This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance 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: Religion / Ancient / Medieval Low‑importance 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. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Ancient philosophy Medieval philosophy Biology Low‑importance Acedia is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In light of the recent publicity directed at acedia following the publication of Kathleen Norris' Acedia and Me, I think this page could use some sprucing up. Additionally, while I'm far from an expert, everything I've read lately about acedia contradicts the statement made here that it is generally understood to be analogous to sloth; I understand that it was part of the ancient Christian idea of 'eight bad thoughts' that preceded the seven deadly sins. Despite contemporary thinkers believing it to be the most insidious and dangerous of the eight, it was the one that was dropped when the deadly sins were formalized. Or so I've read. At the very least, a reference to Norris' book should probably be added. 71.198.170.251 ( talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe that most scholars say that early Christians folded it into Sloth when the Church developed the concept of 7 deadly sins. Norris seems to agree with that in this interview on CBC radio: http://www.cbc.ca/wordsatlarge/blog/2008/11/kathleen_norris_discusses_how.html It was also mentioned recently on The History Channel's 7 Deadly Sins series that discussed Sloth: http://www.history.com/genericContent.do?id=61484 So, I think the statement "some see it as the precursor to sloth - one of the seven deadly sins" isn't misleading and should be kept. But, good point about sprucing up the page in light of her book. I'll leave it to someone more well-read than I. (What - watching an episode of The History Channel isn't enough? ;-) ) Rabourn ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC). reply

I figure I will take up the challenge and add some insights from Kathleen Norris into the article. I think her point of view is particularly helpful due to her personal journey, that is to say she is a protestant who nevertheless associated herself with a Catholic monastery. Because of the doctrinal differences between her own confession and that of the community she belonged to which also happened to be the source of much of her interest in Acedia she tends to present it from a nonsectarian point of view. Currently this perspective is something the Wikipedia article lacks. While it does give voice to various aspects of acedia (religious, literary, et al.) it does so in an awkward manner--as if it were a collection of newspaper clippings not a single article. Long story short I hope use some insights from Norris to blend things together better. Finny Homoor 3/30/2020

Someone added the "Cleanup jargon" template. I fail to find anything that I would interpret as jargon. Perhaps whoever added that should give some explanation. -- Michael Daly ( talk) 07:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The description, and specially the signs of acedia part needs to be rewritten to sound less assuming of christian dogma as absolute truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.209.79 ( talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks to whoever wrote the "Point of View" comment. This is going to be a bit of a ramble, because I don't have too many very clear or incisive thoughts on the subject, so I'm not the person you need to expand on the subject or remove the "jargon" from your article. I just listened to most of the CBC interview with Kathleen Norris (a repeat) and found it enlightening. I think Acedia is a very common occurrence in our society, probably present to a greater or lesser degree in a good many people. I think I have it myself sometimes, but only for short periods of time. I don't think that suicide is the only conclusion, unless you accept the diagnosis "Acedia" ONLY for very extreme cases. Then it might be. My mother used to say, "Boredom comes from within". (She died in January, so this paragraph might be considered a memorial to her and her very Christian thinking.) Her comment covers a lot of ground, and, perhaps only implied to me that I had better find something to do, or SHE would find something for me to do! (That was a threat!) I think the term Acedia is useful to differentiate these feelings of boredom, ennui, and weltschmerz from clinical depression; in other words, Acedia might be seen as possibly curable (at least temporarily) by action and positive thoughts, whereas clinical depression might only be helped by drugs. In my observation, sometimes these drugs turn their patients into zombie-like individuals who are not much use to themselves or anybody else. In other cases, they are efficacious and helpful. Rosemary Turpin rlisetteturpin@ican.net August 5, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.123.198 ( talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree that there seems to be little evidence of jargon. Parts of the historical commentary are a little heavy, but certainly not jargon. I removed the jargon tag. Also went through the "signs of acedia" section and removed the overt references to Christian dogma, changing to more general statements where I found it convenient and deleting outright otherwise. Should be a cleaner read now. WLight ( talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Could someone add a pronunciation to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.51.176 ( talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Is this article about the history of a word, or the definition of a concept? In what context?

I'm asking this because the context seems to shift from theological, to intellectual history, to diagnostic category. Particularly jarring is the use of modern clinical vocabulary such as Acedia is indicated by a range of signs and Acedia frequently presents signs somatically in the latter section followed by a quick return to the study of monks and then a self-help book (I think). Is it a recognized illness (right there in the DSM, like hysteria...), or is it a historical or literary idea? It might be all of those, but to avoid the article reading like a slurry of different voices, there should be some kind of delineation between these.

178.39.155.20 ( talk) 16:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

For example:

Anecdotally, in Tsarist Russia, if a wealthy noble woman came down with long-term depression (which can overlap with acedia) allegedly a trusted antidote was to put her in an old peasant woman's house and make her do many of the basic household duties such as fetching the water, sweeping the floor, chopping wood etc. Basic manual tasks were also considered vital to keep spirits up in the Desert Father tradition of early Christian monasticism.

I love the anecdote, but is the only relation of the anecdote to acedia the fact that depression is like acedia? Simply putting an anecdote about depressed noblewomen into the article because it's thematically related, without there being a source that brings this particular anecdote under the term "acedia", makes this article tend a bit in the "self-researched essay" direction.

It seems to me that certain words, especially rare or technical words like "acedia", have very specific contexts of use. Sometimes the word has its meaning only because of one or two authors, or maybe a specific historical debate. It may not transfer well. Or to put it differently -- transferring it is an act of creativity. Which probably we want to avoid here.

178.39.155.20 ( talk) 16:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The bit about Anthony Robbins, dangling on the end of the "Signs" section, looks to me like a cheap advertisement for that great-chinned self-help man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.213.133.143 ( talk) 19:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I concur. I've removed it. Thanks for bringing it up. In the future, please be bold. Opencooper ( talk) 05:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Timothy Keller, in his book “Every Good Endeavor”, quotes Dorothy Sayers on pages 239-30 from her “Creed or Chaos?” as saying it is a misnomer to correlate acedia with sloth. “Acedia is the sin which believes in nothing, cares for nothing, enjoys nothing, loves nothing, hates nothing, find purpose in nothing, lives for nothing and only remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die. We have known it far too well for many years, the only thing perhaps we have not known about it is it is a mortal sin.“

Correct, these are related but different words and underlying concepts, so unless the merge target were some unifying third, it would be inappropriate. Removing tags for this reason. 98.4.103.219 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Current form of the wikipedia article states: "Peter Toohey, in his article Acedia in Late Classical Antiquity, argues that acedia, even in ancient times, was synonymous with depression." Which is totally inacurrate. Peter Toohey, in the quoted article, which can be read online at https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/12258 , defines acedia based on early christian writings as a complex condition, with miscellaneous symptoms, that can take the form of mild frustration, deep boredom, or psychotic depression. Looking for correspondents of the condition in the classic antiquity, he finds them for pretty much all aspects, despite some lexical problems which make it difficult to interpret classical texts. In conclusion, I think the Peter Toohey mention in the wikipedia article should either be eliminated, or corrected to properly reflect the contents of the quoted article. 2A02:2F02:64FF:FFFF:0:0:6468:244E ( talk) 08:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 2A02:2F02:64FF:FFFF:0:0:6468:244E Yes, I see. I think misuse of sources by some editors, invariably in good faith is a major problem in wiki articles. It isn't just misquoting or misunderstanding what the source is actually saying, correct weight should also be considered. One referenced statement in a small article can give the statement greater importance than it deserves. If you are reasonably familiar with the subject, you could make the necessary changes? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not familiar with the subject. I literally learnt about acedia today, visited the wikipedia article to find out a bit more, the statement seemed off so I went to the original article. I wrote in the talk section because I know so little about it and I don't dare to make changes myself. 2A02:2F02:64FF:FFFF:0:0:6468:244E ( talk) 11:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply