|Virtue has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Plato and Socrates?
- 2 Virtue and Virtue theory
- 3 Latin vis/vir
- 4 Buddhist Virtues
- 5 Too short
- 6 Franklin
- 7 Explanation of Nietzsche?
- 8 Aristotle?
- 9 Islam take over?
- 10 Biased editing over Islamic Virtue
- 11 long
- 12 Islamic virtues and general sourcing
- 13 Shameless Ad?
- 14 Virtue/Eastern Virtues/Western Virtues.
- 15 Virtue in the Jewish tradition
- 16 Comitas
- 17 link error
- 18 Auctoritas
- 19 Islam section digresses and not in Wikipedia style
- 20 What is talk of "values" doing here?
- 21 Copyright problem removed
- 22 What is the relevance of this?
- 23 Protected
Plato and Socrates?
What does the following sentence mean: "This enumeration is traced to Greek philosophy, being listed by both Plato and Socrates." Socrates has not written a single word; does it mean that the character Socrates in Plato's dialogue is referring to it. In any case, the sentence needs clarification. If not, I'll delete Socrates.
Classicists consider themselves to have several sources on Socrates. Besides Plato, there was a fellow named Xenophon who knew Socrates and wrote a great deal about him; Aristotle understood Socrates and Plato to have different positions on several philosophical topics, and gives separate discussions of their views in many of his books; and people who lived long after Plato gave accounts of different philosophers (Epicurus, Parmenides, Zeno, Thales, Socrates, and so on) which seem to have been lost in the intervening millenia. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Virtue and Virtue theory
These should probably be made into two separate articles, the first being about what the virtues are (or at least what different philosophers have said they are), and the second being about how we know what the virtues are. These are importantly different debates, and should probably be kept separate. KSchutte 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear how to start a new topic, so I'll put my comment here:
I work as a character specialist/coach, so I took a look at the list of virtues and did some editing, adding, and deleting. I deleted sexual continence, because that's covered under chastity; deleted self-esteem, because in a virtues context, self-respect is more accurate; beautiful in spirit because beauty is more all-encompassing; manners because that's covered under courtesy; perfection, because that's the goal of developing virtues; physical strength, because this is a list of spiritual/moral qualities, not physical ones; and free will, because that's part of the nature of human beings, not a quality/capacity that develops over time. I have some question about leaving in the self- qualities, because "self" is covered in the quality listed separately...such as confidence vs. needing to also have self-confidence. Hope this is helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne M. Alexander (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia as a contributor. Eventually I would like to become one but I still do not know how to do it. So far I just want to point out that in an article about virtue something should be said about Alasdair MacIntyre or at least there should be a link to its name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedroborator (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
From the article:
- [The unrelated Latin word vis means simply "power" or "violence"; ancient grammarians were unable to distinguish the two words.]
This sounds like Latin's rhotacism of /s/ to me, i.e. they are the same word, but /s/ changes to /r/ in certain positions in classical Latin. Can anyone confirm or deny this? –Andyluciano 04:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The section on Buddhist virtues is pretty bare bones. I've edited it a little bit and will come back to it later when I have more time. The main edits are:
1. Deleted list of precepts (sila). These are more analogous to commandments in the Western tradition.
2. Added list of Brahmavihāra, which are a pretty close parallel to virtues as such.
I'm not sure that the Eightfold Path belongs here, since it seems to me to be more of a spiritual discipline than a list of virtues.
Mrrhum 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If we understand virtue to be an embodiment of a good/beneficial/positive trait, and the result of pracice, then each and every one of the Eightfold Path are virtues in themselves. What is the result of a spiritual discipline anyways? I say leave in the Eightfold Path.
[User: FF] 13:20, December 29, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it depends on what you mean by "virtue", and it depends on which Buddhist school you're invoking.
However, in agreement with Mrrhum, it is probably a logical fallacy (Sorry, offhand I can't name which one.) to cite the whole Eight-Fold Path as Buddhist virtue.
(The fallacy is where a category name is expanded to include all related but distinctly different categories.
As an extreme example, it's like saying, "Because a cat is a mammal, all mammals are cats.")
According to Theravada Buddhism, the Eightfold Path has three main parts:
- Virtue (sila)
- Concentration/Meditation (samadhi).
Therefore the "Virtue (sila)" part of the Eightfold Path should be listed, but not the whole Path:
- Wise or Right Speech (sammá-vácá) – abstaining from lying, malicious or divisive speech, abusive or harsh speech, and idle chatter.
- Wise or Right Action (sammá-kammanta) – abstaining from killing, stealing and sexual misconduct.
- Wise or Right Livelihood (sammá-ájíva) – abstaining from dishonest and harmful means of livelihood.
The person responsible for the information at the link cited above is Gil Fronsdal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Fronsdal
I'd do the edit myself, but I'm short on time; maybe later.
--EdwardEditor (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
How about a bunch of information on what makes people act good and so on. Relate to happiness and lifw quality genetics and so on. This aint good enough for wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
should there be something about franklin's 13 virtues? Soyseñorsnibbles 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Explanation of Nietzsche?
Might it be good to either expand and explain the Nietzsche quotes, or delete them altogether? I've read a bit of Nietzsche, so I'm no stranger to his thoughts, but I have a hard time understanding what he's saying in these bare-bone quotations, except that he's against 'virtue' in some way or another. Perhaps if someone wrote about his overall position on them, and then used the quotes as support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Nietzsche has a lot of interesting things to say about virtue, but this article's summary is fairly misleading. But more importantly, hundreds of philosophers have interesting things to say about what virtue is, and Nietzsche is barely in the top twenty or thirty. Can we delete? Oh, and I would say the same for Ayn Rand, but more so. (If a writer of uneven novels can make a top N list of virtue philosophers, she would still only squeak into the top four hundred.) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd to me that Aristotle is only mentioned in passing in this article. His Nicomachean Ethics is rather the definitive work on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Islam take over?
Is every quran verse regarding virtue really neccasary? All other schools of thought get a bare bones explanation and then we have to wade through all these poxy religous verses in the quaran. They would be more suitable being merged with an islam article instead of forcing them on the rest of us. Get them to *%@#. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Biased editing over Islamic Virtue
I am trying to include the virtue of killing and torturing infidels as portrayed in 167 verses in the quaran but it keeps getting deleted. They are real verses just like the others in the article. Its not like i am making them up. How about we show the public an unbiased view of this so called religion of peace?
VIOLENCE, KILLING AND TORTURING NON MUSLIMS
- Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
- Sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
- Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
- Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
- Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
- Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
- Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
- Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
- Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).
- Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
- Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
- Sura (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
- Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
- Sura (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
- Sura (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
- Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
- Sura (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
- Sura (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.
- Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
- Sura (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
- Sura (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.
- Sura (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."
- Sura (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."
- Sura (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."
- Sura (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
- Sura (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
- Sura (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"
- Sura (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." "Strive against" is Jihad, obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.
- Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
- Sura (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you,"
- Sura (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."
- Sura (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
- Sura (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"
- Sura (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.
- Sura (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites," those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand the order of precedence in Islamic principles nor are the translations accurate. It's a bigoted fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Islamic virtues and general sourcing
The section on Islam was way out of proportion to the whole; if someone wants to make an article about Islamic virtues specifically, this might be appropriate. I have removed the quotations, valuable as they are - this amounts to Original Research
In any case, throughout this article material Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources should be sourced to a peer-reviewed study of the subjects - but especially anything controversial: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hgilbert (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What has that "VirtueScience" link to do with the article, apart from the name? -- Rea, 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Virtue/Eastern Virtues/Western Virtues.
We can split this article into 3 separate articles; Virtue, Eastern Virtues & Western Virtues. The Virtue article discusses basic virtues & vices, Eastern virtues article discusses Eastern virtues, Western virtues article discusses Western virtues.
Major clean up and easier to understand afterwards.
The paragraph on virtue in the Christian tradition is about 2% of the story. The long history of articulating virtue via Thomas and the Scholastics is not mentioned. The omission of the Scholastic (and for that matter the Muslim) contribution to this articulation is a must for this article. If I get a chance, I can write something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Virtue in the Jewish tradition
- I agree entirely. Looking to see if it had been there before, I've discovered no, it hadn't, but that an editor who had revamped the page to include some OR had deleted all the 'See also', references, and the philosophical navigation template, so I've put those back (beware of people who think they are part-time alien abductees and in this case I'm not joking). You are right, it needs it, but whoever does it really needs to provide inline citations, most of this article has nothing and could be OR. Doug Weller (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the inclusion of sections on Jewish and Muslim conceptions of virtue, but it seems a little odd to present the Pauline theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) as if they're indifferently a part of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I mean, Jews and Muslims may very well advocate faith, and hope, and charity, among other virtues, but the specific Pauline formulation (faith-hope-charity) is unique to the Christian tradition, isn't it?
Or is it? I honestly don't know.
I'm new here. I believe there is an error under Notes, #1. The link for the word "rememberance" does not appear to be correct. It links to the page for "Mnemosyne," which is not directly applicable. Also, I believe the correct spelling should be "remembrance." (Scwik (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
- Agreed, but the main problem is that the list is almost certainly something someone made up, and is thus original research. As is probably a lot of the article. I've deleted the list - if someone can find a reliable source with a list, great. dougweller (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That list in old Note #1 was one of the most comprehensive I've seen. The following site has three lists that are a good starting reference: http://www.virtuesproject.com/virtues.html. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Islam section digresses and not in Wikipedia style
I don't have any comment on the argument about what the content of the Islam section should be, but as it stands now, the section is clearly not in the proper Wikipedia style. There are long digressions, overlong direct quotations, and it is cited improperly as well. Someone with expertise in the subject should clean this up. MysteriousS (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
What is talk of "values" doing here?
The use of the word "value" as a moral concept dates to the early 20th century (see for instance http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=value), thus to talk of, for instance, Christian or Aristotelian virtues in respect to values is a complete anachronism. The ancients never thought of morality in terms of (subjective) values as far as I am aware. Value ethics is very modern, but the article seems to imply it as a universal. The page "Virtue_ethics" mentions "value" not once. Moon Oracle (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Article needs to be revised then. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Roman_virtues. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Morgan Riley (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- After a full personal investigation (admins forgive me if this was bad form for taking such action, but it stunk of ill-ease), I found the following:
- 1. On 19 February 2007, a wholesale addition was made by an IP.
- 2. The Wayback Machine indicates that the exact text added was in existence at least as early as 02 July 2006 on the website www.novaroma.org, and continues to be there through the present day; at more recent points, additions from that page were made to this one, or text from it restored.
- 3. NovaRoma claims copyright to all the material on their site and does not permit reuse.
- 4. The material has not been mingled throughout the article, and has remained more or less in this one section, ergo its removal was relatively easy despite a long span between its addition and the present. Action taken. -Morgan Riley (talk)
What is the relevance of this?
'Post 9/11, the words of Rabbi Hillel are frequently quoted in public lectures and interviews around the world by the prominent writer on comparative religion Karen Armstrong.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance, so I have deleted the sentence. Mrrhum (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this issue should be protected from not registered user's edits, it does not sound trustworthy with so much spam. It is hard sometimes to distinguish between edits - which is real spam, half spam or just unsourced or doubtful as a stance. I think regular editors who are registered and with more experience should be given the opportunity to work on the issue without the mess in the editions that is going on by now. --Aleksd (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)