Talk:Homo sacer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latin (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

The language in this article behaves as though the philosopher's conclusions have been proven (e.g., He then shows that "quote"). Also, I'm not sure if the heavy quotations from this currently copyrighted book in an encyclopedia are a copy violation. Sophy's Duckling 00:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know of an independent source (i.e., one that has NOTHING to do with Agamben) on what exactly homo sacer was in ancient rome (I can find no references to him, aside from Agamben's book, on google, or in my textbooks)? Sophy's Duckling 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the following paragraph necessary, or is it already covered in the article on Agambem?
Agamben describes the effect of homo sacer as "bare life", or a schism of one's biological and political lives. He said that life exists in two capacities. One is natural biological life (Greek: Zoë) and the other is political life (Greek: bios). As bare life, homo sacer finds itself submitted to the sovereign's state of exception; homo sacer 's status as a political creature has been removed, denying its status as a sovereign subject yet allowed to retain biological life.
You won't find many texts about the Homo Sacer, which has been brought to attention through Agamben's works. It is thus normal that Agamben constitutes the main reference for the article! Maybe if you are a specialist of Roman law, you may be able to find interesting things in a good library. Lapaz 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

“Sacer” is not “sacred” here[edit]

Sacer translates more accurately as “untouchable” in this case. It was used in this sense in Classical Latin, and has Indo–European cognates, including in Sanskrit, where it means precisely “untouchable” or “fearsome”. I’m afraid I don’t have the exact references here, but it should be mentioned in the article somehow.

book, in which Sacer is only translated as 'sacred'. I hope that helps. The Anonymous Bob (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Source Texts[edit]

It says here that the figure occurs in Roman law. In which books? It seems to be a serious flaw of this article not to mention the textual origin of the concept. Ad fontes! Trigaranus (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sacrifice[edit]

What's that part about the man could not be sacrificed as part of a religious ritual? Does anyone have access to the referenced text? Because the way it is phrased implies the Romans practiced human sacrifice (by noting this as an exception) which is strange, as the Romans found it completely repugnant...and used it as a way to demonize (correctly or not) their enemies. 75.54.122.212 (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends on who you mean when you say "the Romans". The Romans of 600 BC, or the Romans of 100 AD? The Romans certainly did perform human sacrifice during the early Republic, but seem to have moved away from it by the later Republic, discontinuing it entirely by 100 BC.

That said, this article is in fact terrible and needs expansion and better references. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)