Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 1 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 3 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents

[edit] Harmonica voice guy

I'm trying to find the name of this blues/folk rock singer. I'm not sure whether he actually plays the harmonica, but when he sings his voice sounds just like one. Anyone know who I'm talking about? —Keenan Pepper 01:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

bob dylan?

Leon Redbone? —Wayward Talk 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not him. I mean this guy's voice sounded exactly like a harmonica, only with words. —Keenan Pepper 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If it was exactly like a harmonica, you might want to check out the songs listed in vocoder#musical history.--Shantavira 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found it: I was thinking of Alan Wilson. —Keenan Pepper 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are we near the end of the "Easy Life"?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nafeez_m_060831_us_army_contemplates.htm

The article above seems to suggest that the next 20 years will be of endless conflict. Ohanian 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather excessively pessimistic. While I would agree that there will likely be constant conflict over the coming decades, it should all be put into perspective. Most likely they will all be tiny conflicts (like the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict), with casualties nowhere near those of WW2. StuRat 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I say that yes, the next 20 years will be endless conflict, just as the 20 years after that will be endless conflict, just as the past 20 years was endless conflict, just as the 20 years before that was endless conflict, just as every year of recorded history has been endless conflict. You have to hide from history to not realize that there always been conflict. Just look at the list of wars and you can see that it keeps going and going and going. Peace is nothing more than one spot of the world taking a break while another part of the world continues the conflict. --Kainaw (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's an exaggeration, but yeah, there will always be war or a 'conflict' somewhere in the world. But will it be significantly greater in the next two decades? I'd rather say after about a few decades. Oil will gradually run out, and though alternative technologieas are already available, some will think that stealing oil will be cheaper. But there's a greater threat. What if the climate change will indeed be as bad as predicted (and so far the expectations have largely come true)? Less predictable weather means there will be bad harvests not just in some place, as we have seen happen so often, but all over the place. Refugees will have no place to go because it's bad everywhere. Shortage of resources is often a reason to go to war, but shortage of the second most important resource all over the world will mean al hell wil break loose. And the most important resource, water, may also become a problem in some places. DirkvdM 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The human species is an animal, specifically a primate. Like most other animals, when resources are plentiful and easy to obtain we are predominately peaceful. We are social animals and band together for mutual protection, company and co-operative efforts. In order to maintain the usefulness of the group we work for peace within our group, and that's the basic drive of 'civilization', law, manners, custom, fashion, rules and social mores.

When resources get scarce and/or hard to obtain, the 'civilising' drive is pushed to the back seat and we use more agressive methods to get what we need. The harder things get the more violence will become 'acceptable' or at least understandable and to some extent tolerated, by the army, by police, by 'national security forces' and eventually by individuals and small groups.

At the moment, in many countries, violence is against the law and is frowned on socially because there is plenty and violence threatens people's safety and social peace. When things get rough, violence will become more accepted because we all may have to eventually indulge in it to survive and we don't want to have to judge ourselves too harshly for it. Different times, different rules. Ohanian 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jobs for over 50 s

I have to come out of retirement in the Dallas Tx. area due to medical bills resulting from an injury. I am 52, is there any companys that try to hire people my age? I will try anything that I can physically do. Thanks a lot02:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any DIY stores near you? Thry try to hire older people with knowledge!--Light current 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What did you used to do before retirement ? StuRat 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I used to work! 8-))--Light current 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you had a look on employment websites like, to take a well known example, Monster.com? --Robert Merkel 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I can think of at least two things where maturity is an advantage: business and teaching. In business fifthy-somethings give the impression of having experience maturity and competence. Regarding teaching, this also applies, but since in the UK the average schoolteacher only stays in the profession for a year or two, you can still train in your fifthies and have as long a career as anyone else! I would suggest careers that involve giving advice or where maturity is valued (eg rather morbidly the funeral business)
You could also try being a freelance gardener. Here in the UK they earn a lot per hour. It does not have to be skilled gardening work - it could be lawn-mowing, clearing overgrown gardens, etc. They get work by advertising in the local paper and putting leaflets into people letterboxes - or mailboxes as you probably call them in the US. Similar areas could be housecleaning, odd-jobs, moving away rubbish, etc.
You could also try working in a supermarket etc - there was an academic study some time ago which showed that people working in bad jobs were more likely to then get a good job than the unemployed.

Thanks folks!14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. People who traditionally have had difficulty finding a job, or finding a job that pays them more what they are worth have traditionally started their own businessed. Many people have faced the issues, including minorities that are discirminated against, immigrants, people blackballed by the government, people discriminated based on their sexual preference, or sexuality and people discriminated based on religion or age. Open a store and sell goods, or sell goods over ebay, or sell services within your area of expertise, or consult for companies that need your area of expertise. Atom 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to add that you could be a Man with a van - in the UK these move furniture and other things about which are not big enough for a full pantechnicon, such as students moving. They tend to advertise on small cards at newsagents as well as advertising in local newspapers and the yellow pages. When I used one once, the man with the van got rang up a few times by people seeking to use him. It does involve loading and unloading though.

[edit] Who is the most depressing philosopher

I want to read something by a very depressing philosopher, perhaps someone known to be disillusioning in some way, and I'm not sure where to start. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! Rallyander

Some people think Friedrich Nietzsche is depressing because he said "God is dead," but if (like me) you find that learning and thinking critically are enjoyable, perhaps the only truly depressing "philosopher" is the one who gives up to go watch TV instead. Dar-Ape 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I found Thomas Hobbes rather depressing. I read some of is work because of Calvin and Hobbes (just wondering, who is this Hobbes guy). It only took a few hours to decide he wasn't for me. --Kainaw (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Now how could the stuffed animal that pounces on Calvin be depressing ? StuRat 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) :-)
I'm not sure if Goëthe qualifies as a philosopher, but one of the most depressing, yet touching stories I've ever read was his The Sorrows of Young Werther. If you ever thought it impossible for a BOOK to make you cry, try this one. Loomis 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Goethe would have objected to being considered a philosopher. By the way, there are no dots on the "e". You might spell "Göthe", but that spelling is not customary (also not in Germany). --LambiamTalk 08:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I find Søren Kierkegaard very depressing. Anchoress 04:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Rene Descartes - not because of what he says, but the way he says it. Rentwa 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Schopenhauer? AnonMoos 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Camus is kind of a philosopher, right? He's really depressing. Adam Bishop 13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

woo! Camus! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Martin Heidegger, especially his later (i.e. post-Nazi) work, is a major downer. Walter Benjamin was also pretty down in the dumps when the Nazis took power (and killed himself shortly after writing a lot of his major work). And let's not forget Theodor Adorno. --Fastfission 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll head in the direction of political philosophy, try Hannah Arendt and The Origins of Totalitarianism. Durova 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Supplementary question. It's starting to sound as though all philosophers are depressing. Are there actually any cheerful ones?--Shantavira 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in their own nutty way, Marx and Engels could possibly be considered as cheerful social philosophers, as they predicted that the exploitation of the poor and the working class would eventually evolve into a utopia where all would be equal. Loomis 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, far be it from me to preach Jesus, but at least as a "philosopher" he seemed to have a pretty positive outlook as to the ultimate fate of mankind. It depends on who you would qualify as a philosopher. Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa...all of these people's "philosophies" are/were rather positive, as they tend to focus on the goodness of humankind. Loomis 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Eeyore-hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Are Human Rights mandates or suggestions?

When I said that Human Rights are crap(Human Rights, above), I was under the impression that they are mandates, meaning that they must be in effect, no matter what is best for the society. However, due to the large number of Human Rights proponents, I wondered if maybe I had it wrong, and they are just suggestions which should be followed but can easily be broken with good reason. Please help me with this question. Thanks. --Life 03:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that human rights are a naturalistic fallacy. Human rights are said to be "rights" because they are good. However, there is no basis for the measurement of the goodness. Just consider something as silly as "the right to happiness". What if the thing that makes some individual truly happy is to rape and mutilate little children? Does that person deserve the right to happiness? The whole point is that the pursuit of human rights is based on a false assumption that there is such a thing as a human right. Never is it assumed that there may not be such a thing or proven that there is. --Kainaw (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the basics of what you are saying. However, the question I want answered(in the header, sorry :) ) is whether Human Rights are mandates or suggestions. If they were suggestions, then I believe they would agree with what you and I are saying(that a person who is made happy by mutilating children should not be allowed to); however, if they are mandates, then they are clearly bad for society. (As a side note, you seem to assume that it can be "proven" that human rights exist; However, in my experience, human rights only exist insofar as they are enforced.)

--Life 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The same is true of any right. I have a legal right not to be murdered in my bed, but the existence of that right doesn't actually prevent some maniac from murdering me. JackofOz 06:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You speak of human rights (or is that Human Rights?) as if they were some fixed set of rules. But they're just the rights humans have on the basis of being human and youcan fill that in whichever way you want. If they're enforced, they're called laws. Or are you talking about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The UN doesn't have an actual (lasting) mandate anywhere, so they're suggestions. DirkvdM 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody answer this question directly: Generally, when people in the United States and other Western countries say that they support human rights, do they mean to say that Human Rights should be suggestions(that can be broken with a good reason) or do they mean to say that they should be mandates? Thank you. --Life 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
More than a mere suggestion, but less than absolute, I would say. When the human rights of individuals conflict, some compromise must be reached. For example, most people would say parents have the right to keep custody of their kids, but that right can be taken away if they are abusive, thus denying the kids right to be free of abuse. As a general principle, the one causing the conflict (in this case the abusive parents) forfeits their rights. StuRat 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd put it this way: if you throw someone you don't like into jail for three years without charge because you think he's committed a crime but you can't prove it, you'll likely get a bagful of mail from Amnesty International and perhaps some not-so-nice news stories in the free press. Carry on that behavior long enough, and toward enough people, and some people somewhere will probably hold public protests against you. You might encounter boycotts or sanctions and those folks at the Nobel committee might give the peace prize award to someone who's become a thorn in your side for saying you really shouldn't do that sort of thing. If you get too carried away the World Court might even bring you up on charges of crimes against humanity. Whether or not it goes nearly that far, a lot of people will hate you. Durova 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
What I mean by mandate is what StuRat said: that Human Rights can only be broken from conflict with other human rights. What I mean by suggestion is that they can be broken with any good reason. For example, if someone uses the right to free speech to lauch a massive propaganda campaign with the objective of getting people to consume more tobacco and alcohol, then the government would lock him up or prevent him from doing that in some other way, because he is harming the populace. Under these definitions, are Human Rights mandates or suggestions?--Life 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

maybe they are mandatory... because making them just suggestions won't work, will it? though ofcourse, if someone's misusing their right, they can be punished for it...

[edit] "The Most Wondrous Book Of All" riddle

During my wanderings, I came across the riddle here: http://markzdanielewski.info/mzdriddle.html The author is Mark Z. Danielewski; his best known book is House of Leaves. Perhaps I am just being dense, but I dont understand what the answer to this riddle is and it's driving me up the wall. Would any fellow Wikipedians set me on the right path here? Is there an answer to this or is it some sort of viral marketing? 1001001 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It certainly sounds viralesque. Its a pretty good riddle though. It mentions three different books or magazines, which could be a hint towards viral marketing. However, if I was to take a guess I'd say something pink like "Life".Daniel.thorpe 00:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it has an answer. - Rainwarrior 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I figured the answer was the World (or maybe Life). "The world is your exercise-book, the pages on which you do your sums. It is not reality, although you can express reality there if you wish. You are also free to write nonsense, or lies, or to tear the pages." (Richard Bach) --Bookgrrl 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children's book about talking to animals

There was this book that I read and loved as a kid, and which I'm curious to find out about. It involved these kids who went on a trip with their uncle around the world in his hot-air balloon, but the balloon was huge (with different rooms they could live in). Their uncle also had some kind of invention he used so they could talk to animals. They visited the Amazon, and the Australian Outback, and the Nile... all kinds of places. But I can't remember the title or the author, and it's bugging me.

The Fantastic Flying Journey by Gerald Durrell. WP has articles on the book and the author. ---Sluzzelin 10:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I didn't expect anyone to ever have heard of it.

[edit] Question concerning Islam and the Muslims

Are the words Islamist and Muslims interchangeable? If one is a Muslim can it be assumed that they are members of the Islamic religion? Conversely can one be a Islamic and not be a Muslim?

What is the root of the word Muslim?Dgrant634@cox.net 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)–±

No, the words Islamist and Muslim are definitely not interchangeable. Compare articles on Islamism, Islam, and Muslim. The words "Muslim" and "Islamic" aren't interchangeable either, since "Muslim" (follower of Islam) is also a noun and "Islamic" is not. The etymology of the word Muslim is explained on that page as well.---Sluzzelin 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You asked the same question a few days before: #Islamist/Muslim Distinction. --LambiamTalk 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OOOH, ooh, and 'islamist' and 'islamic' (not actually a word, but used in the west interchangably with muslim) aren't actualy the same thing. Please forgive the sloppy spelling, I'm a wasted-face anon. An islamic person is a muslim person, one who has faith in the oneness and principality of the God Allah (upper-case to denotate the link to the Abrahamc god), and an Islamist is a [neologism] who believes in the propagation of government which holds at its core 'Islamic' (broad view, often parred down depending on the flavor of islamist) values and morals. Not the same...whoot.--24.250.33.247 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NJ

–Thank you in advance for your help...... I am looking for people that was born in new jersey, work there and still live there AND that belongs to the hall of fame. thanks... adriana

New Jersey you say Hmm!Theres this: [1]--Light current 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrinking Man

I think this is more a movie question than a science question, so here goes: When people shrink in movies, such as The Incredible Shrinking Man or Fantastic Voyage, do the moviemakers ever give consideration to the problem of mass? That is, if a 180 pound man shrinks to the size of a fly, does he still weigh 180 pounds? Obviously, this is not likely, but then, neither is shrinking to the size of a fly. Has any movie ever dealt with this problem? Ben

No. See Suspension of disbelief. —Daniel (‽) 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No they dont. THey assume the mass disappears.(wher to we are not told)--Light current 19:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Michael C. LaBarbera, professor in Organismal Biology, offers some thoughts on this topic in Biology of B-Movie Monsters. Eating, drinking and maintaining body temperature seem to pose a challenge to the Incredible Shrinking Man too. ---Sluzzelin 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the question of what happens to their atoms, are they now proportionally smaller, or is the person now composed of far fewer atoms, molecules, and cells. If so, wouldn't losing most of their brain cells cause a problem ? If the atoms are smaller, they would also need special small atoms to breathe, eat, and drink. StuRat 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. THat brings up the interesting? question of: how small ca you be and still not notice your atoms?--Light current 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Something like this was asked before. DirkvdM 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes things like that are often ignored. Also, sometimes in movies they forget that the velocity of a falling object does not depend on its mass, so shrunken people for instance fall down too slow, and giants too quickly...
See Fantastic Voyage for how Isaac Asimov dealt with problems of this sort in the novelisation of that film that the film itself had glossed over. ColinFine 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That bothers you? I'm far more concerned with the working out how to drive off approximately 0.003 seconds after entering my car. How do they do that? And where do they get that mysterious blue light from, that lights up dark bedrooms for the purposes of seeing evil deeds and/or nudity? And why it is that in thrillers anyone ever says they're looking forward to some (near) future event (Xmas, retirement, graduation etc) - don't they know that'll get them killed? And why it is that couples who've just slept with one another feel the need to cover themselves with the duvet/pillow when they get up? And how they always manage to get through first time on the phone, unless the fact that they failed is going to be crucial to the plot. And how they manage, in the most heated of arguments, never to talk at the same time. And a million similar things. --Dweller 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No basis in science, I'm sure, but everything shrinks, the atoms themselves, the space between the atoms and of course the mass. I want to know why the hulk can wear Bill Bixby's pants!

[edit] Several questions about various editions of Freud's Traumdeutung

I have a couple of questions on the various editions of Freud's Traumdeutung that may prove difficult to answer. As you probably know, Freud himself published several revised editions of the Traumdeutung over the years; however, both collected editions of his works (the Gesamtausgabe and the Studienausgabe) only contain the final edition.

  • The first (and probably easiest) question is if there is a genetic edition of the Traumdeutung that gives a quick overview of the changes from one edition to the next.
  • The second question is if the section on dreams of nakedness (I don't have an English translation of Freud, so I don't know if that's the exact term used in English - in German, it is "Nacktheitstraum", the section is a subsection of "Verlegenheitstraum") was already present in the first edition of the Traumdeutung - I have found conflicting statements on this, and as I said, the collected works are no help here since they only contain the final edition of the Traumdeutung.
  • A third (only indirectly related) question deals with Derrida's work on Freud: in Purloiner of the truth, he makes some statements to the effect that according to Freud, all dreams are either based on the idea of killing the father or having sex with the mother (Derrida uses Freud's term Traumstoff in that context), but as usual, he does not quote anything directly from Freud. The two motives of killing the father and fucking the mother are prevalent enough in Freud, but I could not locate anything in Freud's works where he explicitly says that these are the only two basic motives for all dreams. Is there a place anywhere in Freud where he actually makes such a strong statement, or is this just a misquote/unfounded statement by Derrida? I wouldn't be at all surprised if Derrida deliberately bent his reading of Freud to fit his own line of argument, but it would be nice to know for sure.

Thanks in advance, Ferkelparade π 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horentine

Please explain "Horentine" and how it relates to history. Purchased a religious statuette with the tag explaining it to be a "HOrentine COllection". Have researched online to no avail. Thankyou. mcrisg

Have another look, are you sure it does not say "Florentine"? MeltBanana 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Florentine--Light current 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought Florentine meant "made with spinach".  ;) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Only in culinary contexts. There's more to life than food, though. JackofOz 00:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it meant "made by Florence Henderson". :-) StuRat 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I think corn was her specialty. JackofOz 07:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and, in particular, corn oil. StuRat 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_archive_Humanities_2006_September_2_8723.html"