Talk:Sincerity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Feelings are qualia and therefore not communicable by ordinary language. Or any language, for that matter. Read Wittgenstein and weep.
The last point in the main article is probably incorrect, and it is also contradicted by the first point under "See Also" as well as the OED and most reputable etymological sources.
Where does the idea that sincerity has been under assault by several modern developments such as psychoanalysis and postmodern developments such as deconstruction? One could view them as ways of getting rid of the barriers that hinder sincerity. Hackwrench 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Promotion of false etymology
The article seems to want the "without wax" etymology to be true. I've changed the POV "The OED ... sadly informs" to "The OED ... states". The etymologies given seem to be clear that there is no substance to the "without wax" etymology, so why does the article think that the etymology is controversial? "Some people" (these are weasel words) might well believe this false etymology, but that's no reason for the article to be sentimental about it or to promote it as a possibility. — Paul G 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and took out some more things from that section. Calling the first etymology a "story" and "charming" also felt really POV. I figure if the reader gets that far in the article he can make his own judgements about the "without wax" etymology. --Shroom Mage 04:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reference: Digital Fortress
Would it be appropriate to add a reference in the etymology section to Dan Brown's book Digital Fortress, in which one of the characters gives the "without wax" etymology? It is a spoiler and it might not be relevant, so I haven't added it. — Paul G 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the reference is relevant (and I was just coming over here to post this!) as it shows how many, including an author who prides himself on his research, are easily taken in by this mistaken belief. (I believed it, too, when I read the book, and I bet a lot of other people did as well.) Presumably, the character would have known better than to believe this, so clearly it is the author who did not. 72.131.11.47 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
