Talk:Meaning of pain
NOPV[edit]
Looks like advocacy of a certain religious point of view. Should be either removed or re-written. --DuKot 03:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. It sounds rather Christian. He should also mention Rabbi Akiva: "Suffering is good" JFW | T@lk 23:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the Christian worldview Pain can also be good. - also everything has a religious basis. Atheism is a religion. Everything ties into what you believe. This should NOT be removed or edited. Its truth. - Curtis
I'm not touching that with a ten-foot stick, but readers may want to know that the article had quite a bit of interesting but hardly encyclopedic content that was nuked and is accessible [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meaning_of_pain&diff=17400748&oldid=13291795 here]. --Kizor 07:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's fine, you only interpret it as religious. He is right in what he says and I cannot think of a simpler way to say it.
Vote for Rewrite or Deletion[edit]
The style of this article is unprofessional. The points of the argument sometimes repeat and sometimes leap. It is unnecessarily 1st person rather than expository. There is a lack of primary source materials in reference to pedigree of philisophical concepts and recommended actions. The personalities mentioned are primarily theologans, but this is treated as a philisophical article, which is a misnomer that needs to be addressed.
If rewritten with these points in mind it will certainly fair better under scrutiny. There is a kernal of a potentially great article here. LambaJan 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed; it's a worthwhile subject but it needs to be rewritten with heavy citations and a clearer structure. ERobson 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
As discussion on this has been dead for awhile, and there is a pain (philosophy) page that seems to be fairly duplicitous with this one, I'm going to redirect from this page to that. Not only do we not need both pages, I feel as if "Meaning of pain" is a rather fuzzy subset of "philosophy of pain," and should not have its own article. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert my changes. Rock. --ILikeThings 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)