTW found that finding funding for this series and other science-oriented series like Square One Television, which was broadcast from 1987 to 1992, was easy because the National Science Foundation and other foundations were interested in funding science education.

Later years
Cooney stepped down as chairman and chief executive officer of the CTW in 1990, when she was replaced by David Britt, who was her "chief lieutenant in the executive ranks through the mid-1990s" and whom Cooney termed her "right-hand for many years". Britt had worked for her at the CTW since 1975 and had served as its president and chief operating officer since 1988. At that time, Cooney became chairman of the Workshop's executive board, which managed its businesses and licensing, and became more involved with the organization's creative efforts. The Workshop had a reorganization in 1995, and dismissed about 12 percent of its staff. In 1998, for the first time in the series' history, they accepted funds from corporations for Sesame Street and its other programs, a policy criticized by consumer advocate Ralph Nader. The Workshop defended the acceptance of corporate sponsorship, stating that it compensated for a decrease of government subsidies.

Also in 1998, the CTW invested $25 million in an educational cable channel called Noggin. Noggin was a joint venture between the CTW and Viacom's MTV Networks, and it launched on February 2, 1999. Gary Knell explained that creating a new channel allowed the CTW to more easily "ensure that our programming gets out there." While the Workshop would eventually produce various new shows for Noggin, the channel's early lineup consisted mostly of older shows from the CTW's library.

In 2000, profits earned from the Noggin deal, along with the revenue caused partly by the "Tickle Me Elmo" craze, enabled the CTW to purchase The Jim Henson Company's rights to the Sesame Street Muppets from the German media company EM.TV, which had acquired Henson earlier that year. The transaction, valued at $180 million, also included a small interest Henson had in the Noggin cable channel. Gary Knell stated, "Everyone, most especially the puppeteers, were thrilled that we were able to bring them home. It protected Sesame Street and allowed our international expansion to continue. Owning these characters has allowed us to maximize their potential. We are now in control of our own destiny".

The CTW changed its name to Sesame Workshop in June 2000, to better represent its non-television activities and interactive media. Also in 2000, Gary Knell succeeded Britt as president and CEO of the Workshop; according to Davis, he "presided over an especially fertile period in the nonprofit's history". Under Knell's management, Sesame Workshop produced a variety of original shows for Noggin. The first was an interactive game show called Sponk!, which was meant to model good collaboration and teamwork skills. Sesame Workshop also co-produced a Sesame Street spin-off, Play with Me Sesame, for Noggin. In April 2002, Noggin premiered an overnight block for teenagers called The N. Sesame Workshop created its first-ever teen drama series, Out There, for The N.

In August 2002, Sesame Workshop sold its 50% share of Noggin to Viacom. The buyout was partially caused by SW's need to pay off debt. Sesame Workshop remained involved with the network's programming, as Viacom entered a multi-year production deal with Sesame Workshop shortly after the split and continued to broadcast the company's shows. The last collaboration between Noggin and Sesame Workshop was The Upside Down Show, which premiered in 2006.

Outside of Noggin, Knell was also instrumental in the creation of the cable channel Sprout in 2005. Sprout (launched as PBS Kids Sprout) was founded as a partnership between the Workshop, Comcast, PBS, and HIT Entertainment, all of whom contributed older programming from their archive libraries to the new network. After seven years as a partner, the Workshop divested its stake in Sprout to NBCUniversal in December 2012.

In 2007, the Sesame Workshop founded The Joan Ganz Cooney Center, an independent, non-profit organization that studies how to improve children's literacy by using and developing digital technologies "grounded in detailed educational curriculum", just as was done during the development of Sesame Street.

The 2008–2009 recession, which resulted in budget reductions for many nonprofit arts organizations, severely affected the organization; in 2009, it had to dismiss 20% of its staff. Despite earning about $100 million from licensing revenue, royalties, and foundation and government funding in 2012, the Workshop's total revenue was down 15% and its operating loss doubled to $24.3 million. In 2013, it responded by dismissing 10% of its staff, saying that it was necessary to "strategically focus" their resources because of "today's rapidly changing digital environment". In 2011, Knell left Sesame Workshop to become the chief executive of National Public Radio (NPR). H. Melvin Ming, who had been the organization's chief financial officer since 1999 and chief operating officer since 2002, was named as his replacement. In 2014, H. Melvin Ming retired and was succeeded by former HIT Entertainment and Nickelodeon executive Jeffery D. Dunn. Dunn's appointment was the first time someone not affiliated with CTW or Sesame Workshop became its manager, although he had associations with the organization previously. In 2021, Dunn retired and was replaced by Sherrie Rollins Westin, who had served as president of SW's Social Impact and Philanthropy Division for six years.

In 2019, The Hollywood Reporter reported that Sesame Workshop's operating income was approximately $1.6 million, after the majority of its funds earned from grants, licensing deals, and royalties went back into its content, its total operating costs were over $100 million per year. Operating costs included salaries, $6 million in rent for its Lincoln Center corporate offices, its production facilities in Queens, and the costs of producing content for its YouTube channels and other outlets. The organization employed about 400 people, including "several highly skilled puppeteers". Royalties and distribution fees, which accounted for $52.9 million in 2018, made up the Workshop's biggest revenue source. Donations brought in $47.8 million, or 31 percent of its income. Licensing revenue from games, toys, and clothing earned the organization $4.5 million.

Funding sources
After Sesame Street's initial success, the CTW began to think about its survival beyond the development and first season of the show, since its funding sources were composed of organizations and institutions that tended to start projects, not sustain them. Although the organization was what Cooney termed "the darling of the federal government for a brief period of two or three years", its first ten years of existence was marked by conflicts between the two; in 1978, the US Department of Education refused to deliver a $2 million check until the last day of the CTW's fiscal year. According to Davis, the federal government was opposed to funding public television, but the Workshop used Cooney's prestige and fame, and the fact that there would be "great public outcry" if the series was de-funded, to withstand the government's attacks on PBS. Eventually, the CTW got its own line item in the federal budget. By 2019, the U.S. government donated about four percent of the Workshop's budget, or less than $5 million a year.

For the first time, a public broadcasting series had the potential to earn a great deal of money. Immediately after its premiere, Sesame Street gained attention from marketers, so the Workshop explored sources such as licensing arrangements, publishing, and international sales, and became, as Cooney envisioned, a "multiple media institution". Licensing became the foundation of, as writer Louise Gikow stated, the Sesame Workshop endowment, which had the potential to fund the organization and future productions and projects. Muppet creator Jim Henson owned the trademarks to the Muppet characters: he was reluctant to market them at first, but agreed when the CTW promised that the profits from toys, books, and other products were to be used exclusively to fund the CTW. The producers demanded complete control of all products and product decisions throughout its history; any product line associated with the series had to be educational, inexpensive, and not advertised during broadcastings of Sesame Street. As Davis reported, "Cooney stressed restraint, prudence, and caution" in their marketing and licensing efforts. In the early 1970s, the CTW negotiated with Random House to establish and manage a non-broadcast materials division. Random House and the CTW named Christopher Cerf to assist the CTW in publishing books and other materials that emphasized the series' curriculum. By 2019, the Sesame Workshop had over 500 licensing agreements, and its total revenue in 2018 was $35 million. A million children play with Sesame Street-themed toys per day.

Soon after the premiere of Sesame Street, producers, educators, and officials of other nations began requesting that a version of the series be broadcast in their countries. CBS executive Michael Dann was required to quit his job at that network due to a change of corporate policy preceding the so-called "rural purge"; upon his ouster, he became vice-president of the CTW and Cooney's assistant. Dann then began developing foreign versions of Sesame Street by arranging what were eventually termed co-productions, or independent programs with their own sets, characters, and curriculum goals. By 2009, Sesame Street had expanded into 140 countries; The New York Times reported in 2005 that income from the CTW's international co-productions of the series was $96 million. By 2008, the Sesame Street Muppets accounted for between $15 million and $17 million per year in licensing and merchandising fees, divided between the Workshop and Henson Associates. The Workshop began pursuing funding from corporate sponsors in 1998; consumer advocate Ralph Nader urged parents to protest the move by boycotting the show. In 2018, the Workshop made a deal with Apple to develop original content, including live-action, puppet, and animated series, for Apple's streaming service. In 2019, Parade Magazine reported that the organization had received two $100 million grants from the MacArthur Foundation and from the LEGO Foundation; the funds were used to undertake "the largest early childhood intervention in the history of humanitarian response to help refugee children and families".

Publishing
In 1970, the CTW established a department managing the development of "nonbroadcast" materials based upon Sesame Street. The Workshop decided that all materials its licensing program created would "underscore and amplify" the series' curriculum. Coloring books, for example, were prohibited because the Workshop felt they would restrict children's imaginations. The CTW published Sesame Street Magazine in 1970, which incorporated the show's curriculum goals in a magazine format. As with the series, research was performed for the magazine, initially by CTW's research department for a year and a half, and then by the Magazine Research Group in 1975.

Working with Random House editor Jason Epstein, the CTW hired Christopher Cerf to manage Sesame Street's book publishing program. During the division's first year, Cerf earned $900,000 for the CTW. He quit to become more involved with writing and composing music for the series, and was replaced eventually by Bill Whaley. Ann Kearns, vice president of licensing for the CTW in 2000, stated that Whaley was responsible for expanding the licensing to other products, and for creating a licensing model used by other children's series. As of 2019, the Workshop had published over 6,500 book titles. and as researcher Renee Cherow-O'Leary stated in 2001, "the print materials produced by CTW have been an enduring part of the legacy of Sesame Street". In one of these books, for example, the death of the Sesame Street character Mr. Hooper was featured in a book entitled I'll Miss You, Mr. Hooper, published soon after the series featured it in 1983. In 2019, Parade Magazine reported that 20 million copies of The Monster at the End of the Book and Another Monster at the End of this Book had been sold, making them the top two best-selling e-books sold. Its YouTube channel had almost 5 million subscribers.

Music
According to director Jon Stone, the music of Sesame Street was unlike any other children's program on television. For the first time, the show's songs fulfilled a specific purpose and was related to its curriculum. Cooney observed in her initial report that children had an "affinity for commercial jingles", so many of the show's songs were like television advertisements.

To attract the best composers and lyricists, and to encourage them to compose more music for the series, the CTW allowed songwriters to retain the rights to the songs they wrote. For the first time in children's television, the writers earned lucrative profits, which as Davis reported, "helped the show sustain the level of public interest in the show". Scriptwriters often wrote their own lyrics to accompany their scripts. Songwriters of note were Joe Raposo, Jeff Moss, Christopher Cerf, Tony Geiss, and Norman Stiles. Many of the songs written for Sesame Street have become what writer David Borgenicht termed "timeless classics". These songs included "Can You Tell Me How to Get to Sesame Street?", "I Love Trash", "Rubber Duckie", "Bein' Green", and "Sing". Many Sesame Street songs were recorded by well-known artists such as Barbra Streisand, Lena Horne, Dizzy Gillespie, Paul Simon, and Jose Feliciano. By 2019, there were 180 albums of Sesame Street music produced.

The show's first album, Sesame Street Book & Record, recorded in 1970, was a major success and won a Grammy Award. Parade Magazine reported in 2019 that the show's music had been honored with 11 children's Grammys. According to Gikow, Raposo won three Emmys and four Grammys for his work for the series.

International co-productions
Soon after Sesame Street debuted in the US, the CTW was asked independently by producers from several countries to produce versions of the series in their countries. Cooney remarked, "To be frank, I was really surprised, because we thought we were creating the quintessential American show. We thought the Muppets were quintessentially American, and it turns out they're the most international characters ever created". She hired former CBS executive Mike Dann, who quit commercial television to become her assistant, as a CTW vice-president. One of Dann's tasks was to manage offers to produce versions of Sesame Street in other countries. In response to Dann's appointment, television critic Marvin Kitman said, "After [Dann] sells [Sesame Street] in Russia and Czechoslovakia, he might try Mississippi, where it is considered too controversial for educational TV". This was a reference to the May 1970 decision by the state's PBS station to not air the series. By summer 1970, Dann had made the first international agreements for what the CTW came to term "co-productions".

The earliest international versions were what CTW vice-president Charlotte Cole and her colleagues termed "fairly simple", consisting of dubbed versions of the series with local language voice-overs and instructional cutaways. Dubbed versions of the series continued to be produced if the country's needs and resources warranted it. Eventually, a variant of the CTW model was used to create and produce independently produced preschool television series in other countries. By 2006, there were twenty co-productions. In 2001, there were more than 120 million viewers of all international versions of Sesame Street, and by the show's 50th anniversary in 2019, 190 million children viewed over 160 versions of Sesame Street in 70 languages. In 2005, Doreen Carvajal of The New York Times reported that income from the co-productions and international licensing accounted for $96 million. As Cole and her colleagues reported in 2000, "Children's Television Workshop (CTW) can be regarded as the single largest informal educator of young children in the world".

Interactive media

Ten years after the premiere of Sesame Street, the CTW began experimenting with new technologies. In 1979, it began to plan the development of a theme park, Sesame Place, which opened in 1980 in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. Three international parks, Parque Plaza Sesamo in Monterrey, Mexico since 1995, Universal Studios Japan, and Vila Sesamo Kids' Land in Brazil were later built. One of the park's features was a computer gallery, which was developed by a small in-house team and included 55 computer programs. The team evolved into the Children's Computer Workshop (CCW) in 1982, which was disbanded and became the Interactive Technologies division of the CTW in the late 1980s. As Sesame Street researcher Shalom M. Fisch stated, no television series could be as interactive as computer games, even "participatory" shows like Blue's Clues or the Sesame Street segment "Elmo's World". The CTW has chosen to take advantage of the contingent feedback inherent in interactive computer games by developing and creating educational software based upon the television series' content and curriculum.

In 2008, the Sesame Workshop began to offer clips and full-length episodes on the websites Hulu, YouTube, and iTunes, where "Word on the Street" segments became the most popular webcast. Sesame Workshop won a Peabody Award in 2009 for its website, sesamestreet.org. In 2010, the Workshop began offering, for a subscription fee, a library of over 100 eBooks. The on-line publishing platform was managed by the electronic publishing company Impelsys.

title: Sesame Workshop


text:
Talk:Relativism

Can someone explain criticism #6 to me?
This is taken from the criticisms section of the article:

6. Since logic is inherently constant, and that some things are more true than others, it means that "strong" relativism cannot hold true under many conditions. Relativism often ignores how views have different weight to another. An example of a similar phenomenon is the Gay Marriage debate in the U.S. - an example where the majority dictates the rights of the entirety even when it doesn't apply to them, as they do not weigh up the effects of their views.

Can someone explain what exactly this means? I do not follow the first half of the paragraph (the one that actually pertains to relativism), and the example reads as complete nonsense to me, especially this part:

"...the majority dictates the rights of the entirety even when it doesn't apply to them, as they do not weigh up the effects of their views."

I do not think that: a) The majority in question believes that "it" doesn't apply to them. (Though I'm not sure what "it" is in this context, so the sentence may be true.) The majority believes that allowing gay marriage would undermine the moral standards of their society, which, of course, applies to everybody in that society. b) The majority in question does not "weigh up the effects of its views". Its views are that gay marriage should not be allowed, for the benefit of society; it is aware of the effects; and does not object to them. Tullie 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I've received no response here as yet, I'm going to go ahead and remove Criticism #6, as it is detracting from the overall quality of the article, IMO. Tullie 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From the text example, it would appear that it implies a majority, who are not heavily committed on an issue (gay marriage in the example) forcing their opinions on a minority to who it is a highly significant issue. To the majority, granting the issue is more or less trivial and cost free, but forces a significant violation of conscience onto the minority.  62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism #5
This criticism is also nonsensical. I've added italics to the below citation:

5. Moral Relativism, in particular, in its more pure forms, often defies logic and acts in ignorance of possible truths. With any given action, it (what is "it"?) has the ability to inflict positive and negative states on other sentient beings, meaning it's impossible for relativism to be "the" law as even with hundreds of factors there is still usually an overall positive or negative outcome, and thus "wrong" would be attempting to seek more negative states than positive ones (why would "wrong" be this? Where does relativist theory claim this?), possibly for personal gain. Moral Relativism either ignores this or seeks to overwrite it. Because certain things, such as logic, do exist and are constant, it is difficult for relativism to hold true in all scenarios.

I may be misunderstanding something, but the argument makes no sense. I'm going to remove it, unless anyone sees any reason why it should stay. Tullie 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * It makes no sense. But nor does anything written about "relativism." The article and discussion pages are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of "postmodern" philosophers like Foucault and Baudrillard, none which is a "relativist." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

 * They are widely considered relativist in aspects of their thought. Do you own the rights to attribution of something as relativist or non?  Probably not.  But of course they don't subscribe to what people commonly regard as the "dirty relativism" or pure sophistry.  This is discussed at length in the book "Scandalous Knowledge" -- how even relativists try to hedge their theories in order to distance themselves from dirty relativism which no serious thinkers ever subscribed to, who are lambasted as subscribing to such for example in the Fashionable Nonesense and similar works of intellectual dishonesty where quotes are cherry picked and the authors run rampant with their own extrapolations based on either incomplete or ideologically motivated readings. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :)

Another #5 ripe for deletion
5 Regarding the seeming apparent contradiction between the absoluteness of "all is relative", consider that the absolute can, in theory, only exist in whole (monism) only if everything within (relative to) that whole is relative to everything else (also relative to that whole)--"absolute relativity".<> A visual representation of this could be a number of points all connected to each other. <>However, this can lead to a sort of "fractal absolute relativity" in which, simply by zooming in or out on the "contained absolute relativity" can result in nested absolute relativities<>--and can also be represented by enclosing a circle  with a larger square touching the circle's outsides [], then enclosing the square with a larger circle touching the square's corners ([]), and so on infinitely. The contradiction of "absolute relativity" appears and disappears relative to the extent at which the concept is understood (related to). -1Z 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 * How did I "confuse metaphysics with epistemology", Peter? Yes, I use links to IMAGES to illustrate what I am describing--so what? Regardless, as support, I just read up on dialectical monism which appears to explain how "all is relative" can "work".
 * -Eep² 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * How did I "confuse metaphysics with epistemology"
 * e.g "only EXIST" in whole
 * "I use links to IMAGES"
 * images on your own page.
 * dialectical monism is, again, metaphysics.
 * -1Z 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Again, so what if I link to images on my page? Dialectical monism is an ontological philosophy. Relativism is a philosophy that includes epistemology AND metaphysics.
 * -Eep² 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 * References to an editor's own page are not considered verification of a claim. So the claim is unverified. Relativism as discussed in the article is an epistemological claim.
 * -1Z 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Again, I don't use my webpage as VERIFICATION of a claim but, merely, as VISUAL examples of what I am referring to. And, again, so what if relativism is discussed epistemologically? What is your point of pointing that out?
 * -Eep² 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Question to Eep: What is the difference between your "absolute relativity" and a simple complete graph? If it is just a complete graph then (1) there is really nothing new to say about it and (2) what does it have to do with the world? Are you saying that there is a relation in the world such that every object has it to itself and to everything else? What relation would that be? Your paragraph (and your web page) reads like hobby philosophy in desperate need of an actual philosophy book.
 * -Kronocide 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * A simple complete graph is one example of absolute relativity, which I state in the criticism rebuttal (and on my webpage). However, absolute relativity can be represented in many ways, of which circular infinity is one aspect of. The relation is that everything is interconnected which is, you're right, nothing really new and yet most people seem to overlook this very basic, simple idea... I won't even bother replying to your ad hominem...
 * -Eep² 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 * But to say that everything is connected is just to say that there is a relation, I'm wondering what that relation is. What is it that connects everything to everything else (and itself!)? If you can't say what the relation is that the complete graph illustrates, then what does it have to do with reality?
 * Kronocide 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The relation, as I see it, is also relative. ;) Combine all relationships and you obtain the "absolute relation" (hence, "absolute relativity"). As soon as I do that I'll let you know, 'kay? As far as having to do with reality, well, reality is only part of the relationship, obviously. Fantasy, like any dualistic counterpart, is just as important as reality. This "absolute relationship" won't be entirely understood with logic, since logic is one part of its dualistic counterpart: illogic (absurdity, nonsense, etc). Basically, this means that the "absolute relationship" most likely will and will not be a paradox/contradiction/oxymoron/catch-22/whatever at and not at the same time. Yes, it's confusing and, yes, it also makes sense--that, as I see it, is the only way it "works" but, of course, it depends how you look at it.
 * -Eep² 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly what people fail to realize is that if you read say or hinduist buddhist philosophy you find these kinds of "true contradictions" all the time and it wasn't a deep problem for them, and they seemed to grasp them or accept them more readily than we did, as they had more than two truth values. To say that what they were doing with their non-classical logics wasn't philosophy as the reviewer would seem to believe is simply a deeply ingrained western bias. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * That's pretty much what I thought. ;-) Kronocide 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Things that "cannot be understood with logic" have no place on philosophy pages. 1Z 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a personal bias to think that discussion that does not conform to the rules of aristotelian logic are not a part of philosophy. Indeed, aristotle himself was begging the question in his proof of the law of non-contradiction.  See for example research on paraconsistent logics, dialethic logics, and other non-classical logics to see that there are alternatives to classical A logic. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Again, it CAN be partially understood logically but, logically, it must include the opposite of logic, illogic, in order to be complete. There is a philosophy where a more illogicality applies: absurdism. -Eep² 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * If it belongs under absurdism, move it there. 1Z 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It does belong there but it also belongs here. Learn to think relatively... -Eep² 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia, since it's not accepted theory. Kronocide 13:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Dude, it's a freakin' RESPONSE to a CRITICISM of relativism. Get over your ego, please... -Eep² 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It has no bearing on relativism as discussed in the rest of the article. It just uses similar words.1Z 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes it does, Peter. Again, it is a RESPONSE to a CRITICISM OF the article. Duh. Quit being a wiktator. -Eep² 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Eep, whether you like it or not Wikipedia is for generally accepted knowledge, not for personal theories that no one else has heard of. This is completely regardless of how good that theory is. So, please do not enter your personal theories about relativism into the article.

Margolis
"he maintains that a relativistic, many valued logic just might be the most apt for the artworld or history since"

Since when has "many-valued logic" been the same thing as relativism? I mean, the guy might have a perfectly good argument but it needs to be given. It is not standard or obvious.

"relationalism, the doctrine of true-for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different world, or the like. "

That is what everybody else calls relativism.

'For Margolis "true" means true.'

Then he is not a relativist in the sense used in the rest of the article. Which at least needs to be made explicit.

1Z 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-think
This page has nothing to do with philosophy. This page, like Relativism, is absolute bunk. Nobody calls himself a relativist. Relativist and relativism are labels created by the religious right. They are used as derogatory slurs.

These people call themselves relativists.

1Z 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can put -ism after any word. Doesn't mean anything.

Everybody who doesn't believe the world is flat, which we once knew it was, is a "relativist." Everything but religion is "relativist."

Nietzsche, Foucault and the other philosophers the Christian right calls relativists never called themselves that. I think we all know that the Christian right is addressing a much bigger issue.

I am being serious here. I fear for philosophy. We are fast entering la-la-land of Ayn Rand here. Then there will be nothing. Then there will be nothing but philosophy according to Fox News.

I changed the headline to be more neutral. Please do. But keep on debating.

 * Your comments look like a bunch of random, unsupported opinions to me. 1Z 15:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This page really needs to be scrapped and re-written from the ground up by a good philosopher. It's an important topic, and one that people will probably want to access a lot...but the current treatment of it here simply isn't competent.

You say everybody but the religious are relativists. I think you're misunderstanding relativism. Practically everybody in the western world (and probably the whole of the world) believes in truth. We believe there is an independent truth of what actually happened. Just look at our criminal justice systems, where we try to find this truth.2nd Piston Honda 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You say everybody but the religious are relativists.

I don't say that. 1Z (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Christian right don't call themselves "absolutists" either, yet that is what they are. --Nerd42 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 * That is absolutely absurd. The Christian right spans a broad spectrum of viewpoints. This appears as a simplistic stereotype of group based on their faith choice. It smacks of extreme prejudice. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses section problem.
The following section is so confusing that I have read it ten times and still do not understand what it is saying. Can someone please explain what this section is trying to say? The paragraph itself seems nonsensical to me.

Responses Contradictions such as "all beliefs are equally worthless" are nonsensical, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute (e.g. "all beliefs are equally worthless") you have presupposed relativism is false. And one cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise. There is a contradiction, but the contradiction is between relativism and the presuppositions of absoluteness in the ordinary logic used. Nothing has been proven wrong and nothing has been proven in and of itself, only the known incompatibility has been restated inefficiently. --Logiboy123 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An Anon IP keeps adding bad arguments.1Z (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are so obviously skewed in your own beliefs against relativism, that your lack of objectivity in this article borders on propaganda. This is most clear in your long list of links connecting to extremist, right-wing, Christian, American, "Scientists". I have never read an article on here that was so clearly about the author's agenda as your truly weak and subjective entry. Do those who value some semblance of a neutral assessment a favour and kindly remove your petty opinions from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.89.141 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a breakdown
I have to admit that I'm having trouble reading the article, and understanding the most basic concepts of relativism. It's a subject that I am interested in, but have little pre-existing knowledge of. In my opinion, the article jumps right into a large mess of confusing concepts. I appreciate that there is so much detail and in-depth discussion of multiple views - the more information, the better - but... can someone knowledgeable put in some sort of practically worded definition? Or better yet, some basic, every-day type of examples near the beginning of the article, to familiarize a wider range of readers? *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision
I plan to revise the article as follows:

1) Shorten the lede, moving some material to new section

2) Expand "forms of relativism". Mention social constuctivism and and the Stong Programme

3) Add a section on Wittgenstein

4) Add a section on Setven Hales

5) Rewrite the section on Margolis.

6) restructure the 'advocates' section, separating out those whoe status as relativists is contentious (Rorty, Wittgenstein, Derrida).

7) Expand the "critics" section, adding David Hirsch, Paul Bhogossian, etc

8) inclduding moving the material on religion there

9) Restructure pro and con. Initial arguments for relativism need to be made. Human Universals as a counterargument to Descriptive Relativism needs to be mentioned. The political aspect of the debate needs to be mentioned.

10) Clarify the alternatives to relativism -- absolutism, objectivism, realism, etc.

11) Improve the level of citation.

This will all proceed quite gradually, for lack of time among other reasons

1Z (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone a relativist?
"'Relativism' is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called 'relativists' are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought." -Richard Rorty, "Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism"

from here

Consider that everything is opinion, and opinion is in thy power. (Marcus Aurelius) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.233.5 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolute relativism
Does the article make a strong/clear enough distinction between mild and extreme relativism? And it doesn't seem to emphasise sufficiently that the main objectors to relativism seem to be (a) scientists and (b) religious folks. The reasons for that might profitably be explored further. Maybe someone can comment? thanks Peter morrell 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should make such a distinction. Rorty says relativism is the view that everything is as true as everything else, and that no-one believes in it. Stanley Fish says relativism is open-mindedness and tolerance, and that almost everyone believes in it.1Z (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Well, maybe these points can be added to the article along with the quotes you mention. Peter morrell 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any such distinction. I have heard people claim that moral relativism does not necessarily imply relativism as to physical facts. (They attempt to separate ethical questions from questions of physical fact) So, I guess you could argue that moral-only relativists are the soft kind and those who hold all truth to be relative as the hard kind ... but apart from that, the opposite philosophy (Absolutism) is "Yes or No" position. Relativism is "Maybe." I don't understand how you can have an extreme maybe! --Nerd42 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Regarding the Catholic Church and relativism, I noticed this atypical 1884 document called Humanum Genus which condemns both relativism and Freemasonry, and claims that both are closely tied together. It's unclear what is the historical etymology for relativism, but 1884 is a fairly ancient date for this kind of word. Anyways, it would a good idea to further describe how Masonic ideology and philosophy are conductive of relativism. ADM (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Undefined terms
"Alethic" should be removed from this article or a definition should be supplied -- I have never seen this term in philosophic writings. Wikipedia articles should be written so that they are accessible to non-experts who don't know all the jargon of this or that field. If the jargon of the field is used it should have an entry or it should be defined for the reader DivisionByZer0 (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a good article (very bad, in fact)
This is in a really sorry state. It contains almost nothing but obscurities and nonsense. From the very beginning, it uses terminology that seems rather random, and does not reflect philosophical usage. It is full of refences to people who just aren't at all important, and contains loads of laudatory words praising certain authors and/or theories. It is full of passages like (just to give few examples):

"Two of the most prominent modern opponents of relativism are also adherents of differing forms of absolutism: Richard Dawkins and the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly, they seem to lambast against each other as much as against relativism."

-What does this matter? Why should they not be against each other? etc...

"Another counter-argument[citation needed] uses Bertrand Russell's Paradox, which refers to the "List of all lists that do not contain themselves". Kurt Gödel, Jorge Luis Borges, and Jean Baudrillard have famously debated this paradox."

- Apparent nonsense again. It is impossible to figure out the supposed argument. This also suggests that Borges, Gödel and Baudrillard acutally had a discussion about it!(Funny idea, if you know anything about them, but utterly false.) Also, the paradox (in its standard form) is definitely stated wrong!

The list about such lousy passages could go on, for I find almost nothing good or informative about this. It should be complety rewritten from the start. Only qualified philosophical opinions should be discussed, and only qualified philosophers cited. SEP's article could be a guideline: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwodeham (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 * SOFIXIT! Pick up that editing machete, and be bold! Fences  &  Windows  23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 * i agree, that`s not an article, it`s a disaster. fixed some small aspects so far, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I've never seen a wikipedia article where the criticism section comes before the advocates section! so yes it does seem biased! - hg

Biased against subject matter
The statement, "Another argument is that if relativism presupposes that "all beliefs are equally valid," it then implies that any belief system holding itself to be the only valid one is untrue, which is a contradiction" is a straw man relativism is more of a concept not an opinion, like say, math (1+1=2), or the statement, "In order for something to be living it must satisify the criteria required to be classified as such", a good analogy would be saying that the Chaos theory can't be true because it would say that the theory itself would be subject to the uncertainty, which is untrue since the theory only aplies to dynamic systems.Props888 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest to include Wittgenstein under advocates
His work and influence in the fields of anthropology and linguistics I believe merit a section on Wittgenstein in this Wikipedia article. Don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make an addition, but I would suggest maybe information from his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus or Philosophical Investigations would be relevant to discussion. Shaded0 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolute (philosophy)
The lede of this article defines relativism in contrast to the concept of 'absolute' {truth, validity, existence, etc.}. And rightly so. Why is it, then, that this is shaping up to be a commendable article, when the 'absolute' one is completely awful?

If I knew nothing about the subject, and wanted to quickly gain an appreciation for it, I might want to look up 'relative' and 'absolute' and read the ledes, to see what was broadly meant, without delving into the weeds of the various arguments. But I can't do that.

Curiously, this article is of high importance on your scale, but 'absolute' is of low importance. I understand that due to the subtleties underlying relativist arguments, they're inherently more interesting and probably more valid in many respects, but the belief in an 'absolute underlying something' as a naive metaphysical position is so ubiquitous that it surely merits proper explication in an encyclopaedia.

And no, I'm not prepared to do it, as I wasted far too much time on this project years ago, and was driven away by the loonies and vandals. But I know there're many good people for whom it's still a worthwhile hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.99 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * You're making some good points. Wikipedia is only supposed to be a compendium of the literature on each topic. Unfortunately, all professional literature is sadly deficient both in breadth and depth when it comes to relativism. BlueMist (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deficient Material and Subject Matter under "Relativism".
Where is the section here on philosophical and ontological theories about relativity??? Your section on the Theory of Relativity refers us to this site with the words:

"For philosophical or ontological theories about relativity, see Relativism."

Yet on this site there is no material whatsoever about the philosophical and ontological issues about relativity in physics e.g. the issue of an absolute reference frame.

Wikipedia is thus shamefully deficient here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.52.82 (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Criticisms

 * BlueMist(talk) you recently deleted several edits that had links under see also to various viewpoints associated with relativism and also links under criticism as POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relativism&oldid=597962247 They are Wiki articles supported with ample references and are thus not POV. Did you look at the links before you deleted? It is proper to use links and a brief description in other articles. It is even encouraged. The links provide more details and all the needed references. It was not POV but supported by the linked articles. I hope this explains how referencing can and does work through associated articles. You are welcome to bring over all the references from linked articles but it is not necessary. I am concerned that you may not have been neutral in your POV. Maybe it is a simple misunderstanding. I added to a very deficient article from other wiki articles that oppose relativism under criticism. None of it was my original research or opinion but a brief from the articles I linked. You also removed them under see also. It appears you performed a quick revert without checking out the links. That happens way to much on wikipedia and hinders the development of articles and turns off others from editing. Please spend the time before reverting editing. If you do not have the time then leave it alone. Also consider challenging the edit and then things can get sorted out. Simple deleting is usually unconstructive. I hope this helps with future edits. 172.56.10.195 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * As it happens, I have considerable expertise on the topic of philosophical relativism gained through years of research and academic interaction. I am familiar with both sides of this issue.
 * Can you say the same?

 * The Relativism article desperately needs a thorough, positive, explanatory rewrite. Unfortunately, I see your comments and even your links, regardless of their sources, only as purely negative and deconstructive. Your negative criticisms are clearly in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policies. BlueMist (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Claims on wiki unless verified are just unsubstaniated claims so unless you are outing yourself it is just a brag. Any nut can claim anything on Wiki so claiming something means nothing as a 13 year old can claim to have a doctorate here. You may be someone special but it would be illogical for me to assume anything about you other than you claim to be an expert. I could tell you I am an academic with a background in logic and even through on an expert hat but it would be pointless unless I could substaniate that claim. I could be a hobbyist making grandeous claims to add authority to my arguments. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Well at least you acknowledge you were upset with their tone but somewhat reluctantly acknowledge they were sourced. But they were under criticism so what would someone expect, praise? It appears you have reinforced my question about protecting a viewpoint. 172.56.10.54 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How to specify a reference?
"... and much of the recent literature on these matters is explicitly concerned with the extent of, and evidence for, cultural or moral or linguistic or human universals (see Brown,[which?] 1991 for a good discussion)".

With regard to the [which?] tag: This is the book "Human Universals" (1991) by Donald Brown. I'm not sure how to specify this so as to remove the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.200.132 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

you can't fix inequality by throwing more inequality at it
relativism is appropriate up to a point and then it breaks down to the incoherent self contradicting dysfunctional pattern of thought that it is.it's bigoted hypocritical and obliviously ignorant to all of this as it applies it's philosophy to only certain cultures and sub cultures and definitely not others.for if one was to refer to nazi germany or the kkk ruled southeast usa or other disgustingly bigoted cultures their "there's no better or worse-there's only different" mentality would show their obvious error in thinking.in the end it's just another idea with followers whose primary ideology is a reflexive "whatever's convenient for me and mine".meet the new boss.......same as the old boss.maybe one day all of us will pledge allegience to good over bad,right over wrong, and true over false which at the heart of the matter are all universally and kosmically objective.represented and expressed in many differnt ways,with different symbols,rituals,traditions,customs,languages and accents.as we evolve evolution will take care of diversification,we have to work on narrowing down our understanding and perception of the big three mentioned above.there is most certainly a better and worse.we have enough recorded history to look back on and learn from.if what's most important to you is "never offending anybody",especially certain peoples over others, than you're going to create a society where people,good people,are terrified of possibly saying the wrong thing or it being mis-perceived by someone who wants nothing more than to be offended.if you don't allow for an open and free exchange of ideas and opinions on anything and everything,with tact and civility,then you are gonna have a society that stagnates and withers away,like certain cultures and societies before us which have been granted beyond reproach status by these same relativists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.82.169 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Feyerabend
Feyerabend's argument wasn't that there was NO validity or truth, but only that there is no always correct METHOD of doing good science that would always yield scientific results. He said, when it came to what methods to use for science that 'anything goes', not 'any belief is just as good as any other and you can just call science beliefs that yield results you like'. I see absolutely no reason why Feyerabend can be regarded as a relativist. A couple citations of people claiming he was one won't do. You'd have to have an explanation of WHY he was (considering he never claimed he was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.168.98 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 * It doesn't actually matter whether he was a relativist or not; he was notable on the topic of relativitism and that's why he's in the article.GliderMaven (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 * The article states definitively that he's a relativist. That's a problem.

 * Furthermore, the first cited thing has no useful information, just the accusation.

 * We also need to know what he actually argued for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.168.98 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Part of the problem is that this article presents a simplistic and extreme definition of relativism. Relativism is not just the view that objective truth does not exist, another form of relativism is that objective truth if it exists cannot be discovered but only approximated from different angles. The THE article linked only shows that Feyerabend rejected the former extreme form of relativism, but not that the did not consider his position a form of relativism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes that he in his later years approached relativism, and then finally moved beyond it, it writes this about his view: "“Relativism” here means the decision to treat the other people's form of life and the beliefs it embodies as “true-for-them”, while treating our own views as “true-for-us”." This suggests that Feyerabend's relativism was a practical relativism - which acknowledges that we cannot ever claim that our own views of what is true also should be true for others - because that would mean denying that our own views are as subjective as the next person's - it does not follow that an objective truth does not exist or that "our truth" cannot be closer to the objective truth than someone elses truth is, it just maintains that there is no guaranteed method to determine it and that the doubt should make us open to the possibility that we are in the wrong. This in my view is a very common and much more subtle and complex form of relativism than the one given as a definition in this article. And reducing the question to whether Feyerabend was or was not a relativist under this extreme definition does not make anyone any wiser. The article needs to do a much better job at describing forms of relativism and at describing the nuances of the different views held y different thinkers in the relativist tradition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting inputs
Greetings,

Seeking your valuable inputs @ Talk:Cognitive relativism.

Thanks and warm regards

 Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: A new section describing the contribution of Colin Murray Turbayne
Ciao Fellow Wikipedia editors -- Just a quick note -- I have included a section for the contribution made by Colin Murray Turbayne to the debate about Relativism in his books Metaphors for the Mind: The Creative Mind and its Origins and The Myth of Metaphor. I hope that this is OK and that it is helpful to the article! Enjoy! 160.72.80.178 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL

title: Talk:Relativism