Last modified on 8 October 2013, at 22:37

Talk:avarice

Return to "avarice" page.

examples?Edit

I don't understand the difference between the 3 meanings. Examples would be welcome. Kipmaster 13:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this.  They look all pretty much the same. — V-ball 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And this third definition, "one of the seven deadly sins." Surely that's not really a definition at all? Saying that avarice is one of the seven deadly sins is logically quite distinct from defining the term, is it not? —This unsigned comment was added by 72.209.64.74 (talkcontribs) 10:55, 16 February 2007.

Formatting.Edit

It looks like my changing the quotations from a subheading to part of the definition got reverted.  I don't really care, since I think it looks better as a subheading, but it seems that the explanation for reversion was "bad formatting."  If you mean bad by looks bad, then I'm with you.  If you mean bad as against the rules, then I must be missing something in the ELE.  There it looks as if quotations are not a subheading, but part of the definition.  Can you explain to me what I'm missing or how you see it?  Thanks! — V-ball 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotatiosn were a sub-heading the last time I checked ELE, but it is subject to a tremendous number of subtle POV edits. I agree that the in-definition formatting looks bad. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The ELE is a style guide; not an official set of rules that must-be-followed-or-else. Also, in many cases as Wikipedia has grown, new formatting styles have arisen that have not been incorporated in the ELE, and so the ELE is perpetually out of date. My over-riding personal criterion is clarity. If one formatting has better clrity in terms of layout and readability, then that is the format I will go with, unless someone comes along later with an even better suggestion. --EncycloPetey 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

German translation is not correctEdit

Insert formula here Although 'Geiz' does have an avaricious aspect, it expresses a sort of opposite of the greedy, acquisitively hungry covetousness of avarice. Avarice [[]]longs to possess (more of) what it craves or feels a lack of[[]] whereas Geiz clings on to/is mean with/won't part with what is already owned (primarily in material terms, but also mental/emotional/spiritual) - parsimony. I would translate Avarice as Gier or Begierde. Can a proper linguist check this out and adjust the article? —This unsigned comment was added by 86.139.168.5 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 6 May 2007.

Definition(s)Edit

I'm not happy with the current defs, which seem to me to mix several (related) concepts indiscriminately. In French (my native tongue), avarice means the desire to not part with one's wealth, to the point of having it for its own sake, not for serving by being spent. That is, being a cheapskate. To my limited knowledge, this is the only definition. The following descriptions seem to agree with my notion:

  • s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Avarice
  • s:The Royal Path of Life/Avarice
  • s:The Canterbury Tales/The Parson's Prologue and Tale#Avarice (Wikipedia points to a modern version here)
  • Schopenhauer's s:Human Nature has it that : "Avarice proceeds upon the principle that all pleasure is only negative in its operation and that the happiness which consists of a series of pleasures is a chimaera; that, on the contrary, it is pains which are positive and extremely real. Accordingly, the avaricious man foregoes the former in order that he may be the better preserved from the latter, and thus it is that bear and forbear—sustine et abstine—is his maxim. And because he knows, further, how inexhaustible are the possibilities of misfortune, and how innumerable the paths of danger, he increases the means of avoiding them, in order, if possible, to surround himself with a triple wall of protection. Who, then, can say where precaution against disaster begins to be exaggerated?"

This one a bit less:

--Jerome Potts (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)