Talk:Inner-worldly asceticism

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

notability edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article is not a "neologism" it is a major feature of the sociology of religion of Max Weber (also of his theory of the origins of capitalism). I am not trying to "popularize a term." Inner-worldly asceticism is one of the main premises of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.-MHP Huck (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually, after a quick search, I suggest it should be merged with asceticism, particularly this section which already mentions the inner/outer worldly distinction. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 17:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You may be right and I will make a point to understand wikipedia's policies better. Yet I cannot agree simply because the topic warrants its own page given my understanding of its importance. I understand the difficulties involved in choosing what belongs and what doesn't. But from an organizational stand-point it doesn't seem much to be a problem to let it grow. Besides, there is a significant amount that has been said about it. We can assume some of it will slowly make it out of the literature and into wikipedia. If its not included now, it may well be introduced again as a separate section later as sections like the one in Asceticism grow larger. There are other interesting conclusions which Weber and others draw which is not presently on wikipedia and which arguably ought to be. -- MHP Huck (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic