From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< April 10	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 12 >

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 1 April 11 1.1 Escanaba in da Moonlight 1.2 John Yoo and the National Lawyers' Guild 1.3 Corporate government 1.4 Poland and the Outbreak of the Second World War 1.5 Gorky story 1.6 US recognition of a UDI before Kosovo? 1.7 Companies greater than GDP 1.8 Deterministic excuses 1.9 Murdoch and Marxism 1.10 Overleaf 1.11 Who does this Indian picture represent? 1.12 Wagner the Philosopher 1.13 Tolstoyan view of history 1.14 Dead Sea Scrolls 1.15 Hume and Mills 1.16 The symbiotic relationship between the media and the government. 1.17 A low-powered radio broadcaster for the spies?

[edit] April 11

[edit] Escanaba in da Moonlight

What is the first song in Escanaba in da Moonlight called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen it, but if you could provide sample lyrics, perhaps someone else might know which song you're talking about. (BTW, while I was doing a quick search for a soundtrack listing, I ran across a link to the album For Diehards Only by Da Yoopers - your song may be on there, or on another Da Yoopers album.) -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Yoo and the National Lawyers' Guild

What was the tally for the National Lawyers' Guild vote to sanction John Yoo, what exactly passed and what are the case numbers and judges of the two (more?) war crimes cases? Also, are the Berkeley kids sitting in in his office? 75.61.107.140 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the National Lawyers Guild site. Reading newsreports, John Yoo's present at a legal forum was greeted with protests by Berkeley students. I heard Mr. Yoo discuss torture and the Patriot Act at the National Constitution Center. The National Lawyers Guild may state it disagrees with Mr. Yoo's assessment of the legality of torture. I certainly disagree with his view. If Boalt Law School were to dismiss him b/c of his work, it would be an outrageous act against free speech, academic freedom and the role of a major public university. Indeed, those who disagree with him vehemently would then champion his cause. I don't see what possible standing National Lawyer Guild has to fire him. His views are within reason. Any move to censure him would upset more people than their disagreement with his views. 75Janice (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate government

Hey guys. I was thinking about nationalisation, especially in Britain in the 1960s, and I wondered why governments don't run for-profit corporations. I can see there may be ethical issues due to regulation etc, but that could easily be curtailed by law. So why do governments not run the railways in the manner of a for-profit company, with the intention of decreasing the tax burden through use of revenue? I'm sure there are multiple reasons why this is unfeasible, at least to the extent that I would propose it, but what are these reasons? Thanks in advance. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments have run as a business (some still do). If you want to be positive about it, you can argue that letting the government compete with private industry is a conflict of interest since the government regulates industry. It will certainly have difficulty regulating itself. If you want to be cynical, you can argue that the government cannot compete in private industry as it has a long track record of over-managing everything to the point that it goes three times over budget and four times past due. -- kainaw™ 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Crown corporations of Canada. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments frequently do that, often when they have ownership of a company they don't really want to control. For example the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was run as a trading fund for a while before it was (partly) sold off. The point was that the government didn't want to be running it, but no-one would have bought it in the state it was in initially. British Airways and British Petroleum were essentially run as for-profit organisations for many years prior to their privatization. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent BBC Radio 4 documentary on this called "Nationalise it!". It is available as a podcast [[1]]. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Norway are doing! The oil industry in those countries is nationalised and the huge profits are being spent on improving public services. Britain on the other hand prefers to spend its oil profits on CEO's wages :-) Cambrasa 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that certain public services like public transport, healthcare and education aren't run for-profit is that the government wants to provide them at a cheaper price than the market clearing price. The justification being that a) the poor should have access and b) these services are merit goods that create positive externalities, ie. they benefit society as a whole and their macroeconomic benefits (such as a healthier workforce and avoidance of traffic congestion), outweigh the microeconomic costs incurred by running them at a loss. Cambrasa 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the part about nationalisation, but why don't governments market military technology? Or research science that's government funded? The NHS must have at least some research being done by its staff, that could then be sold off in other countries and used to fund the NHS in the UK. Or the government could invest money in tourist industries or something. I don't know the economics of it but surely the government could run a competitive company alongside others. Or would that be too risky? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Governments do, or certainly did market military technology. The Challenger tank (UK main battle tank) was designed and developed in the first instance for the Shah of Iran by UK Ministry of Defence R and D, and built in a UK Royal Ordnance Factory, under the name Shir Iran. It became Challenger after the Iranian revolution left the UK govenment with no buyer. SaundersW (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Qinetiq 79.66.105.94 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, some governments do run for-profit businesses; in Britain, for example, the Post Office has historically been run profitably and in Poland the sale of alchohol is a government monopoly. I suspect that the answer is simply economic fashion; what is seen as the failure of the nationalised industries (tragedy of the commons) has given way to a fashion for privatisation and competition, which is now, apparently, more-or-less mandated by the EU (at least in the case of the Post Office). Part of the problem has been, I suspect, that governments try to protect their businesses by imposing monopolies; whilst, again taking the example of Britain, this does not apply in the case of the oil industry, petrol is extortionately taxed so, whilst the consumer benefits from competition between oil companies, he loses through government taxation.

I believe that in Barcelona and Denmark, public services such as rubbish collection and the fire brigade are put out to public tender.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If a government decides to run a profitable enterprice, most of the times it ends up being a monopoly, thus promoting unfair competition among the privately owned companies.This is mostly because they are protected by the law.To avoid such occurencess most governments own only part of some profit making companies or in most cases they dont engage in profitable businesess.

[edit] Poland and the Outbreak of the Second World War

Is there any way that the invasion of Poland in 1939 could have been avoided? Was there no possibility of a peaceful agreement between Poland and Germany? What I am asking, in short, is there any way in which the Second World War could have been avoided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.104.193 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you have read Invasion of Poland (1939) and Causes of World War II. The Nazi Party had assumed power with a declared policy of obtaining Lebensraum to the east for the German people. The party's policy responded in part to German resentment over the loss of territory to Poland and the Free City of Danzig in the Treaty of Versailles. There was no way that this policy could be reconciled with Poland's territorial integrity. Germany's determination to provoke war with Poland was demonstrated by the Gleiwitz incident, which Poland could not have foreseen or prevented. Probably the only way that Poland could have prevented the invasion would have been to submit to Germany's territorial demands and to accept the status of a German vassal. Even if Poland had surrendered in this way, it is unlikely that World War II could have been avoided. One of Germany's major strategic goals was to secure access to a reliable supply of petroleum, most likely in the Middle East or the Caspian Basin. A subservient Poland's resources would probably have been harnessed for a drive to the southeast, which would inevitably have brought Soviet and/or Western military resistance. (Foreseeing such resistance, Germany might have first attacked France, as it in fact did after consolidating its eastern front.) Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the invasion of Poland probably could have been avoided-though possibly not the Second World War-if the country had acceded to German requests for the reincorporation of the Free City of Danzig into the Reich, along with an extra-territorial transit route through the Polish Corridor to East Prussia. There were those in the German government, most notably Herman Göring, who were anxious to reach agreement with the Poles.

Hitler met Josef Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, and most important voice in the government, at the Berghof in January 1939, to discuss the outstanding issues between the two countries. But Beck was obdurate, saying that Polish public opinion would resist any further concessions on Danzig. After Joachim von Ribbentrop returned empty-handed from a visit to Warsaw later that month, Hitler's policy changed from one of friendly overtures to one of pressure and veiled threats. As part of this process the destruction of what remained of the Czech state was accelerated, with Slovakia being turned into a German puppet on Poland's southern flank. Hitler also gave final authorisation for the preparation of Fall Weiss, the plan for military action against Poland, to be implemented if diplomacy failed. It was the British guarantee to Poland, following soon after the German occupation of Prague, which made the Second World War not only inevitable but also determined its early shape and course.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if Beck had given way to German pressure. Poland would have certainly have survived as a nation-at least for the time being-, though in the German orbit, a fate surely better than what was to follow. Yes, it would have survived, even if only as a satellite; but it would have been drawn into a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Considering that the pre-war borders of Poland were dangerously close to Moscow, and considering also that the Poles would have been obliged to allow the passage of German troops through their territory, as the Romanians and other Axis allies were to do, it is possible that Stalin would have ordered some kind of pre-emptive attack on eastern Poland. In any event, it is almost impossible to imagine, given German ambitions in the east, that some kind of Second World War would not have happened. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Peace is a valuable and desirable thing. Our generation, blood-drained in wars, surely deserves a period of peace. But peace, like almost everything in this world, has its price, high but definable. We in Poland do not know the notion of peace at any price. There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and states which is priceless. And that thing is honour. — Józef Beck

And this why the invasion on Poland could not heve been avoided. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with Clio the Muse. Hitler and Stalin had already agreed to dismember Poland with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and war from (at least) that point on was inevitable. The effect of that treaty was anyway only an insurance policy that the Russians and the Germans wouldn't come to blows. There were already enough ethnic Germans within the Polish borders for Hitler to create a causus belli whenever he wished, and there were obvious flashpoints in Silesia, Danzig, and Posnan; he held the cards in his hand to start a war whenever he wished. What could, perhaps, have stopped the war at an earlier stage was if Britain and France had attacked Germany's western borders during the phony war; that would almost certainly have required Hitler to stop offensive operations in the East and, given the drubbing that the Soviets got from the Poles in the previous decade, it's unlikely (I believe) that Stalin would have invaded Poland on his own. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what it is that you are disagreeing with, Major Bonkers; Hitler had decided as far back as April to go to war with Poland; the August pact with the Soviets merely ensured that he would not also have to go to war with the Stalin before he was ready. Yes, a serious French attack in the west (it would take months before the British Army was on the Continent in sufficient force) would certainly have caused difficulties for the Germans, though I can see no reason why operations in the east would have been halted. After all, the French would have been obliged to advance on a narrow front to the north of Alsace, forced their way through the West Wall and the Rhine beyond that, by which time the war in the east would have been over. As it was the actual offensive caused no alteration whatsoever to the German timetable in Poland. The war might also have been halted at an early stage if Hitler had dropped dead from indigestion; but he didn’t.

Much had changed since the Polish-Soviet War of 1920. For one thing the Red Army had expanded and modernised, with tanks, artillery and aircraft in far greater quantities than those available to the Poles. It's really impossible to say what Stalin would have done in the event of Polish incorporation into the Axis. But the advance of German troops to the existing Soviet border is unlikely to have been viewed with equanimity. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; perhaps we're not that far apart; but the minimal activities on Germany's Western borders ensured that she had a free hand on her Eastern borders. Certainly the British, who were dropping leaflets at this stage (leading Noel Coward to quip that perhaps we were trying to bore the Germans to death) could have done more, as could have the French, who did little more than enjoy a brief picnic inside Germany's borders. I'm not a great fan of hypothetical history; I suspect that you're the same! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorky story

Hello. I remember reading a story by Maxim Gorky in which one of the characters is called Help or Helping or Helpful, something like that. I've forgotten the title. Does it sound familiar to any of you? S Brake (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gorky's short story is called Chums, S Brake, the chums in question being Hopeful and Jig-Leg. You will find it in any edition of the Collected Stories of Maxim Gorky. My own copy is that edited by Avram Yarmolinsky and Baroness Moura Budeberg, published by Citadel Press. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US recognition of a UDI before Kosovo?

Hello all,

As part of my interest in the former Yugoslavia, I've been following the events out of Kosovo. As we speak, the US has recognized the area and has opened up an embassy. This has lead me to wonder. Before Kosovo, when was the last time the US recognized a countries Unilateral Declaration of Independence? The candidates in my mind are Ireland, the Baltic states, and Rhodesia. However my reading of the Declaration of Independence (Ireland) article says the USSR was the only country to recognize. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia) seems to say that no country recognized their UDI. The US State Department's Background Notes seem to interfere that the Baltic States were recognized after WWI and don't mention a UDI. So after this, I'm stuck. Thanks for any help. - Thanks, Hoshie 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoshie, when Indonesia declared independence from the Netherlands in August 1945 it was almost immediately recognised by the United States, though it took a four year struggle before the Dutch were willing to make a similar concession. I can't think of any other examples offhand, though I assume there must have been early recognition of the Republic of Texas in its UDI from Mexico. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel of course is a bit later, 1948, the only one where the USA is listed as the first recognizer in the table in Declaration of independence. But that doesn't seem to be the question. From the table there are a good number dating later, many from the breakup of Yugoslavia and earlier, the USSR. The latest is Montenegro in 2006, according to its article "Montenegro declared independence on June 3, 2006 making it the newest fully recognized country in the world."John Z (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio and John, Thanks for your help. I had suspected Israel eariler, but I would have never guessed Indonesia. Thanks again. - Thanks, Hoshie 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Companies greater than GDP

If the worth of companies, owned fully or in part by the state (like banks), is greater than the GDP of the country, what is this the cause of, and/or the symptoms of? Scaller (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The worth of a company is its value, whereas the GDP of a country is (vaguely) it's income. So that would be like you owning a house that was more than your annual income. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deterministic excuses

Existentialist believe that people are responsible for their behavior and consequently no deterministic excuses are allowed. However, how do existentialists deal with people that endured hardship, are taking drugs or suffer from some kind of phobia? Mr.K. (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. I don't call myself an existentialist per se but I do believe in taking responsibility for your own life (or in modern American parlance, 'owning' a situation). So, to wit:

• Enduring hardship is a great way to build character, making your life richer thenceforth.
• Taking drugs: Andrew Weil#Medical philosophy is a good reference point, have a look.
• Suffering from phobia: This is just another form of hardship. Something to be overcome, that will make you a stronger and deeper person in the long run. Worst case scenario is that you'll only overcome such hardships by passing on, but there's no reason to think that death is something to be feared or avoided. Think of it as a fresh start by the obliteration of the present self. Although such a notion is unproveable at best, if it's a lie, it's a useful lie.

It's been said that the only unforgivable sin is boredom, and I tend to agree that boredom is the worst possible human condition. But if you're enduring hardship, taking drugs, or suffering from phobia, you're likely not bored. So things could always be worse! Although, as Nietzsche wrote, he who guards himself completely against boredom deprives himself of the most refreshing internal spring, or something like that. So really, in the end, it's all good. Vranak (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Vranak. However, I still don't have an explanation about how we can talk about choosing what we are if there are so many external factors influencing what we are. Some people don't have to endure hardship. Can they still build character? Mr.K. (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we all have only one thing: the present moment. Whatever problems or issues need addressing most urgently will be on our minds, in that moment. It's pretty much automatic to be moving forward. You had this issue of existentialism and free will on your mind so you came here to confer. Conferring with others is a good way to move forward. So is thinking things through with yourself. So is sleeping, and allowing your subconscious to plough forward. It's a piecemeal, long-term process. And even despairing and breaking down and throwing a tantrum all serve their purposes. Vranak (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Andrew Weil is a good reference point to talk about anything. He may be a alumnus from Harvard, he may be a physician, but he widely considered just a charlatan. WikiWiking (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Widely considered? I suppose you must be one of those who considers consensus gentium as good grounds for knowledge. I don't. Regardless, for an alleged charalatan, Dr. Weil sure makes some good oatmeal.[2]

Still, I am interested in knowing exactly who it is who considers Dr. Weil a charlatan, and how their interests are threatened by his ideas about health. No doubt anyone profiting from pharmacology (most researchers and doctors) would have reason to decry him as a charalatan, especially if what he says has merit. Regardless, the truth will out. Vranak (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

hmm, about Weil, I found a link on his talk page that states he endorses homeopathy, which is essentially an enormous con-job, and his page states that he believes "mainstream" (which is to say, real) medicine should only be used in a "crisis", and 'alternative' (which is to say, unproven) medicine should be used for "prevention and and health maintenance". So based on the fact that he is a promoter of folk remedies and psuedo-science, appears to promote conspiracy theories about the nature of pharmacuetical companies and even believes that mushrooms contain "lunar energy", it is fair to call him at best a charlatan and more likely a crank. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vranak, you are right pointing out that consensus gentium is no good ground for knowledge. However, I didn't say that he is a charlatan because everybody says so. It is simply true that many consider him a charlatan. They must not be right, but believing in a sort of 'lunar energy' triggers my suspicious if this guy is a lunatic. Further reading doesn't help to steer me away from this position. If you come along some real discovery of him, I would, of course, reconsider what I said. WikiWiking (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to try to convince anyone who would put 'Andrew Weil' and 'charlatan' in the same sentence that doing so is in error. I'm sure Mr. K has looked at Dr. Weil's ideas about drugs and come to his own conclusions – that is my interest.

That said, Dr. Weil's ideas about mushrooms having 'lunar energy' is perhaps a little too cute to be considered acceptable, so I can see why professionals might be a little leary of him and his writings. Vranak (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never really been into the Satre school of existentialism myself so I can't say how they'd deal with it, but it seems that the conflict between environmental factors and self-determination can be resolved if one takes the view that the environmental factors are actually irrelevant to the creation of one's self. Not in the sense that they do not affect who you are, but in the sense that it is not what made you that it is important but what you make yourself that truly counts. Existence precedes essence may be a useful page. The important thing to remember is that in the eyes of the existentialist we are essentially able to escape the trappings of our birth and childhood and become the person we want to be. They may miss the point that the person we want to be is likely shaped by our childhood, but is our ability to transcend these difficulties that makes us human. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume, Mr K, that you must have been reading Existentialism is a Humanism? Though more accessible than some of Sartre's other philosophical musings, it is not necessarily the best introduction to the forms of existentialist thought. Remember, too, that existentialism is so much more than the thought of Jean Paul Sartre, and has roots going back well into the nineteenth century, not just in formal philosophical discourse, but in literature.

The important point to bear in mind about existentialism is that there are no pre-determined meanings, nothing that that can any way explain or shape the course of each individual life. The choice is not between determinism and responsibility, but determinism and freedom. Even people in the midst of hardship, or taking drugs or suffering from some form of phobia or mental illness, if you prefer, have choices to make, choices that are not predictable or preordained. Indeed, can you imagine anything less predictable than the life-patterns of many drug addicts? People in the midst of hardship or illness are also faced with the same existential dilemmas as anyone else, possibly even more, since they are confronted often with dilemmas that may expose the very roots of their existence

Let me give you some specific examples from pre-existential literature, of writers who anticipated the kind of arguments later to be made by the existential school. Consider the figure of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. In the midst of hardships that carry him close to the threshold of starvation he makes a choice, a crucial choice, which opens up a whole series of possible alternatives. He does not have to murder the old money lender and her sister, but he does. He believes himself to be beyond conventional notions of morality, to be an incarnation of Napoleonic amorality; but he is not. By his actions, by his free actions, he is pushed deeper and deeper into paranoia, into a crisis of meaning and of faith. His only resolution is to accept that path towards his personal redemption is in suffering.

Take another example, again from nineteenth century Russian literature, this time from the work of Leo Tolstoy. In his novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich he depicts a character who is the exact opposite of Raskolnikov, a man who is successful and well-placed in the world; a man full of self-conceit and self-satisfaction. But that world in all its artificiality falls apart when Ivan Illych develops an unnamed terminal illness. Everything that was important before, even his own family, become hateful to him. In the face of this great crisis of existence his life appears to have had no meaning at all. It is only in confronting his mortality that he eventually achieves a deeper sense of understanding and acceptance.

Existentialism is not just how we perceive ourselves, but how we are perceived by the 'other', in a process, perhaps, of mutual shaping. Think of Gregor Samsa in Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis, who goes through stages of self-reappraisal and reappraisal by those around him; or the character of Meursault in Albert Camus' The Stranger, who seems to be carried along on a wave of indifference, only finding authenticity in himself in the face of death.

Returning now to Sartre-though I do stress that he an existentialism are not interchangeable-you might want to glance through Saint Genet, his account of the life Jean Genet. It is in this that you could find no better account of the way in which choices are made, and how they are conditioned by the worst forms of hardship, with outcomes that cannot always, if ever, be anticipated. The following passage I took entirely at random;

Remember the story of a child from the state orphanage fostered to brutal peasants who beat him and starved him. At the age of twenty he could not read, so they made him a soldier. When he left the Army, he had learned nothing except how to kill. So he killed. He said: 'I am a wild animal'. When they asked him at the end of the trial if he had anything to add, he said: 'The prosecutor asked for my head, and will doubtless have it. But if he had led my life, then perhaps he would be in my place and I, if I had led his, would be putting the case against him.' The court was appalled: everyone in it had glimpsed an abyss, something like a naked existence, undifferentiated, able to be anything and which, according to circumstances, became Hoffman, Solleilland or the Public Prosecutor-human existence. I am not saying that it is true: it isn't that judge who would become that criminal. But the argument carried weight and will continue to do so: he was pardoned, learned to read, did read and changed. But what is important in all this is the vacillation of the self that occurs when certain consciousnesses open before our eyes like a gaping maw: what we had thought to be our most intimate being suddenly takes on the appearance of something contrived.

We must indeed imagine Sisyphus happy. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murdoch and Marxism

How could anyone as intelligent and sensitive as Iris Murdoch ever have been attracted to Marxism? It occurs to me her passage here might have been similar to that of Simone Weil? Would anyone agree with this? Codliveroil (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That depends - was the veiled assertion that Marxists are naturally thick-witted and insensitive deliberate, or merely the result of poor phrasing? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With the experiences we've had in this century of Marxism and its detrimental effects, it is easy to say that it is a bad idea. But many of the most intelligent people ofthe early 20th century were attracted to Marxism, primarily because of the clear rich/poor divide and the awful working conditions in the very, very laissez-faire marketplace. Many people of the time, not just Marxists, did not realise the negative effects it would have on development, and as such thought that socialism or one of its many variants would provide a modern utopia for all its citizens. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are not so impressed with the workings of early 21st century capitalism and consider that Marx has some still-valid critiques, even if most of his predictions and prescriptions have been proven wrong. I'm not well versed in Murdoch's political positions, but I think that in her later years she tried to rescue the baby from the dirty bath water. Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, Codliveroil, Iris lived in a time, and belonged to an intellectual milieu, when to be a Communist was almost de rigueur; a moral reflex to the seemingly irresistible march of Fascism across Europe. Her fellow CPers at Oxford included the likes of Robert Conquest, later chronicler of Stalinist atrocities, and Denis Healey, a future minister in the British government. It might even be said this was a time when to be a Communist was indeed the sensitive and intelligent thing. But it could not last. Sensitive and intelligent people may have joined the Communist Party, just as sensitive and intelligent people had a tendency not to remain in the Communist Party. By 1945 she was reading Arthur Koestler, whose depiction of the cynical betrayals of Communism in Darkness at Noon helped cast light on her own intellectual darkness, as it did with so many others. Yes, her thought did begin to move in a more Christian direction, but not, I think, to the same mystical extremes of Simone Weil. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overleaf

Is it okay to write 'overleaf' when referring to the next page/opposite page, that is actually facing the page on which 'overleaf' is written? ----Seans Potato Business 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overleaf" means the back of the sheet on which "overleaf" is written. To indicate the facing or opposite page, I would refer to the "facing page" or "opposite page". Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to text that follows and ends up on the facing page, (below) should do it. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who does this Indian picture represent?

My wife was given this picture with an ebay purchase from India. The black background is about 18cm by 23cm (7 inches by 9 inches). I am not sure who the picture represents. The snake around the neck makes me think it could be Shiva/Parvati, though it is not one of the canonical images I have come across. There is a picture in our mandir of Arjuna wearing a similar helmet, so it could be Arjuna/Draupadi. My daughter has also suggested Rama/Sita. If anyone can identify this image I would be grateful.

Also does anyone know what kind of leaf it is painted on? Thanks -- Q Chris (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with this page suggests it might be a pipal or Bo tree leaf. SaundersW (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As well as the cobra, the other Shiva symbol is the river (Ganga) falling from the crown of his head. And I think I can see the crescent moon on the front of his helmet. He might be even wearing the traditional antelope skin too. Those symbols seal it for me as a Shiva image. Rama would definitely have a bow and Arjuna would probably have one too. WikiJedits (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not helmet, cloth or hair, I think. WikiJedits (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wagner the Philosopher

It is said that what first brought Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietszche was there mutual admiration for the work of Arthur Schopenhauer. Is there any evidence that Wagner's operatic works were directly affected by Schopenhauer's ideas? I can see some possible influences, especially in Tristan and Isolde, though the water seems a little muddied. Can anyone make the picture clearer? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Case of Wagner might be a good place to start -- suffice to say that Nietzsche eventually grew disenchanted with both Schopenhauer and Wagner. Vranak (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wagner may have read Schopenhauer, Mark, but he sure as hell did not understand Schopenhauer! Perhaps apes also read the great pessimist with as little understanding as they bring to Nietzsche?! Anyway, Wagner, by his own account, read The World as Will and Representation several times, impressed by the idea of music as the striving of the will. But he was equally impressed by the notion of the denial of will. His enthusiasm was expressed in a letter to Franz Liszt: "I have...found a sedative which has finally helped me to sleep at night; it is the sincere and heartfelt yearning for death; total unconsciousness, complete annihilation, the end of all dreams-the only ultimate redemption." He comes closest to Schopenhauer's ideas, as you suggest, in Tristan und Isolde, when the lovers express their longing for their individual existence to end. But Wagner transforms this gloomy abnegation to a climax of erotic love, effectively turning Schopenhauer upside down. Tristan and Isolde do not escape the blind force of Will; they just become yet another link in its ongoing evolution. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great answer, Clio-thanks. I take it that you are not that fond of the Master, then? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to be as detached about him as I can be, Mark, though my opinion is perhaps somewhat coloured by the fact that my father once took my brothers and I to enjoy the delightful pagan excesses of Bayreuth. I have to say I find the plots for most of his music dramas confused and tiresome. For goodness sake, the gold is Alberich's by right! What need for all the silly drama? Clio the Muse (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No it's not - it belongs to the Rhine-maidens! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Major Major, you have obviously never had to sit through a performance of Das Rheingold-lucky you! The gold does not belong to the Rhinemaidens; they are merely the guardians. Having toyed with and rejected the randy dwarf, they are then silly enough to tell him that the gold he sees in the morning light can be claimed, and fashioned into a magic Ring, by whosoever is prepared to curse love. In his anger Alberich duly issues the required curse and takes the gold. The Ring of power he makes from the gold is then stolen from him by Wotan and Loge, using trickery and violence! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, dear Clio (if I may!), I thoroughly enjoy the Ring cycle and I make a point of listening to it at least once a year, but I have to admit that I much prefer recordings of the Howard Goodall English production, so that I can understand what's going on. I have noticed that Wagner-appreciation is mainly a masculine enthusiasm, though; you have to ignore the rather artificial McGuffin of the first Act of Das Rheingold, to which you draw attention, in order to appreciate the rest of this wonderful artistic (and philosophical) achievement. You are, of course, technically right in that the Rhinemaidens are (from memory) described as only guardians of the Rhinegold; but that must beg the question - who are they guarding it for? And, after all, they do get the gold back in the final Act of Gotterdammerung. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tolstoyan view of history

What does Clio the Muse mean by the Tolstoyan view of history? (see Battle of Kiev above)81.129.86.71 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See War_and_Peace#Tolstoy.27s_view_of_history. SaundersW (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Better still, read the original, especially the last thirty odd pages! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh. I tried, I really did, but I finally had to skip to the end. Much as I skipped through all of the talk of Masonry. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Corvus, I hope you did not miss the description of the wolf hunt, Natasha's dance, and the passages dealing with Borodino. There is no comparison in all of literature. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for precision, the original is not a Wikipedia article, but a novel written in French and Russian, an English translation of which may be found here. SaundersW (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely Clio intended the Tolstovian view of history, from what I've known of the Divine Clio. --Wetman (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Her blessing is upon you, Wetman! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SaundersW, you mean Tolstoy wrote the original in French and Russian? Two versions? Or half and half? I do not know myself and am genuinely intrigued. (Or 'ignorant', whichever you prefer). Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 14:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Sea Scrolls

How were the dead sea scrolls dated? Wouldn't this make hypocritical many of those who use the scrolls to argue for Christianity yet believe in creationism?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be hypocrital about those beliefs? I've never seen anybody claim that the DSS date from before the presumed date of the creation. This page dates the DSS to about what I've always thought about them. Far away from 4004BCE. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean think about how they date dinosaurs other stuff which is like really really old.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your questions here. The dinosaurs have nothing to do with the DSS. Creationists and evolutionists would both agree that they were written about 2000 years ago. The DSS really have nothing to do with a pro- or anti-creationist view. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If one already accepts that God made the Earth look a lot older than it is and created the stars more than 6000 light years away with the light already sticking out, why would it be difficult to accept that He made some things give incorrect radiocarbon dating readings? That's seriously small potatoes once you've got talking snakes in your world view. --69.134.125.223 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

He's saying it's hypocritical to accept dating techniques for biblical artifacts but not for dinosaurs. Wrad (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

However, different specific dating techniques are used -- carbon dating would be completely useless for dating dinosaur fossils. On the other hand, even carbon dating turns up dates far older than 6,000 years ago. AnonMoos (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My resident fundie says that these things are placed by God so that belief in God and the infallibility of the Word is by faith alone, without the benefit of proof. But then my resident fundie is also diagnosed psychotic. SaundersW (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

this is an old belief: see Omphalos (theology) 203.221.127.95 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hume and Mills

What were David Hume and Mills thoughts on experience as related to ethics?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is sort of that Hume felt it was a more natural thing were as Mills thought it was learned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women, UhOhFeeling? The short answer is that Hume conceives of morality arising from sentiment; that moral judgements can never be based on reason alone. Mill, I suppose, takes a much more instrumental view, advancing the notion of utility 'as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions'. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The symbiotic relationship between the media and the government.

Trying to find authors as citations for the argument that a symbiotic relationship exists between the media and the government. The media needs the gov't for source information; the gov't needs the media for info dissemination and mobilization. Looking for authors to cite.74.166.0.251 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this like looking for an experiment to prove a specific, original conclusion? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)?

How about this from Walter Karp -“The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the ‘best’ sources.” We could do with, but don't have an article on lapdog journalism to balance our watchdog journalism, a less common canine. Propaganda, News Propaganda and other articles linked therein, like Propaganda model could help a little. More detail in the request could help too, its just a fact that an awful lot of "the news" is just press releases, somebody must have statistics on that. Here's a blog post referring to an NYT article with relevant quotes from Max Frankel and Bob Woodward; their books, autobios could help. More googling suggests these books for the symbiosis idea - Wilbur Schramm, Fred Siebert, and Theodore Perterson, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana, IL; University of Illinois Press, 1956 ) and John C. Merill and S. Jack Odell, Philosophy and Journalism (New York: Longman, 1983 ). People like Woodward, Thomas Friedman and even Seymour Hersh have been criticized for being a bit too cozily symbiotic at times. HTH a littleJohn Z (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A low-powered radio broadcaster for the spies?

In numbers station:

Some governments may not need a numbers station with global coverage if they only send spies to nearby countries.

Unless your country is really poor, I don't see a reason why you run a small numbers station.

Let's say Country A sends a spy to Country B. Would you set up one highly efficient directional antenna pointed at the spy's home at exactly required power? No! You're telling Country B which area to look for the spy.

If Country A's spy agency has money, it would setup a big radio station and cover the whole world. No one would know who's listening.

Then why are there these small stations? -- Toytoy (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be a number of reasons. It is likely that much of the money spent by espionage is highly secret, and so bulding a number of small station is easier to hide than one hugely expensive one. You may not need world coverage. The smaller stations would not be directed at one specific area, they are likely to simply cover a smaller-than-global range. It could be that I am the German secret service and my spies are in both France and Italy. One station could cover both, but there's no need to cover more than that. Or it could be to create a plot device for a nonsensical but still fantastic drama/inadvertent comedy. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed consider Taiwan, I don't think they give anything away by targetting one or more number stations at China. I don't think China is any any doubt they have agents in China. Or Cuba targetting the US. Also consider that if you have one large number station, if it gets bombed (say you go to war), you have no more number station. If you have 5 small number stations spread out over a wider area, you have a larger target area. Even if the number stations are targetting a different area, you may or may not be able to move the antenna to target the area you need to target. And of course you could use small number stations to create a false impression. For if you have 3 number stations, one targetting country X+Y, one targetting Z+A, one targetting B+C but you only have enough agents (or whatever) for country Y+B you may be able to fool countries X, Z, A, C into thinking you have agents there when you don't... Global coverage won't achieve that effect not to mention being a waste. Ultimately of course, no one really knows what countries are doing, or why they are doing it.