Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 February 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< February 5 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 7 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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] February 6

[edit] How many Representatives are required to "compel the attendance of absent members"? Senators?

Hello. Article One, Section Five of the U.S. Constitution states, "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

What exactly is "a smaller number"?

Thanks for taking the time to look at my question. --Db099221 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"A smaller number" means less than a majority. Each House decides, in its own rules, how many that is. Corvus cornix 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The House rules say a majority of at least 15 members can compel the attendance of absent members. The Senate rules say a simple majority can compel absent senators to show up. -- Mwalcoff 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. --Db099221 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finance for Seniors

Can a person age 66-1/2 file for social security, receive benefits and still maintain employment for full salary of upwards of $70,000/yr? Will their place of employment be notified of this filing for social security benefits?

For the most accurate answer, I would ask the Social Security Administration. --Lph 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon`s two sons

What happened to Napoleon's son, Alexandre by Marie Waleska? When did he die? What was the cause of death of Napoleon`s son, the Aiglon?

Alexandre Joseph Colonna Count Walewski (4 May 1810-27 September 1868) married twice [1] (1831) Catherine Caroline Montagu (daughter of the 6th Earl of Sandwich, by whom he had a son and a daughter (both died in infancy), [2] (1846) Maria Anne Alexandrine Catherine Clarisse de Ricci, by whom he had three daughters and a son (one daughter died in infancy), and had an affaire with the actress Rachel which resulted in a son, who has living descendants. The Aiglon died of tuberculosis, though as usual, some people claim he was poisoned. - Nunh-huh 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It was "rumored" that "Aiglon", Napoleon II, Duke of Reichstadt, was poisoned by Metternich's spies, rather as Salieri was "rumored" to have poisoned Mozart.--Wetman 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism is/was polytheistic?

is there anywhere in the j. old testament where yahweh specifically says there is no other god but him, or does he just command his followers to only worship him and not "those other rubbish gods"? i know people say judaism is monotheism but is it really?

Interesting question. The Shema, one of the most important prayers in Judaism, is a simple statement pronouncing and reasserting the oneness of God, taken from Deteronomy 6:4. "Shema Israel, Adoshem [sic] Elokeinu [sic], Adoshem [sic] Echad" ("Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE"). It seems clear from this seminal prayer of Judaism that there is but "one" God.
Additionally, the first words of the Torah or the Christian Old Testament speak simply of "God". Specifically, they are: "Bereshit barah Elokim [sic] et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz" ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"). It would seem by this statement that it was considered as a sort of given that only one God exists. Otherwise, it would only be logical to first identify just which God is being referred to, before going into just how He went about creating the universe. Loomis 05:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See also Henotheism#Israelite_beliefs_and_Judaism, perhaps. --Shirt58 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I read that there was some serpent which could be assumed for a staff if it was hypnotized stiff, or something, and you could wake it up by throwing it to the ground. I read it in the Danish comic Nofret, though, so I'm not sure on how accurate it is. 惑乱 分からん 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You could also check out the Ten Commandments, which according to the biblical text, were spoken by God to all of the Jewish people. It must've been quite a show. Avoiding the usual debates about "were there 10?" and "are they all commandments?" depending on your take on religion, the first or first/second commmandment is/are taken as a commandment/including a commandment to monotheism. Sorry that's complicated - biblical interpretation often is. Check out our article. --Dweller 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some interesting passages in the Pentateuch or Torah that suggest that the early Israelites recognized the existence of gods other than their own God. For example, Exodus 15:11 asks "Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?", and Exodus 18:11 states "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly." Deuteronomy 4:7 reads "What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?" Deuteronomy 6:14 commands "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you." Deuteronomy 10:17 states "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes." This seems to me quite close in sense to the questioner's scenario in which the Israelite's God commands them to worship only Him and not those other "rubbish gods" (such as the Canaanite gods who accepted bribes). This however, does not exactly mean that the Israelites were polytheistic, since they worshipped only their God. Marco polo 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a question of interpretation, of course, but the passages can be read as acknowledging that other nations have their gods (lower case g) which are not to be worshipped, but that they're not really God (upper case g). In a similar way, one would call a child's toy car "a car", even though it doesn't really work like the car parked outside your home. The most famous allegation of polytheism in Judaism actually stems from Genesis 1:1 where the name used for God ("Elohim") is plural. There are many ways of debating this issue, a simple one being that the verb form tied to it ("bara", created) is singular, therefore referring to a single entity. Elohim famously is a common usage for God's name in the early chapters of the Bible. --Dweller 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice analogy with the toy car, Dweller. As Dweller implied, much rests on one's definition of the word "god". In addition to Dweller's analysis, I'd add that even if a "god" is defined as a REAL supernatural being, this still does not imply polytheism. Certainly, the early Israelites as well as modern Jews have always recognized the existence of other supernatural beings, such as the various angels, including Satan. Yet if by the term "God" one is speaking of a single, omnipotent Supreme Being, the Torah only speaks of only one "Almighty" God. This is reflected in many Jewish prayers which open with the words "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe". Note the "King of the universe" part. According to Jews, God is not simply "God of the Jews", but "God of the universe".
The Jewish concept of God is as an omnipotent Supreme Being. The very definition of omnipotence would seem to imply that there cannot exist any rival or independent beings capable of acting beyond God's control. An interesting illustration is the apparent conceptual difference of Satan as between Judaism and Christianity. From the best of my understanding, the Christian concept of Satan appears to be that of a fallen angel who opted to represent Evil in defiance of God, who represents Good. Satan is apparently "beyond" God's control. Apparently, to Christians, God and Satan are locked in an eternal battle of "Good vs. Evil". In contrast, the Jewish concept of Satan is that of a loyal servant of God, who's special duty is to continually test mankind's righteousness by constantly tempting us into Evil. I realize this is an EXTREMELY sensitive issue, and if I'm misrepresenting Christianity in any way, I'd be more than pleased if someone more knowledgeable than I would correct me.
Perhaps I've gone off a bit too far on a tangent, but my point is that despite Satan's apparent independence, Christianity is still considered a monotheistic religion. That considered, if recognizing the independence of Satan does not preclude recognizing Christianity as monotheistic, then, a fortiori, the recognition by the early Israelites of lesser, "rubbish" gods, not beyond God's control should certainly not be construed as implying any sort of "polytheism". (Sorry for rambling on a bit. I'd actually be VERY interested in others' feedback as to this post, especially my remarks concerning Christianity, as it's been a thought running through my head for quite a while). Loomis 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the victory over the serpent in Revelation reminds us of Isaiah 27:1 "That day Yahweh will punish with his unyielding sword, massive and strong, Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will kill the dragon in the sea." And this Hebrew Bible text bears the influence of the (most definitely polytheistic) 14th c. BC Ras Shamra poem, "You will crush Leviathan the fleeing serpent, you will consume the twisting serpent, the mighty one with seven heads" (note in NJB). So the henotheism strand is clear enough. For a listing of henotheistic passages in the Old Testament, see these online essays: [1] [2]. Wareh 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The article on henotheism leaves much to be desired. In particular, it doesn't answer the question as to whether, despite believing in many "non-omnimpotent" supernatural beings, or "gods", one believes in only one omnipotent God, whether that set of beliefs is properly characterized as "henotheism". To my mind, the omnipotence aspect is key. Loomis 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
But omnipotence is only a required characteristic of a god in certain, specific religions, for certain, specific gods. To be honest, if you discovered Judaism/Christianity/Islam today in a tribe of people, and these religions were not known to you, I'm not convinced you would find them monotheistic. Sure, they only worship one god, but they clearly have a whole range in their world, just like the Greeks, Romans, Eygptians and the rest. They seem to believe in an 'evil god' (although they do not term him a god), various 'lesser gods' that serve their God, and the existance of gods that are opposed to their God. Only their God has omnipotence, but we do not require omnipotence of Mercury for us to class him a god. Skittle 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Omnipotence is certainly central to my faith in God. The God I believe in is omnipotent. Otherwise he wouldn't be "God". He wouldn't be any sort of Supreme Being, but merely a "superiour being". Non-omnipotent "superiour beings", to me, aren't "Gods" at all. They're simply superiour beings, just as some more evolved alien race from some other solar system or galaxy would be certainly be "superiour beings" as compared to humans, but far from any sort of Supreme Being. I can only speak of Judaism, but Jews believe in only ONE omnipotent Supreme Being. As I've explained, according to Judaism, even Satan is a mere subservient servant of God. (That's what puzzles me about Christianity: If God is omnipotent, and Satan is causing all kinds of Evil mischief to the detrement of mankind, why doesn't the Almighty Omnipotent Christian God simply snap his fingers and make Satan, the trouble-maker, go away? Why is the Christian God seemingly limited in his powers over Satan, forced to engage in an eternal struggle with this apparently independent force of Evil? Is the Christian God not as omnipotent as the Jewish?)
The question assumes that a truly omnipotent god would never allow evil to exist in the world. If that is the case, how come the Jewish omnipotent god allows so much evil to exist in the world? If there can only be ONE omnipotent God, then all faiths that believe in an omnipotent god are believing in the same entity regardless of what name they give to him or what attributes they attribute to him. Who are we mere humans to question the mind of God? JackofOz 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I said that if God is truly omnipotent, there could not exist any other being, such as Satan, who is beyond His control. What I did not say is that an omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist. The essential difference is that to Christians, Evil exists due to the existence of a Satan who is beyond God's control. To Jews, evil exists because God allows man to have free will, not because He couldn't eliminate it if He so wished. A central tenet of Judaism is God's commitment to the free will of man. As an illustration, many Jewish Holocaust survivors, as a result of having gone through the unspeakeable horrors they did, though they still believe in God, blame Him for the miseries they were forced to experience. A common sentiment would be "how could God allow this to happen"? On the other hand, I would expect the reaction of a Christian to be somewhat different: God/Jesus certainly did not "allow" this sort of thing to happen, rather, I would imagine that they would see it more as an unfortunate instance of a victory of Evil (Satan) over Good (God/Jesus). Loomis 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, Skittle, if I discovered any tribe of people whose religion was not known to me, and if they told me that they worshipped only ONE omnipotent God, the analysis would end there. These people are clearly monotheists.
The Greeks, Romans etc., despite the fact that even polytheistic religions tended to have "chief gods", like Zeus, Jupiter etc., these "chief gods" were by no means omnipotent. If I remember my classics well enough, these "chief gods" were constantly getting into tangles with the lesser gods, and even with the humans they supposedly reigned upon. On top of that, they weren't even considered as the "original creators" of the universe, but rather the children of the Titans, who, and I'm really going out on a limb here as my memory of it all is failing, I believe they actually killed to acquire their status as "gods". In any case, the whole Ancient Greek/Roman polytheistic tradition was a mess of power struggles amongst the various subordinate gods, and between the "subordinate" gods and the "chief" god: Zeus/Jupiter. Add to that the hybrids: the offspring of those gods who chose to mate with mortals...well...I think I've my point. As for Hermes/Mercury, he was never considered omnipotent, and therefore I'd be the last to describe him as a "God". Loomis 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jesus crucifixion = odin on world tree?

is there any reason to suggest that the jesus crucifixion story is a rehash of the norse odin death-and-rebirth on the world tree story? they seem very similar. is there any way norse teachings could have reached the middle east?

Have you read our article on Odin, particularly Odin#Odin_and_Jesus? It discusses your question quite fully. --Mnemeson 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps the other way around, like middle eastern teachings reaching the north? There are some who believe that religions simply influenced each other during the millenia (some may even say copied from each other). This is easy to follow with the gods of classical Antiquity; the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Germanic gods. There is always a female god of Beauty: Venus, Aphrodite, Hathor, Freya. A big mighty boss: Jupiter, Zeus, Amon-Ra, Odin. ETC There might be big diffrences amongst them but also great similarities. Even our modern religions are not immune. Notice how the story of Horus and his mother Isis is in some ways similar to the story of Jesus and Mary. How about Aten, the only God and the Jewish-Christian-Muslim God? How about the Genesis and the ancient Greek mythology, both say more or less that: "at the beginning there was only Caos". How about the similarities between Loki, Seth, Judas? There might be mighty differences but many ideas are in many fascinating ways the same. Basicly almost all religions try to answer the old eternal questions: Where do we come from? What are we doing here? Where are going? How can I reach "enlightment"? (damned if I know what that really means) Is there a life after death? If everybody is asking the same questions then the answers (religion/mythology) are bound to be quite alike. Flamarande 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Greek myth of Prometheus could also be compared to Christ (though strangely the article doesn't mention it). Prometheus brought fire from the Gods to humans, and for this he was punished (pretty harshly, too!) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus in his History mentioned the similarity of all religions. Everyone seemed to worship Zeus. There was one tribe that only worshipped Zeus, and no other .. ;)

The question of who was first goes to the heart of credibility. Not many today worship Odinn. American religions and Asian religions seem quite different from European/Middle Eastern, so, I would say that if the Norse mythos was older, then they would be the influence. I suspect Babylonians might have had more influence, though. DDB 11:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know Prometheus has been compared to Lucipher, rather than to Jesus: both Prometheus and Lucipher (whose name means "he who brings light") brought a divine attribute to humankind (fire/the knowledge of good and evil) in some kind of an effort to make humankind independent from its creator, and they were both punished for that. Of course there are differences in the interpretation of the act, in the motives they might have had etc. Generally Lucipher is seen negatively, while Prometheus is regarded as a positive character (by the way, did the ancient Greeks see Prometheus as a positive character too? That would be an interesting question). SFinamore 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Except we know that the Roman Empire had a policy of nailing trouble-markers to crosses and leaving them to die of exposure. Making it much more likely that the tale of Jesus' crucifixion was based on actual events, and that any connection with myths from the other end of the known world are merely coincidental. 194.80.32.8 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo Davinci

I was reading your article on Leonardo Davinci, and I just wanted to let you know there was an error "In 1882 Leonardo, whom Vasari tells us was a most talented musician, created a silver lyre in the shape of a horse's head." Shouldn't that be 1482? Otherwise, he would have lived 400 years.

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it in the article. For future reference, did you know you can edit the articles yourself? - Akamad 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What score does a hole in one give?

In golf, how much is a hole in one worth?--70.129.200.128 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The score in golf is determined by the par of the hole. So if it's a par 3, and they get a hole in one, their score is -2. If it takes them 2 shots, then it's -1 and so forth. - Akamad 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be more correct, the score in golf is determined by adding up the number of shots a player takes on each hole. Although scores are generally reported in relation to par, they exist independently. A hole in one indicates that the player needed only one shot to get the ball in the hole, and is consequently worth one stroke.
Other golf terminology, such as "birdie" or "bogey" are depndent on par for determining their precise value. A hole in one is always worth one, regardless of what par is. Carom 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist schools in Vietnam

Which is the main Buddhist school in Vietnam?

Per our Vietnam article, Mahayana Buddhism is the predominant version of that religion in Vietnam. Marco polo 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist schools in South Asia

Which Buddhist schools does India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have? I read the article but it didn't specifically say which is the main school of Buddhism. Thanks.

In Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Theravada Buddhism is the predominant school of that religion.
The article Buddhism in India does not give enough information to be certain about relative numbers. However, the article states that, prior to about 1900, Buddhism in India was confined to tribal groups along the borders with Burma (present-day Myanmar), who, per the article Buddhism in Bangladesh would be predominantly Theravada and in the Himalayas, who would adhere to Tibetan Buddhism. Since 1900, there has been a Buddhist revival in India, facilitated by Buddhist monks and religious figures from Sri Lanka, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. Presumably, these converts are also Theravada. Also, there has been an influx of Tibetan refugees into India. Ethnic Tibetans mainly practice Tibetan Buddhism. Marco polo 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics is the language of God

How old is this idea? I understand the Egyptians believed in a kind of divine geometry, and that the Pythagoreans had a kind of mystical mathematics, but when was the first time someone suggested that mathematics was not only a divine science, but also a language in and of itself?

Thanks very much - I realise this is a bit of a curly question - any responses would be appreciated Adambrowne666 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the history of ideas, mathematics as a language was a conception of the mid-17th century: see this review of Einstein's Heroes: Imagining the World Through the Language of Mathematics by Robyn Arianrhodat, at American Scientist Online. Not really a question for us humanities folk. --Wetman 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics, as we understand it, did not exist until recently. Descarte linked geometry with algebra in a special way. Lord Napier gave us decimal numbers. Fibonnacci brought Hindu Arabic numbers to the West. Ancient Greeks thought in terms of number and geometry, making discoveries linking modelling and observation, but not necessarily practise. Thales of Miletus made some fabulous discoveries, according to Aesop.

However, for your question, there is an assumption of a singular god? That is a modern concept. The middle ages saw the Christian church (with monks) link with learning. The statement is suggestive of a renaiscance figure. Possibly Kepler, who wrote of the Harmony of the Spheres, or Isaac Newton, who wrote Principia Mathematica. Kepler would be sincere, Newton more wry. Unlikely to be Galileo, who was hostile through experience, to the church. DDB 11:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Galileo stated that mathematics is the language in which God wrote the universe. DDB 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Galileo_Galilei#Scientific_methods . ---Sluzzelin 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to take issue with DDB's implication that the ancient Greeks did not practice "Mathematics, as we understand it." The proofs in Euclid, based on stated axioms and demonstrative reasoning, and concerning mathematical objects (points, lines, triangles, numbers, etc.) that are very clearly abstract mathematical constructs, are ample proof of this. (As to the more religious notion that mathematical reality, e.g. number, can be some kind of higher principle of the world, I think you'll find that first & strongest among the Pythagoreans.) Wareh 17:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wareh, I respect you, your work and your viewpoint. However, my statement regarding Math praxis among Greeks is orthodox. Morris Kline detailed differences in his work Mathematical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972. While there are surface similarities of study and understanding as regards Euclid's Geometry, in fact, theory and assumption are quite different, so that Zeno's Paradox would today be understood in terms of continuity and the concept of infinite, in Ancient Greek days it was a type of koan. While the Pythagorean school was religious in nature, this is not overstated. Teaching and learning among Greeks was subject to the great dialectic, and so the schism both describes and overstates practical knowledge. Don't forget, Hypatia was pagan, and the Greeks predate the belief in one god. DDB 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All excellent and enlightening answers - you have a point, Wetman, about it being a science question, but I think this shows I was correct to go to the Humanities Desk with it. DDB, are you also referring to the fact that the word mathematics was once used to refer to something broader than it does now? - didn't it used to mean just 'knowledge' or 'science', and that's where words like polymath arise from? Adambrowne666 09:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Our mathematics article discusses the etymology of the word - it says, in part, "The word "mathematics" (Greek: μαθηματικά or mathēmatiká) comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which means learning, study, science, and additionally came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times". As for the original question, I think it depends entirely on how broadly you define the terms mathematics, language and God. We have an article on mathematics as a language that relates the modern concepts of mathematics and language. In a broad sense, it seems plausible that the ancient Egyptians may have attached some spiritual significance to the methods of arithmetic and geometry that they used to design and build their pyramids, but I don't think we have any firm evidence for such beliefs. Gandalf61 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, shoulda thought there might be an article on it. Thanks again. Adambrowne666 09
14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sects In Sikhism?

Does Sikhism have sects or schools like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism?

The article Sikhism lists several Sikh or Sikh-related sects (near the end of the article) whose practices or beliefs differ from those of mainstream Sikhs. This implies that there is a mainstream, or orthodox, sect, and some non-mainstream offshoots. Marco polo 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Eastern Christian Church

Is there such sect as Independent Eastern Christian Church?

I cannot find evidence of an organized sect with that name. There are, however, a number of independent eastern Christian sects or churches. Marco polo 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In Eastern Orthodoxy, some state churches are autocephalous, "self-headed". --Wetman 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)