Talk:Noblesse oblige
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
éNoblesse oblige...that is what the future of our country is about. Not only rich people because the rich are a phantom in someones mind. Donald Trump is rich to me. Some one in New Orleans may consider anyone with a car that runs with a tank of gas and fifty bucks in their pocket to be rich. A poor father with children and a wife might think anyona gallon of milk was rich; given the circumstances the definiton changes. Who have you crossed paths with lately that, with very nearly no effort whatever on your part, you could have made a difference in someones life for the better. Got a job? You're rich in someones eyes. Got a safe place to sleep tonight? You are fabousley wealthy in the eyes of that distraught mother of a couple of boys who just keeps murmuring "where am I going to go". Got a destination, a place in mind, with the ability to get there? That is all it takes to be rich in someone elses eye, someone who has just given up. In the last few days I have seen things reported on television, that made a believer. Noblesse oblige. If you have anything, you have to share with those who have nothing. When will it start, as a human endevor? Can you know what is happening to the poor unprepared fellow Americans, and just do nothing? We all can do something. These are our brothers and sisters. Everybody think on that and do any little thing that comes to your mind to alleviate anyone elses pain and turmoil. It just might make a difference.
>>A completely pointless, yet stirring speech. I suppose I should delete it, since it is incredibly off-topic...But I simply can't bring myself to do so. Anyways, does anybody else think this page is thin enough to melt in water? We need to buff it up somehow. Right now, all I can think of is a list of references to the term (i.e. Kingdom of Loathing, .hack//SIGN), but that seems rather pointless and corny. Any suggestions?
Contents |
[edit] Quote from the Bible
I changed the reference from Luke 12:35-48 to Luke 12:48 because the quoted line is only one verse. Anyone know why it was referenced as more than that? -Rbean 04:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Origin
What is the basis for stating that the origin of the phrase is Luke 12:48? Does the original text of that passage include the term "noblesse oblige"? Certainly, the idea that those who have the most have a unique obligation was voiced prior to Luke 12:48. E.g., it appears, that the idea also has roots in the Old Testament.[1] I'm sure that a modicum of research would show that the general idea expressed in Luke is very common and hoary.
Moreover, does "F. A. Kemble first used the term in 1837" mean that "The first use of the term was in 1837 by F. A. Kemble" or does it mean that "The first time F. A. Kemble used the term was in 1837"? If the former (which I presume), is the authority for that only that none of the wikipedia editors know of an earlier usage? Also, is there any reason to believe that Mr. Kemble was referring to Luke 12:48? Finally, what letter is this referring to? Is there any authority for this passage?
Cka3n 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Translation?
Isn't a better translation "noble obligation"?
[edit] An addition
Shouldn't we also talk about this re: .hack//SIGN? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)