Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< August 8 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 10 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents

[edit] August 9

[edit] Consequentialism vs Utilitarianism

What's the difference between the two? I've read both articles. It seems to me that ethical egoism and altruism just have different ideas of utility. — Daniel 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Practically speaking, Daniel, there is little difference between the two. If you are looking for a critique I would suggest that you consult the work of John Rawls, in particular A Theory of Justice. Clio the Muse 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I would categorize Utilitarianism as applied Consequentialism. Consequentialism is the general concept that the consequences of an action are what the action should be judged on despite the intentions of the individual or their character. Utilitarianism is one account of how we might judge the consequences of actions. Within Utilitarianism, the morally right or correct actions are those that result in the greatest utility (which is defined within the theory itself). You are right to think that different Consequentialist accounts (other than Utilitarianism) define utility differently, but they do not use the actual word "utility" as a heading for such definitions. Ethical Egoism and Altruism are not subsets of Utilitarianism, they are each competitors with one another, and all fall within Consequentialism. They each give differing accounts of how an action's consequences should be judged. By the way, the source mentioned above is good reading for a Philosopher. Mrdeath5493 05:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You can base Utilitarianism on happiness, knowledge, beauty, or anything else you can think of. You can only count humans; you can count all sentient beings; you can count all life. Why wouldn't you be able to only count yourself, or only count everyone else? — Daniel 16:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You can make arguments for the first three categories of worthy beings (humans, sentient beings, all life), but I would have a hard time swallowing any argument that you made for maximizing only your own utility. Of course many people do lead their lives that way and could be considered utilitarians in a rather liberal sense. They are, after all, maximizing utility. Plasticup 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So is it like Consequentialism is what's theoretically possible, but Utilitarianism is only what someone would actually believe? I've thought of a good argument for mostly just maximizing your on utility: you know you aren't a philosophical zombie, but you don't know about anyone else. I don't know of any good argument for Rule Utilitarianism, though. Are you supposed to capitalize utility? — Daniel 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that one is theory while the other is practice. Consequentialist is to Utilitarian as Christian is to Baptist. As stated before, Consequentialism says "Judge an action by its outcome." Utilitarianism says "Compare different outcomes by virtue of how much overall happiness is produced or how much overall suffering is reduced." An argument for Rule Utilitarianism is that we shouldn't judge on a case-by-case basis (because it's too difficult, impractical, prone to bias, etc.), but instead we should live by rules that tend to produce the most Utility. For example, we might decide that murder tends to produce negative Utility so no one should commit murder.Typo180 15:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Goofy Ridge,Illinois located near Sand Ridge National forest and Chautauqua Lake

I am interested in learning the history of Goofy Ridge and Chautauqua Lake, Illinois. I have known of the area since 1965 and have recently moved to this area, but can find nothing on it's history. It has such an unusual name I have felt compelled to research the history and write a small history text with documentation as to when and how this place came to be. Thank you for any help you can be. Sincerely; --Lindymk 04:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have an article on Chautauqua, New York which gives some suggestions to the etymology of the name Chautauqua. Here is some basic info on the lake itself and here is some info on the dam. This book will give you some info on the fauna in the lake.
According to an American Journal article quoting Passing Gas: And Other Towns Along the American Highway (ISBN 1580084567) by Gary Gladstone, Goofy Ridge got its name thus: [1][2]

Years back it was just The Ridge, a camp near the river bank where moonshiners and other carousers met weekly to do their drinking. After some serious drinking one night, a local game warden said he wasn’t too drunk to shoot a walnut off the head of a volunteer. Naturally, someone was drunk enough to volunteer. The game warden placed the tiny target on the volunteer’s head, aimed his .22 rifle, and shot the nut right off. This caper was called by a witness “one damned goofy thing to do,” and the camp was ever after known as Goofy Ridge.

The abstract of the academic paper Goofy Ridge: On Human Ecology, Poverty, and the Labeling of Places [3] hints there may be a social significance associated with this incident, something confirmed by a segment on Weekend America. [4][5] According to Storyville, USA (ISBN 0820323039) By Dale Peterson "Al Capone, as a matter of fact, used to come down [to Goofy Ridge] to hunt and fish." [6]
No ideas on this, but, depending upon when the name stuck, you should look carefully at the meaning of "goof" and "goofy," because it picked up associations with narcotics in the 1940's. If you get a date for the name, you can look at the Oxford English Dictionary to check the associations. Geogre 13:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Economic Development

I am returning to the practice of law after a very long illness. The Placement Office suggested that community economic development would be an interesting area for future practice. The wikipedia article does not contain references or sources. I want to obtain a good academic background in the subject. Which books are considered the leading text? 75Janice 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)75Janice75Janice 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That would probably depend on the country in which you intend to practice, because strategies for community economic development, and even more so their legal context, vary greatly from one country to another. Probably your best course would be to research universities in your country that offer courses in community economic development and then contact the instructors (and possibly enroll in a course). Marco polo 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Källkritik, Quellenkritik and ... "source criticism"?

This may superficially look like a language question, but is really about historiography, so I think it belongs at this desk.

One of the first new words any Swedish history student will learn while attending the first year course in Historical method and theory ("Historical method and theory 101" or something like that in an American system) is källkritik. The term is originally borrowed from the German Quellenkritik. In the 19th century, Swedish historians travelled to Berlin and sat at Ranke's feet, and most aspects of German historical theory and practice were sooner or later borrowed by the scholars in Lund and Uppsala. Now, the Swedish Wikipedia obviously has an article on källkritik, which links to a German article on Quellenkritik. Both of these link to an article in the English Wikipedia called source criticism, which is all about... biblical criticism!

In addition, if I search for Quellenkritik in Google, I get a great number of hits for English pages using this German term (this result can be amplified by making an "English pages only" search). My question: is there no proper English term for this? If not, why? (And whatever the case may be, perhaps the linking between the different language versions of Wikipedia should be changed in some way?) Olaus 08:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "source criticism" is used by Protestants these days for an altered form of Higher Criticism (also borrowed from the Germans), as those who use the term don't like the conclusions of the Higher Critics and don't want to be tarred with the same brush (I'm being a bit mean, and possibly cynical, and always possibly a bit hasty in my characterization).
Is your term equivalent in any way to "textual criticism?"
The game here is almost certainly going to be semantic. Geogre 12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're referring to is "critical reading", which is something that was drummed into us as undergraduate historians. There's no article on that as I write these words. It's alluded to in critical thinking, but it's more specific. Textual criticism seems to be something altogether different. --Dweller 12:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but "critical reading" may possibly be it. Textual criticism would just be about reaching a correct and authentic "original text". "Source-criticism" in the sense intended by the German and Northern European words (the Danish and Norwegian cognates have the same sense) goes further and is a method of determining the reliability of a source for a certain historical issue through an analysis using a certain, more or less standardised, set of criteria, such as the author's closeness to whatever event or process the historian is interested in, the bias of the source, its dependence on other sources and so on. Handbooks will usually list a certain set of questions to use for the practical analysis. Different historians may break this down in various ways and put different emphasis on different aspects of the whole. (Some of it may seem as common sense, actually, but experience has taught me that it is not. Or not common, anyway.) In writing about it in an encyclopaedia, one would presumably want to not just paraphrase whatever is already in whatever handbook one happens to have access to, but also discuss the method and its application in a historiographical context. Olaus 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was surprised that neither Historiography nor even Critical historiography deal meatily with the vital issue of reading with caution, although it is definitely implied. --Dweller 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This does indeed take us deep into the tangle of semantics, where anything from hermeneutics to historical method may serve; anything from higher criticism to textual criticism. But to be perfectly frank, Olaus, the true issue here may be little more than the different ways in which history is approached in the Anglo-Saxon world (I am thinking of England, specifically) and Continental Europe. In the world I come from there is really no separation between theory and practice, if that makes sense, and little value is placed upon 'meta-theory' or source evaluation as ends in themsleves. For my personal satisfaction I worked my way through books like E. H. Carr's What is History? and Geoffery Elton's The Practice of History, but I was never encouraged to study historiography as such. However, when I was reading for the historical tripos at Cambridge this included a foundation course on Themes and Sources. This entailed an analysis of the nature and reliability of primary sources, but as part of a specific area of historical investigation; anything from disease and society in pre-industrial Europe to revolution in the modern world. So, criticism does exist, though it is always criticism with context. Clio the Muse 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments (I am flattered to get a reply from the Muse of history herself!). Wikipedia seems to lack good coverage on many historical and historiographical topics. I hope this can be remedied. Olaus 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam War Image

Hi. I have been hunting everywhere for an image from the Vietnam War. It depicts a wounded African American solider (with a head wound if it helps jog memory) reaching for the dead body of his white commanding officer, and being restrained by other soldiers. I have hunted everywhere and can't find the flippin' thing. Does anyone know where I can find a copy of it online? SGGH speak! 18:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've seen it in The Photo Book by Phaeton. I think it's Nick Ut, but I'll flip through, try to find it, and come back with the information, if others don't get here first (which they should by all means do). Geogre 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not Nick Ut. Sorry. Geogre 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to nytimes, that photo was taken by Larry Burrows. Hope that helps. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it did: South of the DMZ, Vietnam, 1966. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Jefferson cup"?

A friend gave me a so-called "Jefferson cup" as a gift. The original cups were owned by Thomas Jefferson and had become items on exhibition. Why did they make replica Jefferson cups as gifts? The design of the cup was not special. You don't need to be a dead president to have a cup. Why don't they sell Bush plates, Clinton screwdrivers, Nixon microwave ovens, or Albert Einstein pencil sharpeners as gift items?

There are at least two makers of these Jefferson cups: Salisbury Pewter (3.25" diameter, 2.5" tall, 8 oz) and Shirley Pewter (3" diameter, 2.75" tall, 8 oz). Who are they? Why did they make authentic replicas thet are so different from each others?

Teddy bears have a story. Therefore, people buy Teddy bears. Why did Thomas Jefferson make these cups? What did he do with these cups? Did he drink Coca Cola from these cups? I guess not. Then what did he drink? What made these cups famous? -- Toytoy 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a history of the Jefferson cup here which goes some way towards answering your questions. Xn4 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Nightmare Republic?

Why was Portugal before the New State called the Nightmare Republic?Bryson Bill 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The term refers to the First Republic, 1910 to 1926, which was notoriously unstable. In its sixteen years, it had forty-five governments. As you say, the Nightmare Republic led to the New State, which lasted from 1926 to 1974. That was certainly stable but was not exactly a model of liberal democracy. Xn4 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating question about a fascinating subject-the First Portuguese Republic, the model and acme of a dysfunctional state. No banana republic comes close to the Portuguese record of instability and regime change. I found one contemporary view by Will Rogers which summarises the position with his characteristic humour;

They make 'em or break 'em quick over here. You don't get four years' trial like you all do over home, and then we have to put up with regardless. A Premier never unpacks his grip over here. He just engages his room by the day. Portugal, the week I was in Madrid, had three Revolutions and four changes of Government in one day, and they haven't got daylight saving either, or else they could have squeezed in another Revolution.

Yes, of course it's a comic exaggeration, but not much! The New State, one might even say the necessity of the New State, can only really be appreciated by a proper understanding of what went before. As Xn4 says, the first republic had forty-five governments in just under sixteen years, the most unstable state in Europe by far. The average life of each administration was no more than four months. There were military coups in 1915, 1917, 1921 and 1926. Of the eight presidents only Antonio Jose Almeida served out his term in office, though his health was ruined in the process. One was assassinated, two resigned after threats of military intervention, and two were ejected by force. President Teixeira Gomes was so desperate to leave the country that he boarded the first ship after his resignation and never returned! The poet Guerra Junqueira described the republic, for which he had campaigned, as "an heroic march to the sewer." Later one academic was to describe the period as a 'permanent carnival.'

So, what was the source of this chaos? Why, the economy, stupid! No, seriously now, this was part of the answer. The old monatchy had left the country with a huge foreign debt, almost impossible to manage considering how poor Portugal was at the time, a country where as much as 78% of the population were illiterate. A bad financial inheritance was compounded by the economic crisis which overtook the country in 1915 and lasted for over ten years. In the worst period inflation reached almost 3000%, and the currency was devalued no less than twenty times between 1919 and 1924. A bad economy made for a bad political culture, and riots, bombings, assassinations, coups, plots, strikes, mutinies and walk-outs were a regular feature of the Portuguese horizon. Perhaps as many as 5000 people were killed in public disorder, civil war in all but name. The name 'Nightmare Republic' was actually accorded by an Irish journalist in 1914, writing for a publication by the name of Nineteenth Century. Portuguese editors constantly expressed fears over the ongoing 'Mexicanisation' of the nation. The French even adopted the verb Portugaliser for a time, meaning to bring chaos into politics.

With a bad economy, no political culture to speak of, and an almost complete absence of consensus on any issue of central significance, conspiracy and counter-conspiracy took the place of democratic participation. In 1919 the constitution was revised, according the president additional powers, including the right to dissolve parliament. Intended as a political anchor it only made matters even worse, if such a thing were possible. Presidents were openly intimidated into dismissing parliaments, whether or not there was a need. In 1921 President Almedia was forced at gun point to call new elections on two separate occasions. The only thing that kept the Nightmare Republic afloat for so long was that right-wing conspirators, including those in the army, were as divided as the rest of Portuguese society. But it was only a matter of when, not if, that the curtain would be brought down and the carnival brought to a close. Clio the Muse 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There we have the Rolls Royce answer, supplementing my pedestrian shorthand! All I feel able to add is that once, long ago, an old man with a white beard told me that in the 1920s, as a tribute to the otherworldliness of Portugal, someone opened a low dive in Paris called "le Grand Hôtel de l'Univers et du Portugal". I should like to think this is true, but I have never found any trace of it. Xn4 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What a pity! Clio the Muse 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Woohoo, there is a God in heaven, and he does wear red velvet breeches!
“ I mean, Portugal is not that isolated (although admittedly my wife’s parents once stayed in a Paris hotel called the Hotel de l’Univers et du Portugal). ”
- from Why there is no God by Richard Dawkins in The Times, 31 October 2006 Xn4 01:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Spaniards" and "Jack Straws Inn",Hampstead

Could anyone tell me anything about these pubs and their location if they still exist.I lived in Kilburn Park all my life and I`ve never heard of these pubs till few days ago,so if anyone can help me,it would mean a lot.Thank you

81.134.1.61 19:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We happen to have an article on Spaniards Inn, or you can do a search on Google. Here is the Google search for Jack Straw's Castle. Marco polo 20:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, Jack Straw's Castle seems not to be a pub any more. It has been converted into residential flats. Marco polo 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they've been working on Jack Straw's for a while now. The two locations are pretty close to one another. --Dweller 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraternizing with the journalists

I have only closely followed press conferences held by US presidents since the Clinton years, and was always fascinated by the familiar way the leaders address journalists by their first name in front of the camera. ("so freedom has a chance. ... Wolf, and then Katy."). Did earlier Presidents do this as well? When or with which President did this custom start? ---Sluzzelin talk 21:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubya is known for his use of nicknames, so I'm not surprised that he calls journalists by their first names. Anybody who calls Karl Rove "turdblossom" and Vladimir Putin "pootypoot", I think I'd be pleased if he only called me by my first name.  :) Corvus cornix 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... this transcript of a 1963 JFK press conference shows Kennedy referring to both male and female reporters as Mr. and Mrs., respectively. Ten years later, Nixon did the same ([7]). But here, in 1976, Gerald Ford uses first names and jokes around with reporters. So maybe Gerald Ford started the trend. -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mwalcoff, great links! Funny, didn't even think of Ford when going through the Presidents in my mind. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
About a year ago, I overheard two newspaper journalists of my acquaintance discussing this very issue. They contended that aside from the tendency toward formality in earlier decades, it was also a matter of respect -- that presidents like FDR & JFK generally respected journalists (as a group, anyway) and always addressed them as "Mr." & "Miss" in public, whereas Bush tends to regard himself as superior to the press and therefore treats them as a parent would treat a child, by using their first names in public. He intends it as a deliberately demeaning act. (I wonder how he would react if questioning reporters retaliated by calling him "George" to his face?) --Michael K. Smith 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure it's unique to Bush. Sadly, I'm drawing from my television knowledge here, but in the West Wing series, everyone, with the sole exception of his family, addresses Martin Sheen's character with Mr. President, while he calls them "Toby", "Leo", or "C.J." (which is preferable to "Turd blossom", of course. Out of respect toward the office, I'm assuming the formal address of the President is customary in and outside the White House, at least as long as another person is watching. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)