Talk:Seven deadly sins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Archive this page?
Can we archive this page and start over? I've tried to summarize the points that still appear to be open for discussion. So much of this talk page is obsolete that making a serious contribution is a daunting task.
1) Some have expressed a desire to restructure the article. A proposed new outline follows: I. Quick Definitions (that's probably why people are coming here) -- dictionary style w/ focus on contemporary understanding II. Origin and Development of the list (I personally think this is very important) III. Extended Defintions (might these belong under individual wiki articles?) IV. Historical and Cultrual Signifigance of the list V. Recommended Reading VI. External Links
2) Where do the virtues fit in? My suggestion would be under the extended defs or individual articles.
3) venial / mortal / capital / deadly / etc. These terms might warrant a brief discussion here in the intro to III.
4) What about Dante and others? Summarize them in IV and point to the "SDS in pop culture" wiki.
5) Source citations are important. We're not getting much, if any, in this area.
6) Why doesn't the Bible list the SDS? The "not in the Bible" objection is common, and should be addressed.
7) "Keystone" issues -- is there a keystone sin? This was removed a long time ago from the article, but the discussion looks open. Its removal looks justified.
8) References in the talk page abound to Gilligan, America's Top Model, and such. These issues have long since been resolved with the "SDS in pop culture" page. Also, there's questions/comments/references to individual sentences that no longer exist in the article (ie, childish vs adultish).
9) Protestant vs Catholic understanding? Someone raised this issue, but I'm not sure it's a big deal. Aquinas predates Protestantism, as does Gregory, et al. Maybe this could be addressed briefly in IV?
10) The ordering of the sins has been brought up. It's changed over the years ... mention that in IV or II.
11) Just what do we use as authorities? Merriam-Webster, Gregory, Aquinas, Dante, etc? This would be helped greatly with a better job of citations, which we've generally stunk at doing (which I already carped on).
So ... is someone with clout listening and willing to archive this page and format some of this abbreviated list into a suitable skeleton for continued discussion on the rewrite of this list?
Thanks. Davidfmurphy 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
All sounds good to me. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I imagine the 'person with clout' would be you, me, or anyone else who keeps a close eye on the SDS. On how to archive a page see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. I'll have a look at doing it myself tomorrow if you haven't had a chance to.
I agree that once we have decided what the outstanding issues are, we will be in a much better position to look at making the article more scholarly and enyclopedic.
--Merlinme 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one general point about the format of these talk pages: I noticed that, not just with this section but also with the Desert Fathers, you've put the new section at the top or in the middle. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, but I generally find it easier to follow talk pages if they're in roughly chronological order, i.e. most recent items last. It's pretty straightforward to do this if you use the "+" tab instead of the "edit this page" tab when adding new items to the talk page.
That's a very minor issue though, your contributions are always valuable.
--Merlinme 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. If people still need to revive old discussions, feel free to pull them out of the archive. Natalie 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Psychiatric definitions of the Sins
The article has been heavily edited by an anonymous user who apparently has a background in psychiatry. This provided some interesting insights, but I've removed a lot of material which I think was using non-standard, psychiatric definitions of the Sins. Merriam-Webster defines Lust as:
1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH 2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS 3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING <a lust to succeed> b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS <admired his lust for life>
Nowhere does this mention things like 'the desire for social standing', so I heavily edited the section which read:
'the overwhelming desire for friendship, acceptance, or sexual companionship as its object. Unfulfilled lusts can lead to sexual or sociological compulsions and or transgressions including (but obviously not limited to) adultery, sexual addiction, social climbing, the desire for high social standing, and excessive materialism (the overriding need to impress and be accepted by others through display of ones posessions), among other things. Compulsive shyness or withdrawl (self-consciousness attributed to feelings of guilt) and obsessive/compulsive thoughts may be psychological consequences of such impulses.'
This is either original research or a non-standard, psychiatric definition, and I did not think it was helpful to understanding the article.
Similarly, the Merriam-Webster definition of Sloth is:
1 a : disinclination to action or labor : INDOLENCE b : spiritual apathy and inactivity <the deadly sin of sloth>
It is not the same thing as depression, and although how I can see the one might be caused by the other, confusing the two does not help an article on the Sins. So I removed the following section: 'The advent of psychiatry in modern times, and a greater understanding of the nature of mental health issues in general beginning in the 19th century has resulted in a more sympathetic attitude to these behaviors and greater tolerance of psychological diturbances, which are now understood to be manifestations of clinical depression or anxiety disorder that are often beyond the rational control of the so-called "sinner".'
Hope everyone agrees this was helpful.
--Merlinme 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree in principle with your decision, but I think something is being overlooked. Merriam-Webster is not the authority on this subject as the SDS predates MW by many years. Their definitions can be helpful, but the definitions used here should be based upon source documents from which the original list of deadly sins was derived.
This may sound like a nit-picky point, but I think authorial intent gets minimized when ancient terms are not defined using ancient defintions. Perhaps the greatest difference between MW and the original SDS are the defintions for sloth. They are so massively different one would rightly wonder why sloth is even in the list (if you're going with MW), but when you see the historical definition, sloth sounds much more deadly than simple apathy and/or inactivity.
Does this make sense? Davidfmurphy 08:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. A lot of the problem with an article about something like the SDS is choosing which version to talk about. Some people want to talk about the 'biblical' version, but it's highly debatable whether the SDS are even in the bible. Some people want to talk about the 'original' version, as set down by Pope Gregory, which I have some sympathy with, but his version is such a long way from what we mean today in popular usage that I'm not sure it's very helpful. The current approach seems to be to talk about what the sins originally meant and also what they mean now, i.e. how the meaning has evolved, which seems sensible.
This approach had however been quite badly muddled by an editor changing significant portions of the sections on Lust and Sloth to use definitions which would not be recognisable to either Pope Gregory or a current reader. My intention in quoting MW was not to say that 'this is the definitive version of what the sins are', it was simply to provide some justification for removing quite a large part of someone else's work. I thought the definitions being used were not mainstream, and I quoted MW as justification for this (rather than just making it one editor's opinion vs. another's).
--Merlinme 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Desert Fathers
Why was the section on Desert Fathers removed? It looks like an old edit from a year ago was pasted into the article, and that doesn't seem right. A serious, scholarly treatment of the history of the SDS must begin with Evagrius. Gregory didn't create the list -- he adapted the list of Evagrius.
And speaking of Evagrius in regard to the question posed above: the diagnostic purpose of the list is independent of categorization (capital/mortal/venial/etc). The goal is to merely show how the various temptations operate so that we can be better prepared to resist it. Perhaps the sentence in question should read: "One cannot effectively resist temptation without being aware of how it operates." Each of the SDS can be commited consciously/inadvertently/etc. The list allows you to diagnose your vulnerability to the SDS and avoid committing them. Davidfmurphy 23:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added other biblical references
I added some other biblical references to the original article. Not out of cheek or with any intent to slight. I noted that the SDS page referenced earlier church fathers, as indeed they were more of the direct source of the SDS list than anything strictly biblical. The subheading of Proverbs 6 was a good start to showing that those church fathers weren't necessarily making it all up out of thin air, but seemed to leave more questions than answers. ("So where'd the list come from?") The other biblical references, I thought, might shed some light on that old objection that the SDS list isn't found (verbatum) in the Bible.
Though it can sometimes be popular to imagine that early church leaders were in the habit of just making up stuff as they went along, they didn't fabricate their list. They distilled and aggregated it from many biblical references. Simpler lists, like the SDS, were useful for teaching biblical morals and doctrine when dealing with a predominantly illiterate laity.
Gypsywlf 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) gypsywlf
Hmmmm... Well, in the list of sins from Galatians, you give the verse numbers in it, but forgot to include which chapter these were from. After a quick search through Galatians, though, I find the verses were from chapter 5. I'm guessing this was a simple oversight on your part. ---Nomad Of Norad 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] disambiguation
why are there so many separate links on the top of this page. isn't that what a disambig page is for in the first place. Hazelorb 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I edited them down to two: Seven deadly sins disambig, and Cardinal sins disambig. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Disinclination 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How did Luxuria become Lust?
This would seem to be an important historical issue to address. -Gomm 23:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
