Jump to content

Talk:Aldous Huxley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Better picture?

Is there any way to find a better picture of Huxley? The current one is not very flattering nor clear.

"Between the wars"

I have a book called "Aldous Huxley: Between the wars" (David Bradshaw ed.). It is a collection of Huxley's letters and essays written between the world wars. Should it be included in the publications list? AdamRetchless 16:48, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No harm in including it; it may be a collection of some previously published essays and some unpublished work.Tom Radulovich 06:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

American spelling, or typing error?

Is "Crome" (as in Yellow) an American spelling, or just a typing error? As Huxley was British, should not his titles be rendered in British English? Donald 01.46, 27th October 2004 (BST)

No, that's the actual title of the book, not a misspelling or Americanization. It is set in a manor called Crome. 130.155.196.100 01:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category?

Aldous Huxley wrote the introduction to "Sri Ramakrishna", what category should this sort of writing be listed under? Wjhonson 23:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grey Eminence

Huxley wrote a book titled Grey Eminence. This is missing from the bibliography.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aldous_Huxley article:

  • Can link English literature: ...e in [[World War I]]. Once his eyesight recovered, he read English literature at [[Balliol College, Oxford|Balliol College]], [[Universit... (link to section)
  • Can link pacifism: ... was denied [[citizenship]] since he refused to ascribe his pacifism to [[religion|religious]] beliefs. In [[1938]] he befriende... (link to section)
  • Can link psychical research: ...g early [[hippies]]. During the 1950s, Huxley's interest in psychical research grew keener. His wife, Maria, died of [[breast cancer]] in... (link to section)
  • Can link Medical School: ...Movement]]. At a speech given in [[1961]] at the California Medical School in San Francisco, Huxley said: "There will be in the next g... (link to section)
  • Can link concentration camp: ...ip without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

  • In Poetry of Jim Morrison, can backlink Aldous Huxley: ...y Brook 1—2 (Fall, 1968), p. 18. Sugerman (1988), p. 188. Aldous Huxley (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1959). ...
  • In American classical music, can backlink Aldous Huxley: ...ether from America or Europe. A pessimist model, shared by Aldous Huxley and Theodore Wiesengrund Adorno, of the classical tradition...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good stuff... I implemented all the links except for medical school, since it's part of the name of a particular school. I didn't implement either of the backlinks, as the first article appears to be in violation of the GFDL, and the second one, while no source is quoted, contains no wikilinks at all, and IMO seems to be of questionable subject for an article in its own right ... Rkundalini 17:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concentration camp quote

Just noticed the quote in the article. I don't have the background to say for sure, but it seems to me that this quote is a description of the dystopia presented in Brave New World. In terms of the erosion of free will and the malevalence of social leaders, it is the complete opposite of the utopic vision of Island. Yes, both societies used psychoactive drugs routinely, but for completely opposite purposes. So, it seems to me that this quote should not be located along with discussion if Island and the Human Potential Movement. If it remains, it should be moved up to where BNW is discussed. But I'd like to hear other contributors' opinions before doing this. Rkundalini 17:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Description of BNW

Again, I am no student of literature, but it seems to me that BNW is mainly about the exercise of mass mind control through propaganda and doping. The dehumanising nature of scientific progress is also there to a degree but to me this misses the main point of the novel.... anyone agree? Rkundalini 17:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rkundalini - I agree with your assessments of Huxley's message(s) in these books. You may realize, though, that I did not contribute the material on BNW. Things I added were generally more biographical, plus some mention of the general assessment of A. Huxley's worth as a writer and social commentator or satirist. J. Russ

Death date

I have reinstated the bit of "trivia" about the day of Huxley's death, since it is true. It is also relevant because his death was overshadowed in the media and public mind by the JFK assassination. (For this reason perhaps it should be put back in the article rather than a separate trivia section). -- Rkundalini 06:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roberta?

Where exactly did this info on "Roberta" come from? According to Nicholas Murray's bio on Huxley, his only sister was named Margaret, and she didn't die around the time of his mother. In fact, I can't find a date of death for her, so she may still be alive. --Nomadicworld 02:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote questioned

This quote as surely an error:

"Once his eyesight recovered, he was able to read English literature at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was a member of the Cambridge Apostles."

One has to be a member of Cambridge University to be chosen for the Apostles -- anon. March 2, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.154.147 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure where this goes, so I'll put it here: This article might mention that there is some question as to how much the Bates method actually improved Huxley's eyesight. See Martin Gardner: Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, chapter on the Bates method. It seems Huxley was reading a prepared speech and at one point he fumbled and couldn't read his own notes, which made it pretty clear that he wasn't reading at all; he had memorized the speech, and at one point his memory failed him and his eyesight wasn't good enough to read with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.39.130 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationale

Rationale for editing decision (7 March 2006): Describing Huxley's thinking on the unsavoury mixture of technology & political ideology by means of the phrase 'New World Order', associated as it is with various conspiracy-theory fads entirely unrelated to his ideas, only introduces confusion into his habitually clear mode of expression. Huxley didn't couch things in those terms, & it sheds no light on his life or works to do it for him after the fact. 'New World Order' changed to 'psychological totalitarianism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.4.169 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First Novel

In the section of his Early Years it mentions he wrote his first novel by the age of 17. How could he have written his first novel from the age of 17 if he was still blind when he was that age? Also even if he was blind his first book The Burning Wheel was written in 1916. --User:Kenoshakid March 8, 2005

The article doesn't say he was still blind at 17, it says an illness damaged his eyesight at 17. This figures to be 1911. The article also says his first novel was unpublished, so there is no contradiction with the points that you made. --Blainster 16:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The only way that it could have been possible to be complete with his first novel at age 17 was that he finished it before he started going blind, because he went blind for 18 months, not less than a year. Also to add another correction I must make is he wasn't born on July 26 he was born on July 6. I've read it in an actually published book called "Dictionary of Literary Biography." It was in Volume 36. --Kenoshakid 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] all give the date as the 26th, so i'm guessing that the date in the dictionary of literary biography is a misprint. --He:ah? 00:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

-- and there are any number of ways he could have completed his first novel at 17, even if he was temporarily blind. The article says he learned Braille, so he could have punched it out. He could have dictated it. He could have typed it. And of course once you have learned to write, you don't necessarily have to see to be able to manually write. A little practice and you can do fine. --Blainster 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I researched it and he did write a novel just before he went blind about some strange relationship. I forget exactly, but it was pretty bland about the description. Anyways, sorry about all that. :--Kenoshakid 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Brave new world predicted

Wikipedia is Big Brother, you sit there editing the past to conform to what is commonly assumed to be correct, you've started the end of human civilisation and freedom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.9.88 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

JB Priestley's idea???

" Huxley warned: "There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it," an idea not dissimilar to his contemporary writer J. B. Priestley's idea in The Magicians."

Umm, this was a theme of Brave New World published in 1932. Sure the theme 'is not dissimailar' but it's disengenuous to present the idea as J.B. Priestley's.

To clarify, Priestley's novel was written in 1954, two decades after Brave New World. But to be accurate, the paragraph did not say that Priestly had originated the concept. --Blainster 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

LSD/peyote Contradiction

The main Huxley entry references "100 miligrams of LSD" as the inspiration for "Doors of Perception", while the Doors of Perception entry cites peyote as the source. Surely this contradiction should be addressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.89.67.4 (talk • contribs) 12:36, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

After he embraced the teachings the praised Gerald Heard/Jiddu Krishnamurti, both strict vegetarians, Huxley adopted vegetarianism, amongst other things. The Biblio.com[7], IMDB [8] biographies note his vegetarianism without sources though - it's difficult to find credible online sources. In Eyeless in Gaza, written after his change, the main character is vegetarian (there isn't an online version so it's difficult to quote). I have only put a brief note that he became vegetarian and put him in the category. --A Sunshade Lust 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheists HATE this guy

How dare he attack their philosophy of Hedonism in brave new world!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.173.80 (talk • contribs)

Uh? I'm an atheist and I don't by any means hate Huxley, and I doubt most atheists (or people in general..) would have a reason to "hate" Huxley. I think he was atheist or agnostic as he wrote Brave New World. --A Sunshade Lust 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Margaret

She didn't die in the same month as his mother. In fact, she lived LONG after this:

About her mother's death: "I lost my mother, my home, my school, living in the country and my governess all at one blow." - Margaret Huxley, in a letter to Sybille Bedford, dated October 1969 (61 years after her mother's death) (qtd. in Bedford's "Aldous Huxley")

Obviously, she didn't die in 1908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahdaquist (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

"On November the 22nd of 1963, unaware of the assasination of John F. Kennedy earlier that day and under the influence of an unspecified entheogenic substance." Can someone supply a verb for this non-sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.27.220 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Huxley and Humanism

I reworded the sentence about Huxley being a humanist, it had the sentence that Huxley had "humanistic concerns" early in life. Huxley never dropped his adherence to humanism as his philosophical foundation, to say that he moved past it is POV and not what is factually true. If its reverted again, I will put a NPOV tag.ForrestLane42 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

While investigating on the website I came across this website which reads nearly word for word of the present page! http://www.coolove.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13 check the page out! ForrestLane42 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Nothing strange since source for that article is Wikipedia. Why did you put Original research tag on the whole article? -- Vision Thing -- 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Wow Vision Thing, you got me, I thought it was the other way around in sourcing...lol...I didn't see that on the bottom of webpage, ill reverse it all. ForrestLane42 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Ok, I'm glad I helped. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of founding Happy Valley School?

Aldous Huxley helped to found Happy Valley School, one of the most interesting private schools in Ojai, CA.

signed VTARes1 1-16-06—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.208.37 talk 09:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Quotations

Huxley's quote on psychological totalitarianism "... because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods." is from when he lectured to The California Medical School in San Francisco in 1961, referenced here, and here, and here. All three mention this in the 'Later Years' section- I'm very sorry, all three are the same one but I don't know which one the other two are from, so I've provided all three links. Anyway! A couple quotes there have no reference whatsoever, so I figured this might help, but I'm not quite sure where to put it in. -Riot Lion- 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Literary Themes

I have added in a section on Huxley's Literary Themes as I felt there was a lot of good information on his life but not so much on this aspect of the author's work. Ivankinsman 12:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zaehner

For a hostile view on his religious and mystical ideas see R.C. Zaehner.

Removed this from the opening paragraph; while I feel it's a valid inclusion it shouldn't be placed in the opening paragraph, as Zaehner's views of Huxley's philosophy hardly defined Huxley in any way. Naphra 14:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia clean up

I'm removing some of the trivia which is already included in the main text. Also, removing:

Huxley has become the name of a beloved mini-schnauzer in Ottawa Ontario. Famous for his mischeivious pranks and devilish good looks.

Seems like, even if not vandalism, is hardly important enough to include here. Quine 13:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned for being ugly

"After World War II Huxley applied for United States citizenship, but was denied because he was ugly. Nevertheless he remained in the United States and in 1959 he turned down an offer of a Knight Bachelor by the Macmillan government."

Is this for real? I'm quite sure it isn't, and if it is, it needs to be better explained. They didn't have fashion police at Ellis Island.--Bill Slocum 20:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why his citizenship was denied, but surely not because of that, so I removed that bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.231.4.50 (talk • contribs) 23:21, May 9, 2007 (UTC)
This was one of a spate of vandal edits on May 9. Fixed now. --Blainster 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

- - -

The answer can be read in David King Dunaway (1989), "Huxley in Hollywood", pages 305-308.

Quotes: "[a]fter fourteen years resident aliens, they applied for American citizenship. [...] they encountered one last form. On it was the question: "Are you prepared to serve in the U.S. armed foces?" When Aldous Huxley answered "No", the near blind author of a half-dozen works on pacifism was summoned into a courtroom [...] A special hearing would then be necessary for naturalization, the judge informed them. When they left the building, Aldous's face was white. "They don't want us here!" he said in an uncharacteristic outburst. [Footnote 19: Betty Wendell, essay in the possession of Sybille Bedford.] [...] By February 1954, they had heard nothing. "If papers come through, well and good; if they don't, well and good also," he wrote Matthew. "Still, I wish we hadn't let ourselves in for this bother and confusion." [Footnote 22] A few days later they withdrew their application, renewed their British passport, and quietly resumed resident alien status." End of quotes.

Aldous loved his Encyclopaedia Britannica, but IMHO that's no reason for treating him so poorly on Wikipedia.

Ries Baeten, Brusssels, Belgium (where many letters of Huxley and Maria are kept in the library)

Source number one

Anyone notice that the first source in References is dated "(FUCK YOU!)"? TheConstrukt 07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. You can fix this sort of thing by just clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article. --Blainster 15:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Huxleygame

There's been some drama about the external linking to Huxleygame. Could the people who keep linking to it please explain how the game is relevant to Aldous Huxley. All I've heard is, "This game is based on Aldous Huxley", which I find hard to believe. Perhaps it is based on one of his books? Thanks!--Heyitspeter 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia article for Huxley (video game) and this website - http://videogames.yahoo.com/pc/huxley/preview-451216 - both disconfirm that the Huxley videogame is based on the novel, A Brave New World.
Regardless of this, the Huxley video game has no worthwhile relation to Aldous Huxley the man, and I've removed the remaining link.--Heyitspeter 03:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth & Death

It stated he was born in 1894 and died in 1963. Could we please get this right?--LAgurl 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Huxley

Unless there are objections I'm going to trim down the Matthew Huxley section. Two paragraphs on what he did after his father died seems to be overkill.

Scott.wheeler 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should be moved to a new article on Matthew? I'm not sure if he is notable enough... Urlass 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My feeling from a quick search is that an article on him isn't warrented. Really I think it should be trimmed down to one sentance. More than that isn't really relevant in the article, fine fellow though he may have been. Scott.wheeler 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the info - he was prominent enough to warrant a substantial obit in Washington Post. It seems that two paragraphs is warranted, given that he is Huxley's only child and all descendants of Huxley are through him. I just visited the article looking for information about this very topic. Sylvain1972 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)

The List Of Quotes

There used to be an admittedly, rather long list of quotes in this article. Was it really necessary to get rid of the ENTIRE thing? There were some really good ones in there and I felt they really helped demonstrate his view points and unique wit on many topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.201.181 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

huxleys final LSD

The article states 100 micrograms of LSD was consumed by Huxley as he was dying. Acutualy the dose was 10,000 micrograms! 100 micrograms of pure LSD wouldn't get an ant high. But the known dose of LSD for a human for the full effects of the drug to take affect is about 700 mics. 10,000 mics would be a near death experience. Also I'm sure the man had a tolerence for the drug. It would be nice to see this changed in the article to better represent the historicle facts.

Entjones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entjones (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, 100 micrograms is the correct quantity. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BzvC2t_LeI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipley (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Captain Beefheart

Not sure if this is an 'Official Source' but on the Old Gray Whistle Test DVD it mentions that Captain Beefheart worked as a door to door travelling salesman and tried to sell Huxley a hoover. Huxley was supposed to have said "Sir, this sucks."

Would this be consdiered suitable for a submission if I can get the exact quote? 194.105.181.145 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the anecdote says that Don Van Vliet (a.k.a. Captain Beefheart) tried to sell Aldous Huxley a vacuum cleaner using the line, "Sir, this thing sucks," upon introducing himself at Huxley's doorstep in the late fifties. Mike Barnes, author of Captain Beefheart: The Biography (New York; Cooper Square Press, 2002), has noted that the factuality of this account is, "Open to debate," on page nine of his book. A funny tidbit, but it probably doesn't qualify even as official Huxley trivia. Riskquette (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Middle Years: Huxley's eyesight.

I have come across legitimate evidence for disputing the neutrality of (at least portions of) the following section of this article:


"For most of his life, since the illness in his teens which left Huxley nearly blind, his eyesight was poor (despite the partial recovery which had enabled him to study at Oxford). Around 1939, Huxley encountered the Bates Method for better eyesight, and a teacher, Margaret Corbett, who was able to teach him in the method. In 1940, Huxley relocated from Hollywood to a forty-acre ranchito in the high desert hamlet of Llano, California, in northernmost Los Angeles County. Huxley then said that his sight improved dramatically with the Bates Method and the extreme and pure natural lighting of the southwestern American desert. He reported that for the first time in over 25 years, he was able to read without glasses and without strain. He even tried driving a car along the dirt road beside the ranch. He wrote a book about his successes with the Bates Method, The Art of Seeing which was published in 1942 (US), 1943 (UK).

"However, while his vision had undoubtedly improved, it remained imperfect and variable. Ten years later, in 1952, Bennett Cerf was present when Huxley spoke at a Hollywood banquet, wearing no glasses and apparently reading his paper from the lectern without difficulty:

"'Then suddenly he faltered—and the disturbing truth became obvious. He wasn't reading his address at all. He had learned it by heart. To refresh his memory he brought the paper closer and closer to his eyes. When it was only an inch or so away he still couldn't read it, and had to fish for a magnifying glass in his pocket to make the typing visible to him. It was an agonizing moment.'[5]

"This incident well exemplifies Huxley’s own words in The Art of Seeing:

"'The most characteristic fact about the functioning of the total organism, or any part of the organism, is that it is not constant, but highly variable. ... People with unimpaired eyes and good habits of using them possess, so to speak, a wide margin of visual safety. Even when their seeing organs are functioning badly, they still see well enough for most practical purposes. Consequently they are not so acutely conscious of variations in visual functioning as are those with bad seeing habits and impaired eyes. These last have little or no margin of safety; consequently any diminution in seeing power produces noticeable and often distressing results.'"


The evidence to which I refer is contained in Laura Archera Huxley's biographical perspective of Aldous Huxley, This Timeless Moment (New York; Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968)—specifically the chapter entitled, "That Poor Fellow—He Can Hardly See" (pgs. 55-67). Regarding the content of that chapter, it becomes quite clear that Laura Archera Huxley herself (at least) would very likely dispute a number of points in the above section from this article—in particular, I suggest, the quoting exclusively from Bennett Cerf's article as a commentary on Aldous Huxley's seeing efficacy and in exemplifying the reception to his book, The Art of Seeing. I would be most obliged to cite direct quotes from Laura Archera Huxley's book (in e-mail, so as to avoid possible copyright infringement) which illustrate my discovery and constitute my reason for dispute of the above section. Furthermore, I have emboldened the most explicitly disputable areas of the above section of text from the article, in a modest attempt to facilitate greater ease in its revision. In these areas, at the very least, I suggest rewording and/or more comprehensive qualification and contextualization of evidence. My e-mail is runaroundkids@aol.com. Riskquette (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Riskquette and welcome to wikipedia. Thanks for your information about Huxley's eyesight. I'd like to suggest an alternative way of proceeding, more in keeping with the wikipedia way. If you read WP:BOLD you will see that the way to do it is just for you to change the article to be what you think it should be, taking care to give a full reference to Laura Archera Huxley's book. If people agree that what you've done is right and fair, nothing happens; your edit becomes the article. If people disagree, they change it back, and then you argue it out on this talk page. Happy editing! SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

scientology?

Was Aldous Huxley a scientologist when he died?This list lists him as a past one, i just want to know.... http://www.adherents.com/largecom /fam_scientologist.html Sp0 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no discovered source material in which Huxley explicitly confirms nor disaffirms a personal belief in the comprehensive doctrine of Scientology. I have read all the relevant literature available to date. However, in his essay, "Education on the Nonverbal Level," Huxley notably advocates for the use, specifically, of the "Imagination Games" of "Dianeticists and their successors, the Scientologists" in place of academia's exclusive adherence to dry, scientific, rigidly empirical, "Enlightenment" modes of education. And he makes similar reference to this "imaginary" aspect of Scientology in his article, "Post-Mortem on Bridley." (Aldous Huxley: Complete Essays, Volume VI: 1956-63, ed. Robert S. Baker; Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 2002.) Riskquette (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
While I'd by no means add something of the sort to the article, as it's simply conjecture -- I suspect in research for The Perennial Philosophy he familiarized himself with all manner of religious beliefs. As can be seen in much of his later writing, he had no problem sampling ideas from faiths that he did not adhere to. Scott.wheeler (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Heroin" quote

I think the quote about heroin usage (in the Quotes section of the article) should at very least be provided with a citation: what is its source and date? If it is authentic (and it may not be), then it probably was a passing opinion. By the mid or late 1950s, Huxley was quite aware of the differences between opiates (and similar narcotic type drugs) and the psychedelics.

Huxley wrote critically of the effects of drugs of complacency. However, he committed himself to explaining what he saw as the value of drugs offering insights, self-knowledge, and a wider view of life.

I realize that the sentences in the "quote" in question are provocative (probably why they were put in the article) — but since there is no context given, this quote may be misleading as an expression of the mature Huxley's overall view of things.Joel Russ (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

First novel intentionally destroyed?

I wonder if anyone here can help me with a possibly faulty memory. I recall reading an article years ago which alleged that in the course of a transatlantic crossing, Huxley tossed the only copy of the manuscript for his first novel in the ocean, reckoning that "no one should have to read a writer's first efforts," or some such. Am I remembering this wrong, confusing him with another writer, or...? Any confirmation or denial would be welcome. Economy (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Either this is a mix of the "Titanic" and of "Stephen King," either something I haven't yet heard of. But if this is right then it is probably referenced in Murray's biography of Huxley. Twipley (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Vedanta classification would be appropriate, "Hinduism" isn't

Like many intellectuals of the late 19th and the 20th centuries who had a spiritual sensitivity or interest, Huxley was drawn to a study of the philosophies and "higher psychologies" of Buddhism and Vedanta. Though he may have been a vegetarian for a while, and was drawn to and studied with the Indian traditionalist Swami Prabhavananda, Huxley was not a convert to Hinduism. If anything, he was a Vedantist. Vedanta is a philosophical expression similar to the philosophical idealism or mysticism expressed by various well-known Western writers, going back centuries.

Hinduism encompasses the convictions, folk beliefs, and devotional religion of vast masses of people in India, many of whom have little or no knowledge of Vedanta. While popular religions of the world were a subject that Huxley read about and thought about, this can be said of very many curious and intellectually active Westerners who certainly never convert to Hinduism. Joel Russ (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


That you can be "certain" that "curious and intellectually active Westerners... [would] never convert to Hinduism" tells how enlightened is your knowledge of the exact mindset of Aldous Huxley (I am sure you knew him quite intimately).

I agree, that you can object to Huxley's "converting" to Hinduism, because unlike major varieties of the Abrahamic faiths, there is no baptismal, ceremony (with circumcision), salaat, or a "method of conversion" associated with the majority of the thousands of belief systems (sometimes disjoint) which are associated with the term "Hinduism." But by your definition of Hinduism, enlightened Westernized Vedantists of Indian extraction would also "certainly never convert to Hinduism" - it is after all the religion of the foolish masses. And analogously, according to some, Jesus would be too pacifist to be called a Christian. 67.194.150.69 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


I also agree that in lack of certain fact (arguable), Huxley's supposed "conversion to Hinduism" (whatever that means) can be left out of a Wikipedia article. Instead, his familiarity and thoughts about Vedantism could be explained. However, Joel Russ's reason is certainly not why. 67.194.150.69 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New images

I've uploaded several new high-res public domain photos of Aldous Huxley (and others) by Ottoline Morrell, below. They'll take some restoring before they're useful, but I think many will be useful. See also Commons:Commons_talk:Media_restoration#Suggested_for_restoration. Dcoetzee 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of children

The article states: "Huxley's only child, Matthew Huxley (d. 10 February 2005) was also an author, as well as an educator, anthropologist and prominent epidemiologist. His work ranged from promoting universal health care to establishing standards of care for nursing home patients and the mentally ill to investigating the question of what is a socially sanctionable drug.[7] Matthew's first marriage, to documentary filmmaker Ellen Hovde, ended in divorce. His second wife died in 1983. He was survived by his third wife, Franziska Reed Huxley; and two children from his first marriage, Trevenen Huxley and Tessa Huxley."

How can Matthew Huxley be his only child if he has two others from his first marriage? Can someone with better knowledge of Huxley clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.99.193 (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-read the sentence - it states that Matthew, not Aldous was survived by two children from his (Matthew's) first marriage. 67.246.147.249 (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

‎ This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yoenit (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

quote question

The following quote in the article is listed as from Huxley's novel Point Counter Point. I'd like to know which page in that novel the quote is on:

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion... Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough." --Origamikid (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[adds Ries Baeten, 6 November 2010:] Well, let me answer that for you then: The quote is rather from "Amor Fati", in "Texts and Pretexts", 1932, p. 270, after an extensive quote of a poem by Henry Vaughan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.232.220 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Parapsychology

There is no evidence Aldous Huxley had any interest in parapsychology, none of his books deal with parapsychology, so why is that put in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To deal with your concern I have added a tag requesting a source for that information. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Huxley's lost play - Now More Than Ever

I've added a small reference in the drama section and in the external references. I know more than I can add but that would oount as original research and raise hackles. Feel free to delete but you'll be doing Huxley's legacy a disservice if you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpalmerx (talk • contribs) 09:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jiddu Krishnamurti?

A major portion of this article can and should be in regards to Aldous Huxley's relationship with Krishnamurti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.161.51 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — goethean ॐ 17:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Construction of the first sentence

Rothorpe has undone a change that I made to the first sentence of the article. My suggestion was to say not

"Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family."

but

"Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963), one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family, was an English writer."

Rothorpe argues "it makes more sense to put 'writer' first". I hold against this that the fact of Huxley having been a writer is stronger stressed when one constructs the sentence as I have suggested it to be constructed. When the sentence runs as Rothorpe suggests, the fact of Huxley having been a writer is stated with the same strength as the fact that he was a member of the famous Huxley family. According to my suggestion, this latter fact would not be stated in an own phrase, at all, but only be inserted as an attribute, between commas.

I`d like to ask Rothorpe to comment on this. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe the first sentence is better. The second might be a better construction in German, but not in English. Sorry. Yworo (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Don`t overlook that the article goes on so that You have the choice between:
"Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family. He spent the later part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death. (...)"
and
"Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963), one of the most prominent members of the famous Huxley family, was an English writer. He spent the later part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death. (...)"
This given, it does already appear much less confusing to have the first sentence ended as suddenly as I suggest it to do. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam

We are told Huxley was "an intellectual of the highest rank". This is referred to a book, with no separate proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) LSD causes numerous car crashes. There is nothing intellectual about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement is referenced by a book citation. Do you take issue with the ref? I'm not sure how this is spam related. Span (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Huxley Review of 1984

Huxley reviewed Orwell's 1984. he concluded that the world described in Brave New World was more likely to happen than was Orwell's in 1984. Should we included a brief discussion? Enthusiasmcurbed (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

COI Disclaimer

I just added a link to publicly available digitized materials (lots of photographs, but other documents as well) held in UCLA Library's Special Collections. It's a rich resource that I think others will find meaningful and useful, but I'm mentioning it here because I'm a librarian at UCLA. I had nothing to do with the creation of the project, but I still want to make sure that it's generally agreed by page editors that this doesn't represent a conflict of interest. Nafpaktitism (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)nafpaktitism

Doors of Perception listed under 'Novels' (and also, correctly, under 'Essay Collections')

The subject says it all. Is there any reason to categorise 'The Doors of Perception' as a novel? I would say no.76.193.187.248 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. No! Be bold. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Please omit the line, " Peter Kreeft's book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley."

I'm not an expert in the the Wikipedia discussion pages so apologies in advance for miscues.

It seems to me this line, " Peter Kreeft's book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley," does not warrant being in the article, as it detracts from both Huxley and Kennedy.

Kreeft is a conservative Evangelical apologist, which wouldn't matter, per se, but the book itself is purely on theology, and makes constant negative tendentious misleading theological references to both Huxley and Kennedy, in its bias for C.S. Lewis.

This work in evangelical theological apologetics doubtless deserves a brief mention in the bibliography, and possibly in the Wikipedia article text iself on C.S. Lewis, but certainly not in the article's text itself on Aldous Huxley, any more than it would on the Wikipedia article's text on John F. Kennedy.

It's in fact already in the bibliography here--which is fine. But it surely doesn't belong in the text of the article.

Thanks very much and thanks for The Wikipedia.

128.103.11.28 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)James Adler

Hoax book

There's currently an AfD for The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock. I've done a little research and I'm pretty much 99.9% certain that this book is a hoax. There's no mention of this book anywhere but in very basic bibliography lists in places that appear to have pulled from this article. The school that supposedly owns a copy of this book has never owned a copy of it. I'm going to remove it from the article. I mean, given the amount of people who have written about Huxley as a whole, it's very, very suspicious that none of his biographies ever mention him writing a second children's book, not even in passing. Sure, someone could say it's because of the small printing, but that doesn't make sense either because at some level a researcher would unearth some sort of actual proof. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have got into the article on 25 February 2008, here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Huxley as a Hollywood screenwriter.

The article says that Huxley's success in Hollywood was 'minimal'. However, the only evidence it quotes is that Disney decided not to use one particular script, 'Alice in Wonderland'. Since it's common for even extremely successful screenwriters to have particular scripts rejected, this doesn't prove anything.

Perhaps more importantly, it's specifically contradicted by Christopher Isherwood's 'My Guru and his Disciple'. Isherwood, who was himself a very successful screenwriter who describes himself as earning $500 per week (itself a large sum at the time), describes himself as being envious of Huxley's much greater screenwriting success and income (which he puts at $3,000 per week). Isherwood also says that Huxley devoted most of his income to sponsoring German friends and acquaintances escaping Hitler's Germany.

Can someone please fix this? I don't know what if anything should replace this paragraph, but it can't stand as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChengduTeacher (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential Inaccuracy Regarding Huxley Brother

On this page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Aldous_Huxley) in paragraph one under the heading "Early Life" the birth and subsequent suicide of Huxley's brother Trevenen is mentioned. Here however, his name is purported to be "Noel Trevelyan Huxley" which I believe to be false, having read numerous biographical accounts of the subject's life by acclaimed sources (James Sexton's "Selected Letters of.." and Nicholas Murray's "...An English Intellectual"). Trevenen, from what I understand, was an old family name originating from the Matthew Arnold (i.e. his mother's) side of the family. Further evidence to support that this may be an error comes from the name of Huxley's grandson, Mark Trevenen Huxley - another occurrence of the old family name. I was not able to access the source pertaining to this matter (number 5 listed under references) and was therefore not able to confirm nor deny my hunch. Regardless of its insignificance, I feel this was still worth mentioning. I've not yet attempted to make any changes regarding the inaccuracy, as I'm not entirely certain that I'm right. Any confirmation or denial on the subject would be helpful.

130.156.22.254 (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Religion

Can a section be added explaining what Aldous Huxley's religious views were? Some websites seem to say he was an atheist, but according to some parts of the article he studied vedanta hinduism, but what were his actual religious views?. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does he need to have any fixed religious views? Span (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He wrote a book called "perennial philosophy" which basically explained there is a common element of truth in all religions. He wrote another book about God where he described his vedanta view of God. However in other essays he expressed his atheist beliefs. It is confusing. You do not need to have fixed religious views, but to write a book about the truth in all religions to then support atheism or vedenta hinduism. Makes no sense. For the article, it is misleading if someone wants to know his actual beliefs. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Aldous Huxley's Grandfather, Thomas Huxley, coined the word agnostic, to mean that in a strictly scientific sense, God cannot be proved in this physical world, but there is also nothing to disprove it. Huxley described himself as an agnostic - as he had not confirmed the "proof" of God for himself. In the journal published by the Vedanta Society of Southern California, and in his introduction to the Bhagavad Gita (translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood), he explains the "Minimum Working Hypothesis", which I think is the core personal belief and philosophy of Huxley: There is an underlying reality (Brahman), the nature of that reality is of the same nature as what is within each human being, that it is possible to identify and experience that True Nature within each of us, and that the goal of life is to realize that divinity. In other statements of the MWH, he adds that there are means (paths, Tao, etc.) that exist to help attain that realization. Scholars have stated that Huxley's religious views were along the lines of the high philosophy of Vedanta and Buddhism (as separate from the cultural aspects of those religions). That he could offer no independently verifiable proof of the existence of that underlying Reality, he held himself to be agnostic - as opposed to atheist (who flatly don't believe in God). Ellis408 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Position during WWII ?

What was Huxley's position during WWII ? Did he opposed it as a pacifist or supported it all the same ? Did he write something about it ? Some articles ? Some books ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.84.25 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Huxley was a pacifist and began working on political means of ending war shortly after WWI. He was a member of the Peace Pledge Union movement in England and Europe. For instance, the group tried to stop Canada from selling nickel (a critical war material for making armaments) to Nazi Germany. But ultimately, Huxley was disappointed in the political process and in a letter described how his views had changed, and that he felt the problem of war comes down to a religious problem - how to get people to see that we are all human beings with a common purpose to realize our own potential. After the war, he applied for US citizenship, but was denied because he wouldn't declare that he was willing to fight for the US.Ellis408 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No citation for "provocative marriage"

This article quotes the phrase "provocative marriage" with no explanation or citation for what made the marriage "provocative". When you do a google search, at least as of May 2015, for "aldous laura huxley provocative marriage" the only references are to wikipedia and the film documenting their relationship. My guess: it is a phrase from promotional materials for the film and was used here because it sounded neat. I think use of this phrase, without reference or citation, is wrong. I am going to eliminate it, unless someone can demonstrate why it is provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.44.153 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree - a reference should be provided for the wording. The phrase probably refers to the reaction of Huxley's family and friends to the seeming sudden marriage to a friend of Maria [Huxley's first wife]. No family was invited - it was a spur of the moment, Las Vegas wedding, with no announcement. There may have also been resentment from Maria's friends, who just didn't like Laura. In any case, it should be changed lacking a reference. I'll look for anything to confirm. Give me a week to look for something - a case could be made, but there needs to be a reference.Ellis408 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Semi protection

Vandalism by IPs continues. There is a case for indefinite WP:Semi protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

Aldous Huxley and L Ron Hubbard

This source mentions, in passing, that AH received "auditing" from L Ron Hubbard. While I realize that the source of these allegations may be questionable, I still think a follow up on this might be warranted. Myself, I have no association with the CoS (in fact, I'm rather critical of the church) and I am also a big fan of AH's work "Brave new world", which is why I want to bring this out in the open. 95.192.119.146 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Having been audited by Hubbard would be interesting, if it could be confirmed. This was apparently previously discussed back in 2008, which is now in the article's talk page: Talk:Aldous Huxley/Archive 1#scientology?. As you say, the source isn't reliable, so that's not enough to work with. This NY Times book review mentions that he dabbled in Dianetics, but he dabbled in lots of things, so... Huxley and Hubbard are often linked by the story of Huxley betting Hubbard that he couldn't start a religion, which is almost certainly apocryphal, or at least a gross distortion. Better sources would be needed. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer! That made for some hilarious saturday night reading. For the record, I believe the Hubbard bet is surely apocryphal too. 95.192.119.146 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is true, we would need to show that Huxley's biographers considered it significant. TFD (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think we necessarily need to consult AH's s̶y̶c̶o̶p̶h̶a̶n̶t̶s̶ biographers. After all, all we need is a WP:RS. 95.192.119.146 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we do, because of neutrality. Otherwise articles would be filled with information that no one considers important. TFD (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Doubts about whether philosopher was Aldous Huxley's occupation

Do we really have to go there? This is deja vu all over again. How many drama boards and how many citations will this one take before we learn that FKC actually agreed all along but just wanted his own source cited in this article, too? [9] Msnicki (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Your comment above has nothing to do with Aldous Huxley, and has no relevance to improving this article. Either stay on subject for this page or do not comment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I am commenting on the content and I'm asking what is it going to take this time to gain agreement. Is it just sources you need or do you actually not agree that he's a philosopher? Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The question is irrelevant. I am not interested in discussing whether Huxley or anyone else was a philosopher. What matters is whether there are reliable sources that show that "philosopher" was Huxley's occupation. Do you have any? Incidentally, it is wrong in any event to list Huxley's occupation as "Writer, Novelist, Philosophy". "Philosophy" is not a term comparable to "writer" or "novelist"; I presume that "philosopher" is what is actually meant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If you don't have any serious doubts you care to put into words explaining why you don't think Huxley was a philosopher, wouldn't it make more sense (common sense?) to simply add a {{cn}} tag rather than remove the claim? Msnicki (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Mystic" may be a better word. Or "New Age adept avant-la-lettre." Maybe it depends on the kind of philosophy; I'll bet Bertrand Russell didn't regard Aldous Huxley to be a philospher. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
He did write a book called The Perennial Philosophy. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

Msnicki, your reply misunderstands the issue. The question is whether "philosopher" was Huxley's occupation, eg, something he was paid to do. One can obviously be a philosopher without being one by occupation. What I am requesting are sources showing that Huxley was by occupation a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC).
Since you don't appear to disagree with the claim and would merely like additional sources, the proper way to make your request is with a {{cn}} tag. Then please allow time for others to do the research you don't wish to do yourself. WP:There is no deadline. Msnicki (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
By all means research the matter. The claim that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher" appears to be wrong, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Msnicki, I am afraid that your edit here suggests that you still misunderstand this issue. The question is not whether Huxley was a philosopher. The question is whether Huxley's occupation was "philosopher". Obviously one can be a philosopher without being such by occupation. The sources you added call Huxley a philosopher, but unsurprisingly none suggest it was his occupation. It has already been established above that Huxley "was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood". Please stop confusing and distorting the issue by adding such misinformation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what the term occupation means to an intellectual. You seem to be focused on how the individuals monetizes his work, which I believe misses the point of what it even means to be an intellectual. An intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how he puts bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. I'm reverting to re-add my citations but I'll also take it to WP:ORN for additional discussion. Msnicki (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
An encyclopedic biography of Huxley should not mislead readers by asserting he was a philosopher. The word "philosopher" is often used in a colloquial sense but such mentions do not give substance to a false claim about Huxley's occupation. People write books about all sorts of topics, but writing such a book means you are a writer. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we should only say someone was a philosopher if they made an original contribution to philosophy, which is how the term is normally used in the literture about philosophers. Huxley AFAIK did not write about philosophy, but about mysticism, which is sometimes called philosophy. So too are lots of things. Physicists are "natural philosophers," a financial analyst may have an investment philosophy. Mungo Jerry wrote, "Life's for livin' yeah, that's our philosophy./Sing along with us/Dee dee dee-dee dee/Dah dah dah-dah dah." The same arguments could be used to label them philosophers, but it conveys no information to readers. TFD (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Does your "AFAIK" include having read any of Huxley's works? Msnicki (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I have read several of his novels and biographical articles about him. I have also read many of the English philosophers who were contemporaneous with him (Wittgenstein, Russell, Moore, Ryle, Ayer and others) and the history of 20th century English philosophy and did not come across his views there. I also cannot find any philosophical writings in bibliographies of his work that I consulted. What about you - have you found any books he wrote about philosophy? TFD (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Would Plato be counted as a philosopher by your criteria ? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Plato made an original contribution to philsophy, in fact subsequent philosophy is often called "footnotes to Plato." He wrote about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and other areas, and is mentioned in all histories of philosophy. He is closely identified with the rational, as opposed to empirical, approach and hence has influenced European philosophers such as Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, existentialists and phenomenologists, more than he has influenced English philosophers. TFD (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Who could disagree ? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC).
Not me. But I think it's okay for a philosopher to express his thoughts as fiction. Msnicki (talk)

Although Plato's works, at least those that have survived, were presented as dialogues, the characters actually discuss philosophical issues. Also, while he used parables, such as the cave, they are used to explain philosophical issues. I do not know though how a work of fiction could be used to explain philosophy or any other topic of learning, unless the characters discuss it or the author inserts sections about philosophy as a break from the story-line. TFD (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD, perhaps you should add l'Etranger , The Age of Reason, Utopia and Leviathan to your reading list. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could read a standard introduction to philosophy to your reading list, because you appear to not know what it is. TFD (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to contribute to this discussion. There is 'philosopher' in the wide taproom sense ('he's a bit of a philosopher innit'), and there is philosopher in the narrow sense (has published notable work on properly philosophical subjects). Huxley not a philosopher in the narrow sense. Nor is the guy who wrote on Zen and motorcycles. Peter Damian (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

AcidRock67, you appear to be intend on having "philosopher" listed as Aldous Huxley's occupation. Please read the discussion above. Huxley was never employed as a philosopher, hence "philosopher" cannot be given as his occupation. As Xxanthippe commented, "He was self-employed, except when he was working in Hollywood." (Additionally, I should note that the disruptive editing you are engaging in is unwise, given your recent block for edit warring. If you continue such behavior, you will likely be blocked again, for a longer period of time). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not willing to edit war the matter, but I agree with AcidRock67's edit remark[10] that there does not appear to be a consensus. Msnicki (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
There would be if we had an RfC and posted to the philosophy forum. I suppose for many there is a tendency to be dismissive of the subject - what do philosophers do anyway? - but it is an academic discipline like any other that has a defined subject matter and literature. And Huxley never wrote about any of its topics. TFD (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

AcidRock67 is editing disruptively by edit warring to restore misinformation. Philosopher was not Huxley's occupation, as he did not work in a philosophy department. If I don't revert AcidRock67 immediately, that is because that user's edits here are part of a pattern of disruption extending over multiple articles and may well need to be dealt with as such, rather than on an article by article basis. An ANI discussion or something similar could be required to deal with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You said yourself that if there was an RfC, you would probably get a consensus. So why not just put it to one and be done with it? Why all the constant complaining at various drama boards? How many reports have you made? Too many to count. And has it worked? Of course not. This is what drives AcidRock67 crazy and it drives me crazy as well. Your behavior reminds me of a child who constantly tattle-tales. Put it to an RfC and see where it comes out. That's the adult way of dealing with a content dispute. Msnicki (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to review WP:CIVIL. You are, of course, free to place a request for comment if you wish. I might do so myself, but it seems to me that no one other than AcidRock67 actually supports listing "philosopher" as Huxley's occupation, which is evidently factually wrong, so I am not sure why an RfC would be either helpful or appropriate. You suggested that you would do more research on the subject of Huxley's occupation; it does not surprise me that you came up with nothing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not incivil to tell someone that their behavior is a problem, especially when it is. If WP:CIVIL actually prohibited telling people that their behavior makes other people dislike them and dislike trying to deal with them, you'd never have been allowed ANY of your numerous trips to all those drama boards. You fight constantly and you escalate everything to a drama board. It's just a fact. And AcidRock67 is NOT the only one who thinks Huxley was a philosopher. I also think so (did you forget me?) and it looks to me like Xxanthippe thinks he was as well. So it looks to me like it's tied, three !votes on each side. If you really care, put it to an RfC. Msnicki (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Random insults such as comparing someone to a child are uncivil. Reminding someone of WP:CIVIL is a better response than insulting them in return. Unfortunately, it appears necessary to point out again that the issue under dispute is not whether Huxley was a philosopher, but whether "philosopher" was his occupation, which is something else again. Given that Huxley was not employed as a philosopher, the answer is no. Listing "philosopher" as Huxley's occupation is misinformation, supported by no one other than AcidRock67 and (possibly) you. I am not persuaded that we need a lengthy RfC to decide whether a claim that is clearly factually incorrect should appear in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't compare you, I compared your behavior to that of a child tattle-taling. And I stand by it. You are CONSTANTLY running off to complain at one drama board or another. And it never ends anything. You may be an absolutely wonderful guy in RL, brilliant, considerate, kind, a genuine pleasure to be around, someone I might love to have as a friend. But what we see of you here is a different story. You've made more trips to drama boards in just a few months than most people make in a decade. It's unpleasant. It turns everything into a battleground. As for whether we need an RfC, do what you like (you will anyway) but please consider that you are not the final arbiter of fact. I don't agree with any part of your argument. We decide things by consensus. Right now, there isn't one. Msnicki (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone is only a philosopher by occupation if they are employed as a philosopher. That clearly was not true in Huxley's case. There is not a lot of point in saying that you disagree with me, given that you have provided no evidence of any kind that Huxley was ever employed as a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unless you have a WP:RS that says so, that's just your personal opinion. I have a different opinion. And I notice you're off to the drama boards again, complaining about AcidRock67 again. What a surprise. Not. Msnicki (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There obviously is not going to be a reliable source stating that someone is only a philosopher by occupation if they are employed as a philosopher because that is an obvious truth no one would ever bother writing up. So it is pointless to request such a source. I do not see the absence of a source stating a sky-is-blue kind of statement as a justification for including a factually mistaken claim. If you claim that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher", the burden is very much on you to find a source actually stating that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If it were "an obvious truth" that one can only be a philosopher by occupation if you were employed as one, then, yes, I think you should be able to find a source that says that. My personal opinion is that you could be a philosopher by occupation if that is how you occupied your time, regardless of whether you were ever employed at anything. As for sources identifying Huxley as a philosopher, our own article on his book, The Perennial Philosophy#In the United Kingdom, reports, "In the journal Philosophy, the Anglican priest Rev. W. R. Inge remarked on the book's well chosen quotations and called it "probably the most important treatise we have had on mysticism for many years." He saw it as evidence that Huxley was now a mystical philosopher". That's good enough for me. Msnicki (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, as if the time wasting at Talk:Timothy Leary was insufficient. Please let it go—you were wrong and consensus is against you. No one on your side has attempted to engage the arguments raised; instead, there are Google-snippets with any old text to support the wanted conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't edited this article in 6 weeks. I have effectively let it go. Msnicki (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Your case comes down to saying that because Huxley has been called a philosopher, that therefore he was employed as a philosopher. That's a non sequitur: being an X does not mean that one's occupation is X. In the absence of sources saying that Huxley's occupation was "philosopher", the claim needs to be removed, and I will remove it shortly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That's obviously personal opinion and WP:OR. Occupation can mean a lot of things. Our occupation DAB page says inter alia,

Occupation may refer to:

Employment is only one of the meanings associated with an occupation as a job. The others do not require that you be employed by anyone else. Further, our article on philosopher states, A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy, which involves rational inquiry into areas that are outside of either theological dogma or science. There's no requirement you be employed as a philosopher to be one. Huxley (and Leary) inquired in theological dogma, the books exist and people called him a philosopher on that basis. Msnicki (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that one does not need to be employed as a philosopher in order to be one. Wittgenstein for example wrote his Tractatus when he was a school teacher. LearyHuxley however did not make any rational inquiry into areas outside theological dogma or science. The books do not exist, which is why he is not recognized as a philosopher. TFD (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Tell you what, let's set Leary aside for now. You do agree with me that Huxley was a philosopher? Msnicki (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Huxley wrote, "To such first-hand exponents of the Perennial Philosophy those who knew them have generally given the name of "saint" or "prophet," "sage" or "enlightened one." And it is mainly to these because there is good reason for supposing that they knew what they were talking about, and not to the professional philosophers or men of letters, that I have gone for my selections." IOW he rejects "rational inquiry into areas that are outside theological dogma," and instead relies on revelation from theological dogma. He may of course be right. Maybe Jesus and other religious leaders told us all we need to know and reason cannot tell us anything about reality. But that is a rejection of philosophy.
Ironically, Huxley's grandfather, Thomas Huxley, was a philosopher but not as well known as his grandson.
TFD (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The existence of different definitions of "occupation" is inconsequential. It is incorrect to claim that Huxley's occupation was philosopher, regardless of which of the definitions of occupation listed above one accepts. If anyone wants the article to state that Huxley's occupation was philosopher, they need to find a source saying that his occupation was philosopher; no such source is likely to exist. Claiming that Huxley's occupation was philosopher is POV-pushing in the absence of a source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillside school

Aldous Huxley went to Hillside School Godalming prior to Eton, not Hillside Malvern; would someone like to edit this? BTW I have photographic evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.148.253 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Is your evidence published in a reliable source? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The link to Reference 31 (http://www.charlestonvt.com/Holly/BCL/MCV%20Aldous%20Huxley/Originals/Derbyshire_WhatHappened.ORG.pdf) leads to an empty 404 page. Can somebody experiencend with Wikipedia please fix this issue? 91.5.205.238 (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)user

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit Upcoming

In research done for an edit to Wikipedia's article on Huxley's last book (Literature and Science), I found material that I believe merits inclusion in this, the Aldous Huxley article. Two sources I encountered -- Milton Birnbaum's Aldous Huxley's Quest for Values and Harold H. Watts's Aldous Huxley -- are not referenced in the current AH article, nor are they listed in the article's "Further Reading" section. I'm starting to work now on drafting added content for insertion, and I anticipate that my edit also will re-position some current content. For example, I intend to move content from sub-section "Post-World War II life" into the "Personal Life" section. I anticipate installing the new edits in the first half of February. I'm certainly open to discussion with other editors in the intervening weeks. Canhelp (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

Aldous Huxley in music

Aldous Huxley is mentioned in the song Run baby run by Sheryl Crow and it would be nice to briefly mention it in the article.

ICE77 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And Captain Beefheart allegedly once tried to sell him a vacuum cleaner. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Humanist?

In what sense was Huxley a humanist? He did not sign the first Humanist manifesto. His views expressed in the Perennial Philosophy would be too supernaturalist (or at least ambiguous) for secular humanists today. I guess he would have not been opposed to humanism - probably, but calling him a humanist seems a stretch to me. And I note there is no citation. Slimy asparagus (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC) I wonder if there is an element of confusion with Julian Huxley who was definitely a humanist: https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/20th-century-humanism/sir-julian-huxley/. Slimy asparagus (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree. More a mystic than a humanist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
Why limit the definition of humanism by contemporary secular humanism? At best, it would be a sub-category, and it doesn't seem to engage in dialogue with the historical and classic development of humanism. Huxley was definitely a humanist in its purest, historical and traditional sense. Secularism is not and has not been fundamental to humanism. 2806:2F0:93A0:B063:916C:825E:A21B:7C9F (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone with the knowledge of it add the pronunciation of the name -- AnyFile (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aldous_Huxley/Archive_1&oldid=1231472049"