Talk:Treatise on Natural Philosophy

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Physics: Publications Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Publications Taskforce. History of Science C‑class Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cutler, in the text it says:

In 1851 Arthur Schopenhauer derided T and T as a "splendid example of":

Two things: 1) Should this read "T and T'"? Although in general I think referring to them directly by name would be more appropriate as the comment predates the work. 2) Similarly, should this be reworded to note that the reference is to their writing in general and not to this work? Seeing as it was printed in 1851 and the work did not come out til many years later. MKV (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]