User talk:Sbenedict14/sandbox
- Information to add to the definition of Modesty***
Modesty is regarded by Oxford dictionary as “the quality of being unassuming in the estimation of one’s own abilities.” I find that Oxford’s definition is suffice in its quintessence, but I’d like to add a word by word breakdown of this pith definition in order for the reader to get an Oxford expanded definition; along with my own commentary as to why they chose these words in particular.
If the quality of Modesty is known by Oxford to mean being unassuming, then we must look at how Oxford defines how someone assumes; since this is what either makes someone modest or immodest.
Oxford has stated that to assume means to “Suppose to be the case without proof.” Since proof is what is necessary according to Oxford, then we shall look at proof next. Oxford defines proof as meaning “Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.” If someone has to establish a fact or truth of a statement, then they themselves would have to know whether it is valid proof or not. By Oxfords definition, the word know means “Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.” If the person is to know the statement to be either fact or truth, they themselves would have the same exact observation as the presenter of the fact or statement. So, all in all, thanks to Oxford, we now know that in order to be a modest person is dependent upon the relativity of the person you are presenting the proof to. If they had the same exact observation as you, then you are deemed a modest person. If something is self-evident, then uniquely, you are the presented, and the judge, and would have the power to deem yourself modest. In religious traditions, they would base this off of their systems of virtue and non-virtue in order to determine the level of how modest you are. In worldly circumstance, modesty is dependent upon the culture of what they take to be true or false in their collective observations.
In conclusion, if you want to be modest, you have two choices to make. You can either ask one or multiple people, or leave it up to you to be the judge. In the end… what is the proof that you want to be modest about? Is it your abilities like oxford says? For me personally, I see that the ability to discriminate qualities, such as modesty or immodesty is modesty in its epitome; which we call our awareness. It is not our awareness that lies to us, but the partiality behind what we see, which makes us warp it into what we intend. Like they say “Life is what you make it”. But it is not easy to make our lives into what we intend, because of the factors of hope and fear. These two emotions polarize our view, and the only way to liberate ourselves from the two poles is to find a way to be natural, thus out of these polarizing causes. If we are free of the polarizing causes, then everything that appears to our awareness will be natural, and we will have an impartial attitude. By having an impartial attitude, it allows us to be modest, because we are observing the manifestations in their pure form. It is most important to be modest towards one another because if we label one another based on our emotions, we become the victims of our own illusory dreams and nightmares. In Buddhism, they call this Enlightenment, or being awake. As a final statement, the Oxford definition of Enlightenment means “The action or state of attaining or having attained spiritual knowledge or insight in particular (In Buddhism) that which frees a person from the cycle of rebirth. In the Buddhist context, rebirth refers to the state of giving birth to Samsara, and not to an actual person; but instead hope and fear. Although there is reincarnation in Buddhism; the Buddha's major teaching was to liberate the mind from one moment which causes Samsara. Samsara has a negative connotation because it is a state of relativity truth instead of absolute truth of the way manifestations appear to our awareness. The Buddha is said to have met with the state of Enlightenment, or Bodhi, through boundless compassion. I find this to make sense because if we set a boundary to what we experience, it is like being partial to only certain appearances, instead of being open to what arises due to natural cause and condition.
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/modesty )
StewartB (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Peer Review (Bridgette/StewartB): I think you have done a great job on contributing to this article. I was looking at your user page for the modesty article to peer review and the one issue I am seeing in the article is in this section: Women and Modesty. Although I definitely see your perspective, I think it would be best to make it less opinionated. I would suggest finding sources that have other's comments and perspectives that show both sides of the argument. Try to avoid writing your opinion on the subject so that the article is neutral. Other than that everything looks good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StewartB (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you have found a lot of interesting things to add to the article, and you have done a pretty good job. The only thing I would have to critique is the part you added in the first part of the article "...it is expected that he/she will begin to dress normally." I am not sure how politically correct it is to write about someone dressing 'normally'. What does dressing 'normally' even mean? I also agree with the other review in regards to rephrasing the section about 'Woman and Modesty'. As it stands right now it is very obvious that you are stating your own opinions on the subject, and not explaining generally agreed upon facts. Remember you are not supposed to convince the reader of your views, simply explain how modesty usually applies to women. If the article is not objective and sourced it is very likely that it will be removed. On a different note, I really agree with the statements, I just think you should rephrase them a little before posting it to the actual article.
Lisfry (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)