Language desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 27

Untruism?

Has anyone ever encountered "untruism" used with the meaning "untrue truism" (i.e. something that people commonly believe but is in fact untrue, an untruth that is commonly believed to be true) as opposed to just "untruth" as defined by the Wiktionary article? It seems (to me at least) that the Anthony Trollope 1878 quotation is more compatible with that meaning rather than with that of "untruth". Contact Basemetal here 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a word for such a concept. It is called a misconception. --Jayron 32 14:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 1972 article, "Untruisms", published in Metaphilosophy, where the authors Barnes and Robinson define it as "an ambiguous sentence which taken in one sense states a dull truism—an analytical or a platitudinous truth—and taken in another sense makes a statement that is interesting but either certainly or probably false or at least of uncertain truth-value. Sincere utterers of untruisms suppose themselves to be making a true and interesting statement: in fact they are hovering between a true and trifling statement and a false and informative statement." The authors, too, quote Trollope, in the sense of "hackneyed untruth". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy Jenny Holzer's "truisms". Such as this, or this, or this. I'm not 100% sure that each of those are from her "truism" series. Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girl: "We were just playing Jenny Holzer."

Cat: "I hate art."

Back from when the webcomic Cat and Girl was still witty and funny.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soul/Spirit

A physical and spiritual form – I can define this to a demon/Angel/ghost…
A physical and ‘soul’ (‘soulotuol’) form. – I am wishing to define a human being. What can I put their when I’m talking about a human, instead of the embolden words? I know the word ‘soulotuol’ doesn’t make sense and it is not in the Dictionary, it’s just an example for a better understanding. I want the sentence to sound as good as the 'first number'. e.g., physical and spiritual, physical and soulotual...

Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spiritual can also refer to the soul, so you might wish to choose a different word there, if you want an unambiguous distinction between beings within the biological world (no matter what else we attribute to these beings, such as a soul, they still exist in the scientific world) and beings that only exist in fantasy/mythology/religion/fiction. Some suggestions, not the greatest ones, but just to get things started : psychical/psychic, conscious, animate, breathing ... all ambiguous too ... ---Sluzzelin talk 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you an example in short i.e., I understand the words you defined because I read the articles. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demons, angels, and ghosts have a "spiritual" dimension in common with human beings. Granted that human beings' spiritual dimension is considered different from those other constructs' in some religious traditions, though in some religious traditions, ghosts may also have souls. What human beings have and those other constructs lack is biological, or natural life. So you might contrast beings with supernatural and spiritual form (your demons, angels, and ghosts) and beings with natural and spiritual form (human beings, and perhaps other living things if you think that they have a spiritual dimension). We don't have an attributive adjective related to the word soul, but you can use this distinction instead. Or, you could contrast "beings with souls" and "beings without souls". Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm not happy with the word 'natural' and I hope it is not the only way to explain it in short, like you stated... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marco polo: I forgot to say 'thank you'.

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to Russell.mo's question is that consciousness is a relationship between sentient beings and their environment, and that the soul or "spritual" is that part of consciousness which values, as exemplified in such things as affection, art, and romance. Galt's speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged covers this in depth. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a simple word Medeis. If I insert what you stated than I have to explain why... Any way this is for you <-@

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question here? Why can't the question be asked in sentence form, with a question mark at the end? Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is there, in sentence form and ending with a question mark, and goes (redacted): "What can I put there when I’m talking about a human, instead of the bolded words?" In other words User:Russell.mo (aka Mr. Prophet) is asking for an adjective pertaining to the human soul in a way that would fit his framework of contrasting the two types of beings he outlined. And I think Marco answered it really well, also by suggesting different sets of attributes. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The word "spiritual" is found to be deficient. Why? What would be the problem with a relatively simple statement such as: "Man has a physical component and man has a spiritual component"? Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong with that statement (that was my point) but then the word "spiritual" wouldn't be contrasting with "spiritual" in the supernatural sense ("demon/Angel/ghost") which is what the question was based on. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Clever girl.

This is for you <-@

-- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the distinction between spirit and soul, or pneuma and psyche, was that the spirit was the person's lifeforce while the soul was the consciousness (or identity). Many theologians and occultists generally held that angels and demons do not have proper souls, angels being more defined by their purpose, and demons by their wickedness. A few might have argued that (at least for angels) it was the other way around -- angels only have an identity as God's messengers, but no existence beyond God's will. Some authors held that ghosts were not the person's soul, but their spirit retaining some of the soul's shape before disappating (perhaps to be reused in whole or in part, in the latter case helping or hurting the next person to use that lifeforce). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I read the articles. just thinking of it as generally, cause not every one has the time (or will be bothered) to read an article to understand a thing, you know what I mean.

I wasn't aware of "spirit retaining some of the soul's shape before disappating"; I would've thought this for both... -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My spirit is about to bust. Why not just search the English language to find the word combination to express the elusive thought? Bus stop (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I've got to this is "etheric" or "ketheric". I offer these so the OP can investigate further. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read ^[1] and ^[2], I can't find the word ketheric. Beside, I won't understand if you don't explain. I'm not 'very' smart. It took me a whole month (or two) to understand the two articles soul & spirit. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporeal? That article also mentions the word "uncarnate". At ghost we find spectre/specter, phantom, apparition and spook. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of them also used some in other areas. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thanks friends. I'll conclude it with Mark's information. Regards. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Prophet, I am assuming you have access to Google. A Google search led me to those two terms and I note there are plenty of articles on them, as I read a few to try and determine whether they were relevant. If you don't have access to Google, I'm very sorry. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have internet usage problem, it takes time to display a page 'heavy' page. I can just about download somethings blindly. Beside, I have to look at it some other time, hopefully in the first week of next month. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to state, referencing other website also becomes an issue sometimes. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ether

[2] ttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ether

[1]

[2]