Jump to content

Talk:Sapere aude

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

2004 deletion debate

[edit]

No consensus to delete. Removed VfD notice. Seems to be consensus for redirect, but since there is a little content, it is more like a disambiguation. Delete debate archived below. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Another dictionary (Latin) definition. No information on the origin, and it's not even a well-known saying. Deb 17:06, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


List recatigorization and copyedit into paragraphs

[edit]

Wow, that's quite list this article has! I'd like to create a section called "Use as a Motto" and recategorize the list by type of institution -- government, higher education (colleges), primary and secondary education (grade schools), organizations (clubs, associations), and other (family crest, etc). Rather than simply create a new list, I will write the list into paragraph form. Before I start, your thoughts? --Martinship 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

[edit]

I googled "sapere aude" pronounced (and various similar permutations) and couldn't find a pronunciation guide for this phrase. Anyone know? If so, should one go parenthetically in the lead? — Demong talk 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sap-er-ay Ow-day —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith (talkcontribs) 20:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary

[edit]

This article was recently transwiki'd to Wiktionary. It was subsequently turned into a soft-redirect to the Wiktionary page. That soft redirect was reverted. I've read the article yet again. I find only meaning, origins and examples of usage (and a navbox of questionable utility). Please show me the non-lexical content. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to provoke anything here, two different people have now disagreed with you about this. Every single article we have on Latin phrases features their meaning, origin, and usage, and nothing else. What else do you suggest the article could actually contain? See, for examples, E pluribus unum, Per capita or Carpe diem, or indeed anything in Category:Latin mottos, Category:Latin logical phrases, Category:Latin legal phrases, Category:Latin words and phrases and subcats, etc. Are you suggesting they are all unencyclopaedic? Every single article has meaning, origin, usage. That's pretty much all you could ever have on a phrase, Latin or otherwise. Neıl 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can not agree with your starting premise that all our existing articles on Latin phrases are so limited. At articles like Prima facie and Res ipsa loquitur, I see a detailed discussion of the legal concept (which happens to be synopsized by the Latin phrase). Those article include a direct translation but the translation is only a minor part of the article. (The same holds true for most of the logic articles.) At E pluribus unum and carpe diem, I see a great deal of discussion about the social and historical significance of the motto. Those articles go far beyond meaning, origins and usage examples.
I don't see that here, despite a more than reasonable amount of time for that content to have been added and despite a fair amount of my own research. This page at its most expansive contained only a direct translation of the phrase (plus an alternate translation), a probable origin for the phrase and a listing of some colleges and other institutions that use it as a motto. No underlying legal or philosophical concept, no extensive social or historical significance, nothing that seems to cross the boundary from lexical to encyclopedic.
I'm willing to learn. If you see a way this page can be expanded into a proper encyclopedia article, please describe it. I can't see it. Rossami (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: On 11 May 2008, anonymous user:71.63.245.222 successfully rewrote the page with content that goes beyond the merely lexical. Rossami (talk)

Missing content?

[edit]

Under the "Foucault" header there seems to be a missing word: "Instead of a [blank], it becomes..." I have no clue what word is intended. If the original author could add it, I could perhaps avoid a fate in the insane asylum, tearing out my hair trying to figure out what it is. Thank you! Danopticon (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning this, Danopticon. It was driving me nuts as well! Maybe the author (or person who edited it out, as the case may be) can return and save us all, or leave us to guess onward into madness? Ronocdh (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the source cited for this passage, it appears the best text to serve as clarification would be "mere theory or doctrine". Are there any objections to this substitution? Ronocdh (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is used as a school motto for Wesley College, Melbourne, Australia (and no doubt other institutions). The article doesn't mention the context of the phrase, which in the writings of Horace, is the moral for a story about a "fool" (a naive person) who waits for the stream to stop before crossing, whereas the wise man "makes a beginning". This fable or parable is intended to typify the personal qualities of being daring, or adopting risk, or mere determination in reaching a goal. It promotes the value of personal endeavour, against obstacles. The idea of enthusiasm and will or spirit being valuable personal qualities may bear some relevance in understanding the context of the phrase, which is devalued without the context. StephenSmith (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

use as a motto

[edit]

While I agree that any list of institutions using the phrase as a motto is unnecessary, I feel it is definitely worth mentioning that it is widely used as such. I've added a short sentence to that effect to the lede. Note: this is NOT a licence to start listing institutions! Grutness...wha? 11:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC) (NO! not even my alma mater!)[reply]

Problematic

[edit]

Why is the enlightenment deemed problematic in the second paragraph? Stiginz (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]