Talk:Pride/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

Pride is a sin?

According to the beginning of this article, pride is a sin. Well nothing on this earth deserves it . pride and arrogance is one of the many problems we have today . pride causes famine genocide war and many other evil and immoral things to take place for the person thinks what he/she is doing is right and doesnt think of the consequence to his or her actions . The disease of pride and arrogance deletes all traces of goodness and piety. This is the worst vice in causing havoc to faith and a regrettable disease to have for the followers of this perfect and exalted religion. It launches a direct attack on beliefs and principles4.235.132.143 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:jamal: (talk) 02:17, 3 may 2011

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)

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)

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)
If the articles do not distinguish between the separate aspects, it is a failing to be corrected rather than a quality to be encouraged by merging the articles. Haiduc (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Merging Pride with Hubris and Vanity is POV, because Hubris and Vanity unabmiguously vices, but pride is a virtue in many philosophies. A father can be proud of his son; a woman can be proud of her work; a proud man properly refuses to cow before a bully. These are virtues. It is inconceivable to equate this with hubris and vanity.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
If any criticism is to be made, it is that the definitions given for hubris, pride, and vanity are defective.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
As of right now, it has not been adequately shown that these are three separate concepts. If this can be done, then the articles may remain separate, but I am not convinced that it can. Wikipedia articles are written about concepts, not dictionary definitions. Plenty of articles discuss the positive and negative views of a concept. In fact, almost all of them are expected to do so. "Hubris" and "vanity" are only unambiguously vices because those terms are only used in disparaging contexts; they still refer to the same concept as "pride". Neelix (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I do think they are different concepts, although they are related concepts.
First of all, for myself, "That woman is proud of her son" cannot by any feat of the imagination mean the same thing "That woman has hubris for her son" or "That woman has vanity for her son" This simple example I think makes clear that the words refer to distinct ideas. Proper definitions serve to clearly delineate the concepts; poor definitions cloud those distinctions.
Second, consider that in the hubris article a much clearer definition is given in the suceeding sentences.
In Ancient Greece, "hubris" referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe those who considered themselves more important than the gods themselves.
How is this the same as the concept identified by the first sentence of the Pride article:
Pride is an emotion which refers to a strong sense of self respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, nation or object that one identifies with.
I submit that "A refusal to be humiliated" is hardly the same thing as "acting in a way as to humiliate others".
Vanity, on the other hand, is commonly understood to be an obsessive concern with one's appearance. Because this is in a sense an example of refusing to be humiliated, many christian intellectuals haven construed it as a symptom of the sin of pride, but that is hardly the same thing as being the same thing as pride.
Third, consider how vanity, vainglory, arrogance, hubris are related to pride: they can all be considered vices that happen when rather than valuing oneself; one tries to fake one's self-esteem by putting down or diminishing others and making oneself look good in other's eyes.
--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note the way in which you phrased your first point. You formed a sentence with one of the three terms, and then replaced it with another to show that it is not the word we use in that context. This is not helpful; Wikipedia is not a usage guide. This covers your second point as well. The fact that the term "hubris" was used in Ancient Greece is not pertinent. The definition of the term "pride" as "a refusal to be humiliated" is not what the entire pride article is based upon. More than half of the article is devoted to a concept of pride that is synonymous with hubris and vanity, as explicitly stated in the religious references section. If hubris and vanity differ from pride, it is only in that they are subcategories of pride. All of these terms may be defined as a lofty view of one's self or one's own. "Hubris" tends to be used in the context of putting one's self above others, "vanity" tends to be used in the context of believing one is already above others, and "pride" is the overarching concept that can also be used in positive contexts. We are essentially dealing with one concept here; we just tend to call it different things depending on the context and whether or not we think it's a good thing. Neelix (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
By replacing the word, I clearly was not attempting to provide a usage guide. Rather I was trying to show that it they are different ideas. The clash is not because the usage is nonidiomatic, but rather becasuse the conveyed meaning is incongruously dissimilar. I agree with the remainder of your points, however, showing how these these ideas are related. Indeed, I am convinced by your arguments about that other related ideas such as arrogance, vainglory, vanity, narcissism, hubris etc are profitably discussed together here as well. It may in fact make for a better article than what we have now.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This merger is a terrible idea. Hubris is an ancient Greek word (and concept) with a substantial bibliography analyzing its use, and that's what the hubris article is about. It's a distinct notion from "pride", as anyone can see from reading the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This merger took place before your comment. Some of the hubris article was moved here, while the rest was moved to assault. The Ancient Greek concept of "hubris" covered what is now called "pride" as well as what is now called "assault". Links between the two sections indicate the connection, and the current format is satisfactory. Please do not perform a simple revert as much more was done in the merge than just combining two articles. Neelix (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've de-merged hubris. As I've said, the Greek word is not the same thing as "pride" (nor is it the same thing as "assault"). As I've also said, and as should be evident from the hubris article, there's a substantial amount of scholarly literature analyzing hubris as an important concept in its own right.
It's true I missed this merge discussion, but that's because the merge tag you stuck on the "hubris" article wasn't matched by a discussion on Talk:Hubris. I don't have pride on my watchlist, so I didn't realize that this discussion was happening here. But so what? It's not as if the earlier discussion results in an ironclad resolution; consensus can change, and now that I've joined this discussion, it has. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Any merge is supposed to be discussed in one central location: the the talk page of the article to which the other will be merged. Having a discussion on the talk page of the article that is being merged is redundant and not justifiable based on current guidelines. A concensus was reached on the discussion, five days passed, and the merge was completed, all in a completely proper manner. I was not suggesting that the previous merge discussion was "an ironclad resolution". I was suggesting that your comment implied that you were objecting to a proposed merge rather than a completed merge.
You have not de-merged hubris; the hubris information that was merged into the pride and assault articles still exists on those articles, and so it should. What you have done is recreated the hubris article, therefore all the information on that article exists on another article as well. Is there more to the concept of hubris that you feel does not fit into either of these two concepts? Do you feel that the current situation is acceptable? Neelix (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as the hubris article maintains an independent existence, I'm not going to worry very much about pride and assault. However, I don't think the hubris material belongs in pride, precisely because ancient Greek hubris does not mean "pride". It denotes a different concept, and refers primarily to actions rather than internal mental/emotional states. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article as it is presently written treats hubris and vanity as a synonyms of pride, but they obviously aren't, especially not in the context of ancient greeks and philosophy. I've added the appropriate aristotelian text discussing the difference to the philosophical views section.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that being rude doesn't strengthen one's position, but i have to say, only a d*mb*s with no understanding of history and cultural concepts would suggest a merge of pride and hybris, no matter how bad the articles may be presently written (they are not). The meaning of hybris changed in the course of history, never it matched even halfway pride. If reading both articles doesn't give a clear picture of the difference, I don't know how to further help. I'm also against the merge with vanity, but i can at least see how one may come up with that idea. As long as you don't try to also merge vanitas... --Echosmoke (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the discussion it appears that by both argument and majority the result is no merge - i undid the merge and removed the tags. --Echosmoke (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

During the 2006 Winter Olympic Games, American snowboarder Lindsey Jacobellis had attained a seemingly insurmountable lead in the Snowboard Cross event final until she attempted a celebratory method grab as she neared completion of the course. The unnecessary move caused her to fall, allowing Tanja Frieden of Switzerland to pass her and win the gold medal. The media has cited this incident as an example of modern-day athletic hubris.

Why does every reference on Wikipedia about America and pride have to be negative? When there are talks of other countries and having pride, it is always in a positive way. Why can't people write the same for American pride? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T66 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I just undid the deletion of the section on Objectivism. THe anonymous editor claimed that he "removed the section due to unimportance". However, given that Objectivism is only modern philosophy that holds that pride is a major virtue, it obviously deserves mention and explanation.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why all the capital letters?

Aside from being awkward to look at, it's not a proper use of English grammar. There is nothing special about the noun "pride" that warrants it being capitalised. I'm going to change as many of them as I can find. Mkubica (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

National Pride: America

The section Pride#United States under the heading National pride, presumably should provide examples of National pride, ie. pride in one's country or ones countries achievements. For example I would have expected a discussion of how Americans celebrate the forth of July and display their flags everywhere. I also would have expected to read about how americans take pride in their constitution and form of government.

But instead it inappropriately provides example of two Americans, an athelete and a president, allegedly exhibiting personal pride (not national pride as the title of the section would require). (I say allegedly because in my view they can at most be accused of exhbiting hubris or stupidity, not pride, but this is irrelevant to the point I am making here that the content of this section is wholly irrelevant to what is called for in this section.)--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's even more bizarre than that. One paragraph mashes together these two items;
An athlete showboating and thus losing a competition (as you said, personal pride not national pride)
The contention that a United Nations resolution forms the foundation of modern American national pride! That's the definitive "make a historian's head explode" statement.
American nationalism is certainly a complex subject requiring far more than these two unrelated and un-sourced sentiments. I am going back through the history to see if some more appropriate entry has not been removed. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the snowboarder reference first appeared during a merge with the articles "Vanity" and "Hubris". The merge was actually voted down, but was done in any case, then un-done. The stuff about the UN was added recently and in any case is not sourced. The whole mess is so incorrect that it's worse than not saying anything, so I'm removing for now. The topic is covered far better in Nationalism and Patriotism anyway. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

(cut duplicated comment HumOfItsParts (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

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)

--

I've rewritten the opening sentence to change the primary definition of pride from the deadliest of sin to either a value judgment (justified or unjustified) or an emotion, depending on the circumstances. I have deliberately tried to avoid both positive words ("positive sense of one's worth") or negative words ("lofty," "arrogant," or "overweening") in this initial definition. The religious interpretation should still be VERY prominent in the article, but there's no reason to attach that connotation to the word in the opening sentence, when a neutral definition is required. The first sentences are clunkier now, and need trimming, but that's the closest I could manage to an absolutely neutral definition of pride.

HumOfItsParts (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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)
Pride in the sense of a moral flaw or virtue isn't strictly a spiritual concept.

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.

Free has many different meanings and since you pay no money to use this site it could be as religious as it wanted and still maintain that it is "the free encyclopedia". That being said, i will agree that as a reference many people of many viewpoints Wikipedia should avoid showing bias and it was right to remove "peace be upon him" from the section in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.103.14 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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).

I find it disturbing that this article makes little or no mention of the aspect of pride for your friends, offspring, or others closely connected to you. This is a major aspect of the idea of pride and it is basically ignored in this article. Yes it is related in a slight way to national pride and is mentioned briefly in the opening as "a lofty/excessive view of...one's own". However, this is a weak excuse for a reference to this important part of every person's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.103.14 (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My edit to the opening addresses this issue somewhat, in that it recognizes the secondary definition of pride as a feeling of pleasure at things connected with oneself. I'm unclear how encyclopedic it would be to go into detail about pride in friends, family, and so on, because these things are often culturally dependent, and probably need to be covered in the pages about family relationships, social connections, and so on. HumOfItsParts (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC) HumOfItsParts

if a president that everyone loves prides himself on this it is not arrogance, but with good reason.--72.74.104.124 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What about pride in someone else?

What about being proud of someone else, such as a friend's accomplishments? I don't think this article addresses that aspect of pride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.23.130 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What about pride in someone else?

What about being proud of someone else, such as a friend's accomplishments? I don't think this article addresses that aspect of pride —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.23.130 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's known as pride by association. For example, a parent being prideful of their progeny since it reflects back on them. The core of it still stems from personal pride even if it originates from an exterior source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.188.162 (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Pride is something you accomplish stupid negative french nerd...dumb americant, go die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This highly intelligent, perfect English using contributor's wit reminds me of a slightly overweight, foreign video game addict and troll. How many level 80s do you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What about?

Well, what if you're proud of your religion or your nationality? Is that still a sin? I'm sorry to especially God for asking this, but I just would like some clarification on this. IlStudioso 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Most modern religion has a built-in disclaimer that all (gods creations) is equal. This includes Christendom and Islam. This implies that thinking that your religion or nationality makes you better then others is a sin. Thinking that you are better then sinners is also a sin. Buddhism for example does not have the concept of sin, there however you fail yourself when you have such feelings. If you for example are Christian and state that you God makes you proud in your nation, you have not only committed the sin, but also done it in Gods name. Thats extra bad... When it comes to nationalism and Christianity it also violates "Gods prime directive" which is "spread out and populate the world.". That surely does not translate to "stay in behind your lines on the map and defend it at all cost.". Satanism on the other hand usually encourages pride on the edge on hubris and does not mind religious pride, as it considers satanists more highly evolved then others. However being a highly individualistic religion nationalism or other kind of collectivism is not an option.

On the other hand i think that pride in belonging to a group that can be credited for achievements is another thing. For example if you are proud in how engineering or democracy is bringing greater wealth to everyone it should be ok to feel proud in being a part of that. However such phenomena cannot be credited to a specific ethical group. For example the Irakians invented the wheel and and there was a republic very similar to the USA that was sacked by Rome. Knowing your history it is only possible to attribute such things to humanity as a whole, or Gods creation if you're a creationist.

Not exactly. It has two distinct terms.--72.74.104.124 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There has always been a quite healthy religious Christian sentiment that there is no such thing as a moral perplexity. And if a religion believes its teaching to be true, and we perceive that other religions teach some things on the contrary, or, say, that it was founded by God the Son himself and the others weren't, the religion must necessarily believe itself to be better. You may of course be right that most modern religion does have such a disclaimer, but that is then, apparently, a problem of the modernity and not an essential part of religion. That the non-sinner is better than the sinner is not a feeling of the sin of pride, but a truism. The problem is either to neglect or, worse, excuse (on account of the fact that there are worse people) one's own sin or to refuse to love the sinner. I'm far from having even so little as an opinion about where the sin begins and where we may, even e. g. for the sake of our psychological health, also acknowledge our own goodness in, of course and of necessity, acknowledging its limitations and the fact that it was given by grace. I just remark, without interpretation, that Our Lord who did reproach the Pharisee in the Temple did not reproach the young man who professed to have fulfilled all commandments since his very youth, and that's a claim to make one stumble; and that our good works are for on the candlestick and not for under the bushel. @72.74.104.124: I think that some things that come under the word "pride" or at least under our German equivalent "Stolz" can be excused, if to wit we talk about positive self-esteem; and the pride that we must despise and that is superbia runs under the names of Überheblichkeit and of vainglory (Eitelkeit, or Ehr-Geiz in its literal meaning, covetousness for honour). (Of course, even that excused pride hinders the virtue of humility from acting, but not all hindrances to virtuous acts are sinful.) However if we talk about the object of pride, an achievement is no excuse. Chesterton went so far as to say something like: "If a man is proud of his fatherland, that does no harm. If a man is proud of his family, that is more problematic. But we come to the essence of pride if a man is proud of his achievements." I think too that, happily, mankind is not so rotten that there'd be any group with no achievement to be credited of, as even an association of robbers normally has achieved (non-infused) fortitude which is good in itself.--84.154.102.223 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
A note. "Of the duty of self-recognition and recognition of our contemporaries. - This duty and obligation consists in rightful estimation of what we find in us and in others and in sincere recognition of its worth or non-worth, together with wish and efforts to preserve and protect the worthy and dignified, and to remove the undignified." Ferdinand Egler, Lehrbuch der katholischen Moraltheologie" (that is, A Textbook on Catholic Moral Theology), § 245, Leitmeritz 1851, Bohemia, Emperordom of Austria. Thus this is not pride-:) --131.159.0.7 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

pride

This is a disease of the heart..., unfortunately, and this is the disease of kibr, of arrogance and pride. And sometimes the way this is reflected is where the person refuses and does not want anyone to correct him, or at least he will not accept correction from certain people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.198.238 (talk) 02:11, 3 may 2011 (UTC)

Secondary emotion

What is a 'secondary emotion'? I didn't see a definition even under the 'emotion' article... 71.139.166.154 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral pov?

I may be wrong, but I saw this article as being written overwhelmingly by people who consider pride a virtue, rather than a vice. Of course opposing viewpoints are more than OK - they're necessary. But for that exact reason, I think it needs to be more balanced. For many, the negative effects of pride are much more important than the positive effects. I'm one of those people obviously - or I wouldn't even be writing! But to me, this article read almost like an apologetic for being proud. 74.100.90.49 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading the article over again, it is very clearly in desperate need of attention from a theologian or other religious mind. There is barely a mention of ANY religion's treatment of pride. Since we know it's one of the seven deadly sins - in fact, it's condemned by every major world religion - there should absolutely be a lot more information about pride from a religious perspective, including scriptures as a primary source. 74.100.90.49 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Section on Religious Views

Within the article on the Seven deadly Sins, Pride is referenced as being considered the deadliest of all the sins, yet there is no entry on the Christian view of Pride within this page. The pages Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Anger, and Envy all have a section devoted to the Christian view on the emotion, yet Pride lacks a relevant section. This is very inconsistent and is particularly obvious when following the links from the page on the Seven deadly Sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.189.120 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What about pathological false pride?

When someone boost there pride with a false self-image they usually wish to avoid cognitive dissonance by defending that self-image. People live with their parents rather then to get a career because going to an university will harm their self-image of already knowing everything. They can also get rather hostile when someone points out a flaw in them-self that they are ignoring. This is rather different then Hubris or Vanity where they actual have a correct self-image but gets consumed by it. With this kind of false pride it inhibits their ability to act while hubris or vanity encourages the subject to overact.

Miss quote of a source

"a pleasant, sometimes exhilarating, emotion that results from a positive self-evaluation"- This quote was not found in Lewis et al (2010), and thus should be referred to the original source or erased.

Pride or magnanimity? This entire article seems to be built up around an incorrect premise

I'll begin by saying, Aristotle does not at all say that pride is a virtue. That's a bad translation. The word megalopsuchia, as this article even mentions, can also be translated as magnanimity or greatness of soul. And both of those are far better translations than "proud" (mega = magna = great, psyche = anima = soul). What Aristotle describes (Ethics IV, 3) is not the "proud man" but the "magnanimous man", as cited by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa (II-II, 129, 1).

There's a huge difference between magnanimity [magnanimitate] and pride [superbia] and piety [pietas]. And I will point not, all of western civilization knew the distinction. It was not until relatively recently (I'm guessing during the Enlightenment) that the concepts became confuted with one another. So while it's true, that in English we sometimes use the word "pride" quite loosely, pride itself has nothing to do with magnanimity or with piety. The word "pride" strictly refers only to the vice of pride [superbia]; any other use of "pride" (in everyday speech) is only by way of analogy. And as such, I don't think the article on pride should include these analogous usages. Maybe it should link to their respective pages and such, but I'm not seeing why the bulk of this "pride" article has to do with things other than pride.

98.115.103.26 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pride/Archive_1&oldid=1130999001"