Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal 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.

Scowler's Comment

I write as a literary scholar: This seems to be a very value-laden deployment of the word "sentiment," and one biased towards modernist or New Critical tastes. This is not an objective definition of literary sentimentality and its use judgemental use here is ahistorical. This definition was obsolete fifty years ago. Western fiction has always been primarily affective and about exploration of emotions, and the notion that it hasn't was limited to a few New Critical hacks with lots of influence but without taste, ideas or talent of their own. To the chagrin of these privileged vulcans, emotion/sentiment are actuallys ways of knowing, usually more constant an reliable than linear reason, and most people want FEELING from their art, not discourse. In other words, reverse all the implications of this entry and you'll begin to know something of the truth about the affective dimension of literature.

I agree with you generally. Article is overly weighted to the pejorative sense, which is all most people know, a testament to the triumph of Realism. We need a good literary scholar who can put it in historical context and unwind the debates. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimentality

Scowler, please just sign in normally. Why the ad hominem attack on the New Critics? Stick to the subject. Here's some Yeats instead. Profhum (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apposition in Demokratie

I might have put democratic in quotes in the phrase << first "democratic" election >> to highlight the fact that what is being referred to is representative democracy a relatively weak version of the thing in question which makes the sentimentality all the more pointed. 71.186.203.201 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dispute on "sentimental" democracy

"voting on whether Pluto is a planet"

Does this refer directly to the IAU decision? If so, then it is a big misintepretation of what is actually carried out, in my view. No one is voting on whether Pluto "is" a planet (in fact, "is" is meaningless here without further specifying); rather, they're deciding on a scientific definition of planet, which isn't equivalent to fact, and can be built through democratic process. Therefore, I wouldn't think that act "applies the principles of democracy in situations where they are inappropriate", whether or not the final decision was justified.

That issue aside, we would still need explanations on why democracy applied in where it is inappropriate constitutes "sentimental" democracy. It seems to be unrelated to the previous concept of sentimentality (disproportionate emotional response). The second example provided also needs to be elaborated a bit, I think. Keith Galveston (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since the decision as it was carried out was not "voting", the example is a poor one. What's an uncontroversial example, preferably discussed in print, of inappropriately applied sentiment?--Wetman (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

..understanding this sentence in the article:

"Meretricious" and "contrived" sham pathos are the hallmark of sentimentality, where the morality that underlies the work is both intrusive and pat.

What does "pat" mean in this sense? (sorry, looked it up in wiktionary and nothing). What exactly does "Meretricious" and "contrived" sham pathos mean? Why the quotes? I sense this is a brilliantly pithy sentence that the majority of general readers won't understand.. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of references

I notice some correction is needed to the references. I think they would also be better if separated into separate Notes and References sections. If no one objects, I'll do so. DR (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing of text

Some of the text of this article is suggestive of being taken directly from the sources, or being insufficiently paraphrased. I will check out some of the references and compare -- my library has most of the sources. DR (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The James Baldwin Quote comes from Notes of a Native Son (1955), p10. The exact quote is: "Sentimentality, the ostentatious parading of excessive and spurious emotion, is the mark of dishonesty, the inability to feel; the wet eyes of the sentimentalist betray his aversion to experience, his fear of life, his arid heart; and it is always, therefore, the signal of secret and violent inhumanity, the mask of cruelty." Kire1975 (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce: Dedalus: Meredith

The quote from Ulysses is actually a paraphrase, none too faithful, from a passage in Chapter 24 of George Meredith's The Ordeal of Richard Feverel (1859) ; to wit: ""Sentimentalists," says The Pilgrim's Scrip, "are they who seek to enjoy without incurring the Immense Debtorship for a thing done." It may be worth noting that the quote from Wilde is also predated by Meredith, in this case by almost forty years. Orthotox (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect OR assessment

I did not read for comprehension, but the nature of the MOS:QWQ makeover I just applied would lead me to suspect that this article does indeed have an excessive OR flavour. — MaxEnt 16:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]