Talk:Hermit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Anchorite
I removed the circular wiki on anchorite, as it simply rdirected to this page. If someone wants to help define the distinctions on this page, that would be great. JHCC 14:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- It ought to be kept, because it is a subject it its own right, cf. the medieval anchoresses who lived in bricked up cells adjoining a church with just a small opening to listen to Holy Mass and receive Holy Communion. Someone may get round to writing it up. 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heraclitus
I have a strong feeling that the Greek philosopher Heraclitus was not only a hermit, but a very influential pre-Socratic philosopher. Being my favorite western philosopher, I probably couldn't describe him with NPOV, but I think someone should. Just a thought. Rokenrol 20:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Diogenes
What is Diogenes doing here? Even if an ascetic and cynic (in the classical) sense, he was hardly a hermit. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:41, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV?
"John Chrysostom examplifies a misogynous hermit; he said that it was preferable to remain single than to have to bear the burden of a woman (among other contemptuous concepts on women)"
Can't say I agree with many of John Chrysostom views, but describing his views as "contemptuous" seems to break NPOV.
Aecarol 20:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think perhaps the author of that statement meant to say "views that hold women in contempt." However, I also have to say that this is the first time that I have seen being a hermit treated exclusively as a psychological illness. As far as I know, the term hermit is not most commonly used among people to refer to someone suffering from a psychological illness! The article seems to be based almost exclusively on the thought of Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing, and I think it may be NPOV for the reason that it does not reflect a plurality of even commonly held viewpoints or really provides much description of hermits or their motivations for being hermits outside of a diagnosis of their "mental illness." I think most of the content present in the current article should be subordinated to other information in a new article, which describes objectively what a hermit is and expresses the viewpoints presented in this article along with others in the body of the description.
Of course, it is always easier to express the work that has to be done but much more difficult to actually do it, so guess what I'm not going to do :P ? Sorry, but I probably am not qualified anyways to do it. --Conwiktion 14:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's some confusion here between "hermit" and ascetic. A hermit (in the religious context) is an ascetic who retreats into solitude to escape the temptations that come with contact with other people. On the other hand, it is possible to live a life of ascetiscm either in community with other ascetics (as in a large monastery) or as part of society as a whole. While John Chrysostom was certainly ascetic, he was by no means a hermit (hard to do if you are the bishop of the capital of the eastern Roman Empire!); Anthony the Great was definitely a hermit, at least until disciples started gathering around him. JHCC 21:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agree with JHCC's point. Also, I don't understand the assertion that being a hermit is described in the article as being a "mental illness". It seems to me that the author who wrote that is reading too much into the article. Perhaps it's been changed since that comment, but the current article in no way equates being a hermit with suffering from a form of mental illness.
- Look into the history of this article, especially before & after Cnp8's edits. Before she/he made the changes, the article clearly suggested that hermits were either sex perverts or psychotics, and quoted von Krafft-Ebing that religious feeling was a form of hysteria (which I doubt is included in DSM-IV, at least how von Krafft-Ebing appears to use the term). It was clearly POV, & is much less so now. Perhaps the label can now be removed?
- (P.S., could people please sign their comments? Thanks.) -- llywrch 04:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] What about Thoreau?
Does anyone agree with me that Thoreau should be mentioned? I didn't see him in there. He wasn't entirely a hermit or ascetic but he was deffinitally kind of secluded and obstained from alot of things, such as consumerism and all that nifty stuff... I mean c'mon, he lived in the woods in a cabin he made himself and grew beans all year round. Sounds kinda hermit-ish if you ask me!
Perhaps sparked by Thoureau, it was modish in the 1800s among landed New Englanders to have a hermit living on their estate. Somebody might want to explore that topic. -KJJ
- I don't think Thoreau should be here. He lived along the main path to Walden Pond, had many visitors from the path, went into town often to visit with friends, and ate at his mother's house on the weekends. I don't think this qualifies as a hermit, "a person who lives to some greater or lesser degree in seclusion and/or isolation from society." I do believe he was an ascetic, but I don't think he belongs here. 70.105.124.205 17:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thoreau was definitely a hermit by even liberal definitions. During his experiment he spent most of his time isolated from people at Walden Pond but like most hermits was never really able to be completely shut off from society (many hermits said this was not necessarily a bad thing (ie. the Desert Fathers.) Also of some significance is that Peter France in his book Hermits features Thoreau. I don't think any collection of hermits would be complete without him. 172.148.70.46 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)