Talk:Human condition/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rewrote it to be encyclopedic

I rewrote the article to be objective and have a neutral POV because it was more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry. Since this is such a vast topic I believe it's best to concisely emphasize that there have been (and will continue to be) many perspecitves and list several notable examples (all of which were already in the article). -Testpored (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with this edit. I've reverted it back. Much valuable information is lost. Vastness of a concept should explain and give examples of the vastness, not deleting them. The current edit lacks (removed) the explanation and description of the term "human condition" and has become only a list of pointers and references. 89.251.253.8 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The new edit failed to actually explain what the human condition is, something which the older version at least shed some light on.--Harkain (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll elaborate on why I rewrote it:

1. This is a tough topic for a proper encyclopedia article since as a general concept the human condition is so broad it has not and likely will never have a single "official" definition perspective everyone can agree on. Thus this article can (and did) become skewed in terms of certain pet opinions of its authors. Nowhere was there mention of popular religious views such as Original sin, but there were a couple from a fringe group called "World Transformation Movement". Wikipedia must not read like an opinion piece; there are so many perspectives on this topic it's best not to give any one of them too much mention. How else to do this beyond briefly noting a few examples and links to specific topics (which the rewrite did)?
2. There are two aspects of "the human condition" - as a general concept and as a literary term used in certain contexts. Both needed to be mentioned, which the rewrite does.

--Testpored (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Brief update: I refined and expanded it today. I quoted wiktionary's definition as the lead sentence because that's the best single definition I could find on this topic. There is also now a "some perspectives" section listing at least a dozen notable examples. -Testpored (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is still worse than before. If you think it was biased before then you should add the other perspectives, but not by crippling the article. Also, I think, a wikipedia entry should strive to be complete and authoritative, not deferring explanations with links. Links are meant for citing the sources/references but the article should strive to be complete by itself. This (i.e. the human condition) is an important topic, maybe we should ask help of expert scholars in this field to contribute to this page.195.176.40.80 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You have a valid point about offering descriptions of examples, so I've now rewritten the "some perspectives" section to explain notable ones from several domains. -Testpored (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Humanity Is Suffering

I would like to add this quote: Humanity is suffering. Humanity is desperate and not knowing of itself. This is all because there is a lack of love in our accepted forms of thinking. Serge Benhayon Esoteric Teachings and Revelations. Is this okay? Coco Star3 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a vague sentiment from an obscure source. -Testpored (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"Ages of Man and Woman" section

An anon just added this section. Is it really appropriate? Is the gallery helpful? I can't make up my mind. -- WikiPedant (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this until after I cleaned it up a minute ago. I'm ambivalent too; at best it's a decent addition to the perspective section, but it may be more of a distraction than anything. -Testpored (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this afresh, I removed them because they're sensationalized perspectives that don't really belong. -Testpored (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OK by me. I won't miss them. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethics

--2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Ethics needs greater emphasis in this "Human Condition" article.

Human Condition- Catholic Church

I added some details on the perspective of the Catholic Church which is appropriate with Christianity being discussed in the same paragraph. The only close policy is WP:PRIMARY. If so, I can quote both of the paragraphs and avoid synthesis entirely. Am I missing something for my edits to be reverted? Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Manabimasu, You haven't addressed Testpored2's comment that your addition is "a bit of tangent". Meaning that it is not thematically related enough to the rest of the paragraph's contents. The prior mention of Christianity doesn't justify the inclusion of anything related to it. The paragraph focuses on the meaning of life according to various religions, and what you have added focuses on technical details about when exactly life starts and blood for some reason. I am letting you know here that if you reinstate your changes without first gaining consensus I will report you for edit warring. Radiphus (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Radiphus The lede states that Human condition is “the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality”. The paragraph focuses on some perspectives on the Human condition not the “meaning of life”. I simply put a perspective of a Christian institution; I could add others if needed. Also, I can request a third opinion.Manabimasu (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Manabimasu, it also says that "the human condition" is typically used in the context of ambiguous subjects such as the meaning of life or moral concerns, and that's what readers are expecting to read about here. Not what the Catholic church thinks of fertilization and blood. Radiphus (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Radiphus The definition needs to be clearer. The first paragraph also says “and biology” for blood part. The lede definition is from Wiktionary and it is fine but the policy is not clear on sister project references also the second reference is from a self-published website(http://learn.lexiconic.net)WP:USESPS from which “meaning of life” and "moral concerns" are supposedly from. I am recommending a Third opinion and would like you to initiate it because I think we are debating on the definition of Human condition and if my edit applies to it.Manabimasu (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Regarding this change, I think that there is scope for mentioning fertilization here, because the RC church considers that to be a "key event" in human existence and they are a major religious group. I would have put it in a more general context, however, perhaps by starting with the claim that most religions and philosophies consider the human condition to commence at birth. Are there any other exceptions to this that we could describe? How does this relate to Descartes' faculty of reason? I don't see how the blood is relevant. Bovlb (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 111 First-Semester College Composition

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morri455 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kowalewskikarley.

— Assignment last updated by Lincol7 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)