Talk:Sapience

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sapience redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fuzzy Sapience

The best definition of sapience I've ever read is in H._Beam_Piper's "Fuzzy" stories, collected together in "The Complete Fuzzy".

Are you sure that's such a good definition? "To percieve" is more acurately translated as sentīre, I believe. Listing it under sapere could lead many to confuse sapience with sentience.

Development of the Definition of Sapience

The last comment raises a good point. The word sapience is more often associated with the notion of wisdom, not sentience. The latter is applicable to any animal that is considered self-conscious, not just to humans. I believe Linneus did intend the species name to reflect what he thought was the defining characteristic of humans in the religious sense of the word wisdom. If there is no further discussion of the definition in the next few weeks, I will tackle a development of this entry in line with what I think is a wider acceptance of sapience as wisdom.

George Mobus, 1/21/06

I intend to draw heavily from the work of Robert Sternberg, et. al. on wisdom, but as it relates to human characteristics. See: Sternberg, R.J. (ed), "Wisdom, Its Nature, Origins and Development", Cambridge University Press.

George Mobus, 1/24/06

I don't know if anything else is necessary (I only know the sci-fi/animal rights aspects that are already represented), but at any rate I can correct the etymology! So I have done so. (I actually get conflicting reports from dictionaries as to whether "sapere" means to taste or to have a taste; but in any case it is the meaning to be wise that is relevant!) --Toby Bartels 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sapere" means know, not taste. Apple1976 07:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro paragraph equates sapience with intelligence rather than wisdom. Sternberg, among others, has separated wisdom, as a psychological construct, from intelligence and has defined several measurable characteristics that suggests it is a related, but separate mental function. There is a growing body of psych literature that tends to segregate the two concepts. Wisdom is associated with judgement and discernment as well as considerable relational knowledge. It matures much later (if at all) and most often is an attribute of older people. The critical point is that one can be intelligent (clever, quick learner, etc.) but not be wise.

The etymology that I am familiar with suggests sapere means to taste but with an emphasis on appreciation and discernment of flavor. Hence it suggests deep reflection and by usage means deep reflection on thought. This may be what you have found as the difference between to taste and to have a taste.

As I mentioned before, my reading of Linneaus' naming was that it was an attempt to emphasize human wisdom as a defining characteristic. Intelligence is a necessary mental capacity for wisdom but is not sufficient. I am working on an update to the psychology entry for wisdom (the current one is mostly philosophical) that I thought would be cross linked with this entry.

George Mobus, 2/8/06, 6:52 pm. (PT)

I've always wondered what the difference is between Sapient (as a noun) and Sophont. --WhiteDragon 20:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disappointed at the shameless plug of utilitarianism at the end of this article. -- Varuka 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what plug you are referring to... --Eno-Etile 07:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Sean[reply]

The question of whether or not humans are "particularly sapient in terms of making wise, long-term, maximum benefit for the maximum number decisions", with the link to Utilitarianism. Implying that Sapience, this quality of wisdom and intelligence, should naturally guide someone toward a Utilitarian philosophy. It's more apparent if you use another school of thought. For example, if the sentence had instead pointed out the open question of whether or not humans are "particularly sapient in terms of not causing pain to animals." Varuka 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Editors should leave their own views on the question of human wisdom behind them. They do not belong here. —Antireconciler 07:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all this Utilitarianism floating around, doesn't it seem as if the writer is trying to evangelise us? Visitor 08:29 24 April 2007

Rewrite needed

I added a tag requesting a rewrite to this article because of a large proportion of questionable content. Here are some examples to substantiate this request:

Judgement, given as the primary definition of sapience, links to the page on legal judgement, which is irrelevant. There does not appear to be a page for the philosophical concept of judgement, so the article proceeds to give some remarks on judgement, apparently to clarify. These are both off-topic and unclear.

I updated the judgment link so that it points to Value_judgment, but that page is less than perfect as well Stephen Kenny 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph includes a sentence casting doubt on the sapience of humans in general, a statement that may be ironically proclaimed, but it's doubtful it would be truly believed by a large proportion of people. Additionally, this sentence includes both an allusion and a link to utilitarianism, the connection of which to sapience seems thin at best.
As a whole, the article doesn't contain nearly enough references, and the one it does contain is an unexplained insertion of what appears to be a non-generally accepted theory.
The lack of scholarly references may be to blame for the general lack of organization in both the article as a whole and the individual points presented. For this reason alone I would recommend a rewrite in order to bring the article more in keeping with an encyclopedic work. Trevor 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, despereate need for a rewrite. Need good article here! Anyway I thought sapience meant self aware the capability to plan, and an understanding of cause and effect. Mathiastck 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been written off the top of the writer's head, since there is only one reference. I didn't learn anything new (except perhaps that there is doubt over the sapience of humanity - was that a joke?). Visitor 08:24, 24 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.215.6.50 (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All of the dictionary definitions I've read describe sapience as "deep wisdom" or "mature wisdom" or "great wisdom" or "acute wisdom", etc etc. If this is the case, then is there anything that actually makes sapience qualitatively different to wisdom? And if sapience is just a form of wisdom, then shouldn't this page just be part of the wisdom page, perhaps just as a note saying that sapience is a synonym for being "deeply" or "maturely" wise? If the author intends to claim that sapience isn't just a synonym for wisdom, I'd say they would need some pretty good references. Rachel 21 May 07

I was linked to this article from one of the Matrix articles where this is used to describe a quality of certain machines beyond intelligence. "Wisdom" is still vague and in this sence of the word I think having a seperate article is usefull. A rewright would be better than redirecting to wisdom.David Eagan 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —Antireconciler 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]