Talk:Pride
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] misc. discussion
The inclusion of "football team" under secondary pride does not seem very wikipedia-like to me for some reason. Neutronium 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
can this page b made into a disambiguation page?--61.195.58.8 03:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
In everyday language, the word "proud" has a spectrum of connotations, from negative to positive, depending on its semantic context. In the one extreme it can reflect self-centredness or hubris (a Christian cardinal sin), while on the other extreme it can be used to express altruistic thankfullness (a Christian virtue). Somewhere inbetween is the state of moderate & justifiable self-respect. It can therefore be less ambigous to use alternative words such as "conceited" or "thankfull" as appropriate.
English (by way of Attic Greek) also distinguishes between two senses with the terms pride and hubris, no?
- More accurately, "in order for modern English to distinguish between two senses— with the loss of vainglory— it must borrow from Greek hubris." Improve it and work the idea into the entry. --Wetman 13:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Should this be moved to spiritual pride, since that is what the article is about? --NoPetrol 03:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Surely "spiritual pride" would make a better subsection here and be enriched by the context. If you can make it a report on what "spiritual pride" has meant (quotes always help), and not an essay or a sermon, then give it a go! --Wetman 03:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the following: 'In this sense, "pride" is among the most-quoted themes of political and societal discourse of English-speaking nations, especially of the United States. This stands in some contrast to that nation's general image of itself as a mostly Christian society.' as opinions regarding the US aren't really relevant to the definition of the word "pride". Please chime in if you disagree. Darfsnuzal 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to the US and updated the reference to gay pride. If I search google for the term "pride," over 60% of the results on the first three pages refer to some version of gay pride.Darfsnuzal 05:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Arrogance redirects here. IMAO, arrogance and pride are quite distinct from one another. Now what? Aarnepolkusin 10:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- If Arrogance redirects here, then there should be a good paragraph hin this article clearly distinguishing between the two. --Wetman 20:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Arrogance is a symptom and result of pride. A dictionary would list them separately, but an encyclopedia would only have one entry. For instance, if you were arrogant about your geographic location, you might have a bumper sticker that says "The Power of Pride" with a flag of your country. That way, anyone from a different geographic location would know that you think you're better than them. *Peace Inside 17:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for an article on arrogance as well, while i agree that they are related i think that arrogance should at least have a paragraph in this article instead of being redirected here then ignored by the article. --85.12.65.33 09:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
yep, I have exactly the same question, who was the arrogant editor that thought arrogance should redirect to pride? it's not only very thinly connected (sure, "extreme pride" but still thinly connected) but also a very broad subject that has made empires rise and fall on its name throught history --161.76.99.106 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- We await your distinction of "arrogance" from "pride", perhaps with some pithy quotes. A definite need in the article. --Wetman 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Arrogance is also a symptom and result of being open to learning. For example, an arrogant student is one who receives a failing grade on a test but refuses to accept the answer key as correct.
Since the only logical argument about this is "an encyclopedia can't have a definition of arrogance since it's the result of extreme pride", then it is only logical to remove any encyclopedia articles that refer to the results of extreme nationalism since they're "just" a result of extreme nationalism. Many historical people were characterized as "arrogant" and it wouldn't hurt to have a page that redirects to something else than good old pride. --161.76.99.106 11:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
How can Wikipedia be "the free encyclopedia" if it feels forced to pay honor to the Muslim prophet? Why say "peace be upon him"? Especially since he was not peaceful.
Religious arguments aside, I think "pride" often has good connotations while "arrogance" is more negative. Of course, these concepts are distinct in a variety of other significant ways, and the profusion of comments already on the issue makes it clear that arrogance deserves its own article. Christophernandez 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC).
[edit] French
"Some languages distinguish between the two senses of pride; in French, self-respect is fierté and vanity is orgueuil."
"Fierté" is "Pride" and self-respect is "respect de sois-même", but pride (or fierté) can mean self-respect "Don't you have any pride?". "Vanity" is "Vanité". "Orgueuil" is similar to being bull-headed, obstinate. Someone with "de l'orgueuil" will not admit he is even if deep down he knows it.
Since the sentence is simply wrong, I will remove it. --A Sunshade Lust 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pride is a sin?
According to the beginning of this article, pride is a sin. 4.235.132.143 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] arrrgh
This is a terrible article... and pop culture section has GOT to GO. but the whole article needs revamping. preferably not by a religious type! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.198.238 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Religion vs Pride
It does seem a person of religion edited this. I find it to be way too biased in favor of religion. Something should be done to change this so the bias is erased. Pride can be a really noble emotion and I think this article is clearly too dismissive of this fact.
It should also be noted pride is NOT the same thing as arrogance.
[edit] Religion vs Pride
It does seem a person of religion edited this. I find it to be way too biased in favor of religion. Something should be done to change this so the bias is erased. Pride can be a really noble emotion and I think this article is clearly too dismissive of this fact.
It should also be noted pride is NOT the same thing as arrogance.
Anthony1989 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed Paragraph
But what happens if you do not reject the weak and insipid? Should there be no pride? Wrong, pride can exist with the respect of the weak and insipid. When the weak uses means of envy and physical force, then, the weak are charged with the crime, even to the expense of the "Grace of God." Pride is the "Grace of God," as God himself had this pride to reveal that he was the true "Messiah." Thus, without God's pride he would not have been identified. Pride is the last and only hope of the true, honest man. Although, he must make sure to respect the weak and insipid. In general terms, man must learn how to control his thoughts and powers. "If we submit to the "Grace of God," then we become our surroundings. Thus, if we are surrounded by pigs, we become pigs, without pride, the honest, self-controled human being is destroyed, all due to the "Grace of God."
Interesting Paragraph, I think. Not obveously to do with Neitzche though. Anyone want to salvage? Larklight (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Is anyone in favour of merging this with honour? I think they're dissimilar enough to warrant separate articles. Larklight (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you serious? These two words do not mean the same thing. Please refer to the definitions of pride and honor. I see no reason to merge. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't seem to make any sense... I'm going to remove the tag, as nobody has written anything on either of the talk pages in favour of a merge. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
I deleted the excerpt about pride equating with thinking one is better than another. Pride and supremacy aren't the same thing. (Predominantly in a racial context). Final_justice (talk) 07:09, 04 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] who keeps putting what objectivism has to say about pride back on the article?
if youre going to allow what some nobody like a** r*** had to say about pride, then you should also have what i have to say about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.242.253 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ayn Rand mention: Please explain why she should be omitted
Can you explain why Ayn Rand shouldn't be included? I don't know much about her but judging from the content it seems equally valid to include her view as it is Nietzsche's or the religious interpretations preceding it. Obviously I could be mistaken but as you obviously have strong feelings about it and as such would be useful to hear your thoughts on the matter.Irritant (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Hubris and Vanity
These three articles (pride, hubris, and vanity) identify themselves ultimately as synonyms. According to the hubris article, hubris is defined as "overweening pride". According to the vanity article, vanity is defined as "egoism and pride". There is no distinction between these three terms. The theme of each of these articles, however, is different. The pride article focuses on the concepualization of this idea as a sin in various religions, as well as the 'love of country'. The hubris article focuses on the literary treatments of this concept. The vanity article provides information on the symbolism of the concept. All of these aspects of pride should be outlined on the pride article, with other possible sub-articles linked by section throughout (ex. Pride in literature, Pride and religion, etc.). Neelix (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Totally disagree. Pride can often be a positive thing, vanity never. Hubris meant a lot more to the Greeks than pride. "Violation" is probably a lot closer to it. Must be treated separately. Haiduc (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- As the articles currently stand, they do not make sufficient distinction. Are you suggesting that these articles should be separate because they are different words? An article could possibly be written about the word hubris (like the article about the word truthiness), but as a concept, it could easily (and more effectively) be treated in a section of the pride article. The fact that the word "vanity" is only used in negative contexts is irrelevant. Stench and aroma both redirect to odor because they are synonyms; their difference in connotation may be appropriately discussed throughout the main article, but those connotations do not constitute sufficient reason to create multiple articles based on different words. Neelix (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
