Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< April 18 << Mar | April | May >> April 20 >
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] April 19

[edit] What is the average salary of a middle-class Indian in India?

Does anyone know what is the average salary (in U.S. dollar or in Rupee) of a middle-class Indian in India now? Can you please provide some sources or a link if you can. Thanks. 72.140.11.75 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that would depend on how you define "middle class". Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To me, a middle class Indian would be the petit-bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeois. He or she would have a good secured job and a high education. So what is the average salary (in U.S. dollar or in Rupee) of a middle class Indian in India now? 72.140.11.75 (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
From some quick googling, I gather that there are around 330 million people in India's middle class. Apparently the GDP per person is $2,700, so I'd hazard a guess that to be considered middle class you'd want to be on about that. Bear in mind that India has the fastest growing average salaries in the world, so the figures will be changing all the time. This from 2001 states that a rickshaw driver on $115/month was considered lower-middle class. The econmony has grown enormously since then, though, so if I had to guess a firm figure it would be around $4,000/year at least before you're being considered "petit-bourgeoisie". Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
From a recent article in The Guardian entitled "Streetwise, techno-savvy and hungry for it: my young cousin embodies the spirit of modern India" by Neil Biswas:
By the age of 21, Tuntai was already earning a larger monthly salary than his uncles - middle-class, university-educated men who had worked for 40 years to get to their well-respected positions in the Indian civil service and the steel industry. The resentment and fear this inequality engenders between the generations is palpable. I feel for my uncles, as they look at a world changing so fast that they hardly know which way to turn. Western-style shopping malls now spring up every month in Calcutta. It's a Brave New India, and it's merciless as well. There is no time for those left behind.
Hope this helps. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Bank of Poland

Does the National bank of Poland act as the deposit/retail bank for Government departments or do the departments use one of the mainsteam retail banks?

I think the NBP website has the answer to your question. — Kpalion(talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair

I've always been a big fan of Tony Blair, but as we all know he took quite a beating in his last few years in office. My question is how will Tony Blair be judged by history? How will he compare to other Prime Ministers? If factors that determine retrospective judgement of him are not yet resolved, please use your most educated guesswork. Thank you all.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Questions asking for opinions belong on forums and chat groups, not reference desks. -- kainaw™ 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Badly, very badly-at least if I have anything to do with it! He involved my country in one of the most unjustifiable and unnecessary wars in our history; he laid the foundations for the dismantling of the United Kingdom; he passed ever more powers to the European super-state; he introduced levels of cynicism and manipulation into British politics far in excess of any previous head of government; he turned principle into spin, manipulating the whole system of government into his own self-serving ends. I suspect his greatest achievment was to give way to the utterly charmless Gordon Brown, a brilliant exercise in self-promotion, which has served to make him look good in retrospect, casting a fog over his many errors! You asked for an opinion, Michael; well, you've got one. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clio, I always welcome your opinion and I think you make some very good points. I certainly wouldn't say unjustifiable, though I would say too much emphasis was placed on WMDs and not enough on what mattered. And I will point out that while Blair was very pro-Europe he was always an advocate of intergovenmentalism over supranationalism. And kainaw, while wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is a collection of minds who may have access to sources discussing the possible future views of Tony Blair, not to mention their own highly-valued opinions. I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to find out what historians will think of Tony Blair. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


It's hard to know how people will view him in later years because we're still so coloured by the recent past. It's really hard to explain to someone who wasn't there and didn't go through it, but in 1997, for a generation of young people starting to become politically aware and I'm pretty sure for many older people too, it felt like the whole world was going to turn upside down. Revolution was in the air and things could only get better! After a lifetime of the Tories being The Government, Labour was coming in and education, health, social care, everything was going to change, the world was going to become a fairer, better place and dear God it makes me choke to think of it. We strewed his path with palm branches, crying 'Hosannah!'; if we had kept silent, the very stones would have shouted his praises. There is only one way this story can end.
Nobody can live up to what was promised and hoped for, no man could have failed to disappoint. The venom and the bitterness in the accusation that he lied and led us into a pointless war ('Bliar!') only make sense in the context of how we felt before. He let us down, he lied to us. How could he? Say it isn't so.
I suspect you can even blame much of the apparent apathy and distrust towards parliament and politics on this disillusionment. We cared once, but he let us down. It hurt too much for us to invest again. Bastards the lot of them.
Sorry for the florid language, but 'tis little joy to be relieved of the childish ignorance that let us believe the world could change. In summary, it is too recent and feelings are too high to know how history will judge him. Clio, going by her profile, is of exactly the age to have been thoroughly caught up in the exciting times, as so many of us were. Damn, the man was charismatic; I remember watching him interviewed shortly before we actually went to war and experiencing a complete 2+2=5 for a good few minutes. Distance is needed before any sense can be made of the last 10 years. 79.66.106.188 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be more interested to imagine what the historians will make of us silly fools who voted Blair in in the first place, what a mistake THAT was.--Artjo (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I'm shocked at how unqualified the disdain for him is. He really wasn't that bad, you know. 79.86, do you think then that historians will perhaps blame the messianic status he was afforded for his fall from grace? You're certainly right about his charisma, and I think his public speaking was of the highest order. His 2003 address to Congress is a must-read. But do you all really think that Iraq (which could still turn out well) will overshadow the advances Britain made under him? Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, the Good Friday agreement, the Human rights Act, Civil Partnerships, do you think these will all be overlooked? Sorry if I sound like I'm just trying to push Blairism on everyone, it just astounds me that there are so few kind words for the man. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How very interesting. Have you read the guidelines at the top of the page that say about not starting debates? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you read my bit above? I'm not trying to start a debate. This is the humanities desk, and therefore is likely to contain agood few historians, and hopefully some who have lived through the administrations of other controversial leaders, like Reagan and Thatcher. It stands to reason that they might therefore be able to offer some valid historical insight into the retrospective perception of a modern PM whose actions were widely criticised. Reagan, and to a lesser extent Thatcher are both now seen as crucial in the development of their respective nations and so I was hoping people may be able to say "well, this is comparable to that" or "the introduction of this will be seen as frivolous and wasteful" or something. to quote myself above "I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to find out what historians will think of Tony Blair". I'm aware it is a controversial topic, but I don't think it's too much to ask for an assessment of his Premiership in comparison to those who came before him. He's one of only three leaders I remember having so I don't have much to draw on here. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In what way is soliciting opinions not starting a debate? And if you don't want to debate, why do you offer counter-arguments ("But do you all really think that Iraq (which could still turn out well) will overshadow the advances Britain made under him? Bank of England independence, the minimum wage, the Good Friday agreement, the Human rights Act, Civil Partnerships, do you think these will all be overlooked?")?
As Kainaw pointed out above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and nor is it a chatroom. There are plenty of internet forums where you can go to discuss what people might or might not think about Tony Blair one day, but such idle speculation is not within the remit of the Reference Desk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Asking for opinions has one and only one purpose: debate. This is a reference desk. If you want to know what historians think, ask if anyone has references to what professional historians think. Don't ask for opinions from random Wikipedia editors who may not even know where Europe is located on a world map. -- kainaw™ 18:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but those sentences you quoted end in question marks. It was not a counter-argument but a follow-up question, which I am fairly certain is allowed. The events I mentioned are, whether you like it or not, major political events that happened during his Premiership and that I asked about as i find it difficult to believe they will not be mentioned in the history books. To interpret that as a counter-argument seems ever so slightly over the top. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's one of those odd-shaped countries at the east end of that little sea just above Africa, isn't it? ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling, Bielle, that I might, just might, actually live there; somewhere off the west coast, I believe! I would have thought that anyone who did not know the location of Europe would be well advised not to express an opinion on any matter whatsoever, for all our sakes! Excuse me, everybody, while I descend into fits of uncontrolled laughter! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael, I am a professional historian, and more than delighted to tell you what I think, on this or any other subject. I can’t always supply references though!

It's not so much that you are asking for debate that concerns me. Rather, you are holding up a mirror, expecting to see your own judgements reflected back at you. In your obvious surprise that they are not you are starting to wave the Blair flag; but what about this and what about that? I could, if I wished, offer detailed challenges to your list of Blairite 'achievements', from the supposed independence of the Bank of England to the Human Rights Act, the operation of which, in my experience, is held in almost universal contempt. But what would be the point? History is the only judge, and history tends, in its arbitrary and sweeping way, to take account only of the big picture; and in Blair's case the big picture is not good.

We went to war not in defence of human rights (were they somehow worse in Iraq than, say, Zimbabwe or North Korea?), but in pursuit of non-existent terrorists and illusory weapons of mass destruction. We found a bad situation and we made it infinitely worse. We removed a secular dictator, only to allow the worst forms of fratricidal and religious conflict to emerge. I sincerely hope that things in Iraq 'could still turn out well', as you put it, but do you honestly believe that will make the sacrifice of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives worthwhile? Blair's administration, in its embarrassment over the lies and deceptions that took us to war in the Middle East, tried to hide the true facts, and may very well have hounded an innocent man to his death. In the end I do sincerely believe that he, along with Dubya, Svengali to his Trilby, will stand condemned before the bar of history.

But, yes, you are right; I find it difficult to be objective here. Like a climber, I only see the rock face in front of me, and not the mountain. I grew up during the Blair years, and voted for the first time in the general election of May 2005 (Conservative, if you want to know!). It's too much a part of my life for me to bring my scholarly instincts to bear. In the end the only real response to your question is that given by Zhou Enlai when asked about the historical significance of the French Revolution-'It's too early to say.' Ask me again in twenty years or so, by which time I will have written his biography. For, in the end, history might be no more than what historians say it is! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on many of those points Clio, but I was not "holding up a mirror, expecting to see (my) own judgements reflected back at (me)". I simply brought up the positive side of Blair's reign because it seems incredible that when the history books are being written they will not be mentioned. I asked what historians will think, and then I questioned whether those aspects would really be absent, as all the answers suggested. It is difficult to be objective, but I did think that we'd be capable of at least fair discourse. I understand why people had a problem with my asking this, and I understand that people didn't like my interjections about the social positives Blair brought to our country. The fact is I was bored and on the reference desks all day, so when people replied I was asking for clarifications or further insight. If I sounded like I was expecting to hear my own opinions parroted back at me it is solely because it seems shocking to me that some of the advances that were made under his administration, and the changes in British politics, for better or worse, will be totally overshadowed by Iraq. I think that this demonstrates a large degree of recentism, which is of course to be forgiven in such controversial political events as these. But I accpet that it is best to let the matter go. So sorry, everyone. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael, please do not apologise. Your question had a legitimate and useful purpose. It certainly helped me focus my thoughts. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
One war, Clio? I count six: Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Iraq bombing campaign and invasion, the invasion of Afghanistan and continuing campaign. You might add, in your list of malign legacies, the destruction of the UK's private pensions system, something that will affect Mr. Clarke in due course, unless he manages to get himself onto the Civil Service scheme, and a reversion to the old Labour policies of tax-and-spend; those chickens now rapidly coming home to roost.
Unfortunately, the answer to the question, I suspect, is that John Major was probably the worst peacetime Prime Minister in the UK's history, and, in the lists of Prime Ministers, penultimate only to Lord North. It doesn't help that he came immediately after one of our greatest Prime Ministers - certainly the greatest peacetime Prime Minister. Major's staggering incompetence - the ERM, 'back to basics', splitting his party over Maastricht, inflating the economy just before a recession (in order to win the 1993 election), and so on and so on - succeeded in alienating the party's natural constituency and putting his party out of power for a generation; one shouldn't blame Hague, Howard, and Duncan Smith for not being able to overcome the appalling political legacy left behind by Major. There's line from Shakespeare which sums him up: 'A dwarvish thief, clad in a giant's robes'. By 1997, the choice for voters was more of the same (since the parliamentary Conservative party refused to get rid of him) or try something new; the entire country breathed a sigh of relief on May 2d., 1997. However bad one thinks Blair was (and I tend to agree with Clio's analysis) he was a hundred times better than the only alternative on offer.
See also: Criticism of Tony Blair. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: Giving Melvyn Bragg a peerage and sacrificing the sacred right of Englishmen to kill foxes to deflect opposition from his Iraq policy. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I used to love the excitement of riding to hounds. Sadly not any more. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This might be a bit off topic, but I personally support the intergration of governments. Recently, large, multinational corporations have been able to use their financial clout to commit horrendous deeds and escape with impunity. This is all because governments still operate on a national level, while the corporations can operate on a international level. If governments could be more coherent with each other, they would be able to wipe out these deeds. FromFoamsToWaves (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] date of birth of contemporary garden author alex dingwall-main and bio

want independent bio of contemporary garden author, alex dingwall-main.

"Please" would be nice! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Amen to THAT!--Artjo (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
By "independent" do you mean other than "commercial" (such as would be provided by an author's agent or publisher)? or what? Note that a Reference Desk query or comment is to be signed by typing ~~~~ (see top of page, also about what "results" you can expect from a query here) -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
At your services, oh master: The person has a web site (#2 on the ghit list) which gives an address (Les Barbiers, 84220 Roussillon. Provence, France) and an Email (info@admgarden.com) contact. All I could find out is that he is Scots, looks about 45 and is the author of a small but successful number of books. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] greatest extent of roman empire

I saw on a doco that the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent in 198 AD, which is rubbish, because everyone knows it achieved the milestone under Trajan, in, I think, 116 (or maybe 117, when Trajan died). Why would they have gotten the idea of 198? Is there any place acquired after 117, before 198, which was not held under Trajan? What was the total area of the empire in 117, and 198? I'm basically wondering if their claim, although considered wrong by historians (to the best of my knowledge) is nevertheless defensible on some grounds. thanks in advance, 203.221.126.122 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's simply wrong. The Empire never again reached the size it had under Trajan, some 5.9 million square kilometers. The Emperor in 198 was Septimius Severus, who made no significant additions to its territory. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The land taken by Trajan in 117 was held by the Romans until into the 3rd century. The land gained to bring it to it's largest extent was the thin strip between Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall, in what is now southern Scotland, Which was conquered by both Antoninus Pius and Septimius Severus. This would mean that all the time the Antonine wall was the northern border of the empire, it was very slightly larger than it had been under Trajan.HS7 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, HS7; this is wrong. First, Trajan's Second Dacian War concluded in 106AD, not 117, which was the year of his death. Second, though the Dacian province was held until the third century, until the time of Aurelian, Mesopotamia, Trajan's other great conquest, was abandoned by Hadrian, his successor, and never fully recovered. Severus's campaign in Scotland was from 208 onwards, not 198, and no permanent presence was retained on the Antonine Wall after his withdrawal, the frontier being maintained on the newly repaired wall of Hadrian. The fullest territorial extent of the Empire is detailed in the List of largest empires. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I think it's between Clio on her own and the rest of Wikipedia as a whole who has the biggest knowledge empire on the web. She is clearly the Trajan of the ref desk :)
But I'm still curious: it looks as though they gained quite a bit of territory with the Antonine Wall. After it was built and secured, how big was the empire, or can anyone tell me where I could find out for myself? regards, 203.221.126.94 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother checking the article, if it says different to you, either history or maybe even the article itself must be wrong. but, they did ask for a possible reason why someone might consider that the roman empire was bigger in 198, which I provided. I'm reasonably sure that was what I read somewhere, before I had heard about wikipedia. And unless there is a detailed list somewhere of the sizes of the empire, the only other way I can think of is somehow measuring the area on a map, which could give a rough idea. that's what I would do if I cared, but I'm obsessive like that sometimes.HS7 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
HS7, I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument here, which, forgive me for saying so, seems altogether quite muddled. Let me make the point again: Mesopotamia was abandoned by Hadrian and never fully recovered, which means that the Empire was smaller at all subsequent dates, and in all subsequent reigns, even when the expansion northwards to the Antonine Wall is taken in to consideration. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
203.221, I hardly think it accurate to describe that part of southern Scotland and northern England between the Antonine and Hadrian Walls as 'quite a bit of territory'. In all it amounts to some 30,000 square kilometers. Now, compare that with the size of Mesopotamia at approximately 400,000 square kilometers! So, what this means is that, taking into account Hadrian’s abandonment of this province, and the later minor acquisitions in northern Britain, the Empire had declined from some 5.9 million square kilometers at the time of Trajan, to some 5.53 million square kilometers at the time of Antoninus Pius. In 198 the territory would have declined still further, to approximately 5.5 million square kilometers. With best wishes from Marcus Ulpius Nerva Trianus, aka Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that anyone is ever going to read this again, but I'm going to say this anyway. A while ago i vaguely rmember being taught the history of the roman empire that i described in my first comment here, that of the empire being larger at around 200AD than under Trajan, which it turns out was wrong, and I then suggested that the makers of the inaccurate documentary mentionned in the question could have thought the same thing, and not bothered to check here to see that they were wrong.HS7 (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who was this painter?

Alright, I know this is super obscure, and I probably won't get any useful answers anyway, but I just want to throw this out there:

There is this one painter I vividly remember, he was really brilliant. Then something or other happened, and he lost a significant portion of his eyesight, but he continued painting. I remember what I found really shocking was how bizarre and beautiful the color choices were after he'd lost his sight. I know there isn't much to go on, but I'd really appriciate a push in the right direction of this guy.

Cecilia Todd? or maybe Claude Monet? Dismas|(talk) 05:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My first guess would be Monet. His blindness was relatively temporaray, in that it was due, I believe, to cataracts. The condition was operable. There was a colour change from paiintings before and after the surgery, but I don't recall any great evidence of a new sense of colour. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Beethoven? --69.134.124.30 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Beethoven is to music as Monet is to painting? That was true even without being deaf or blind. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is probably not Jean-Julien Lemordant (I think he stopped painting when he went blind, though he might have started again after his sight was restored). But you might want to take a look anyway. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought the cataract paintings in the documentary looked terrific, but Monet didn't really appreciate them and destroyed some or most. Dismas' article explains that he did this to his work at times anyway, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably not what you are looking for, but I think you would really like the amazing story "The Case of the Colorblind Painter" by Oliver Sacks there is a link to it on the Cerebral achromatopsia page. Saudade7 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question about crime

Has there ever been a case where a person has been charged with attempting to commit a crime against a fictional entity?--Goon Noot (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that copyright infringement counts, but it's very common. Perhaps vandalism of a representation of the fictional character? Or if you want to be a stereotypical cynical athiest, blasphemy was a very serious crime until recently. Or actually, I've just found this which explains a man was jailed for 20 years for possessing cartoon child pornography, although the link it gives for the article is dead. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the man was Dwight Whorley. It's not really a crime against a fictional character, but it's close. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but even in the crime you mentioned, he actually possessed a physical object. I was thinking something more like proclaiming a death threat against a person that doesn't exist.--Goon Noot (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. It probably has happened, but I'm struggling to find any examples. Actually, I doubt anyone has ever been charged with it, but I'm sure threats have been made. Although I doubt anyone who knew that an entity was fictional would bother to threaten it. How could you kill Mickey Mouse? Defamation has been successfully prosecuted in court though, I believe in the 1970s Disney sued someone who was manufacturing Mickey Mouse caricatures that defamed the mouse/Disney and won. And Coke threatened the people who came up with the CoCaine t-shirts with legal action. Those are both more crimes against the copyright of the company than the actual fictional entity, although as the entity is what constitutes the copyright you could make a case for those. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There have been lots of cases recently of people committing virtual crimes in MMORPGs. In 2007 a Dutch teen was arrested for stealing virtual furniture.[1] We even have an article: Virtual crime. These crimes can range from virtual theft to virtual murder and rape or even virtual terrorism. Bare in mind that because many gamers are now spending huge sums of real money of virtual objects virtual crime can actually financially harm people. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The personhood of a corporation is a legal fiction. Corporations own physical assets but a corporation per se has no physical existence. Thus, you could reasonably consider any crime committed against a corporation as a crime against a fictional entity. Of course a legal fiction isn't exactly in the same category as literary fiction, although there are similarities. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Second Life Avatar Sued for Copyright Infringement. Video game fan asks court to ban real sloth and greed from World of Warcraft. Corvus cornixtalk 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not quite the same thing, but it is possible in English law to commit a crime by aiding and abetting someone to do something which is not itself illegal. Suicide was decriminalised in the Suicide Act 1961, but assisting someone to commit it is still a criminal offence. Karenjc 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed tree diagram depicting the major religions

So, I happened to catch a Rush video clip on YouTube on Pharyngula. It shows nicely how most of the major religions are divided. Does anyone know of a nice, plain diagram of this? I tried looking for one, but my Google-fu is not as strong as I thought. Hopefully, it should be as complete as possible. I'm just looking for a nice, straightforward way to visualize all the several religions in circulation. — Kieff | Talk 06:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean like a family tree of religions? Easy enough with Judaism and its offshoots, I'd imagine, but it probably gets much harder with the really old religions like Hinduism. Not all religions cross over enough for it to really be complete, or it least it wouldn't have only one trunk. So many ancient religions never came into contact with each other, and I'd be sceptical of any idea that all religions evolved from one original sect. A "nice, plain diagram of this" would be impossible, that video is a massive oversimplification. There are too many religions and not enough overlap to make it possible, sorry. Although this university seems to have set drawing one as an exam question. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a pair of rather handsome diagrams among those in the list at this page. If you want to jump straight to them, they are Timeline of world religions: eastern and Timeline of world religions: western. Although they are described as timelines, they also show the evolution of the religions in a tree-like way. --Heron (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Caveat: I just noticed some spelling mistakes in those charts, so you might want to proof-read them before taking them as, er, gospel. --Heron (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Supposedly christianity was influenced by buddhism, so that might be a way to link the two sides of the tree. Which happens to miss out my religon as well as many others, but then you can't have everything, and I guess noone was obsessive enough to try to add them.HS7 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price of bread

I keep on reading stories about how the prices of food are rising. So why aren't they? I don't keep track of this sort of thing, but I know for sure that the price of my favourite bread is still the same it was last year. (And the year before that.) Is this price-rise just in certain parts of the word? I'm from the Netherlands. Amrad (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some helpful links might be this BBC report and this FT section. This site explains that Dutch supermarkets are selling bread at a loss, presumably because it is a staple product that draws consumers to their shops. The price rise is global, but different products (especially grain-based) have seen prices increase more than others. I'm sure that your shops will have raised prices on other products or cut cost in order to compensate for the losses. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
See loss leader. Once you are in their doors, you are at their mercy. (Cue wafting scents of cinnamon doughnuts.) BrainyBabe (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I already thought it might be something like that. However, the strategy does't work on me because I'm no impulsive buyer - I buy only what's on my shopping list. Ironically, I visit that specific supermarket only to buy bread. Oh, and supermarkets in the Netherlands don't sell donuts. Actually, I don't know any place that sells donuts. Plenty of chips-shops, though - our staple junk food. And yes, we drown them in mayonaise. Yummy. :) Amrad (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Mayo is okay on chips, especially if you mix it with ketchup and Colman's English mustard. Quality. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Poutine all the way to coronary heart disease! BrainyBabe (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
BrainyBabe, it occurs to that there are two ways of committing suicide: jumping off a cliff, which would be the fast method, or eating that Poutine, the slow route! Yucky, yuck! There must be so many grossly overweight Quebecois!! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Clio, there are many many ways of committing suicide, some more pleasurable than others. Falling asleep in a scalding bath after taking cocaine would not be my chosen way to go [2]. As it happens, poutine isn't my passion either, but whatever melts your chocolate. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Clio again, I took the trouble to look this up and apparently your omniscience stops at the Plains of Abraham! "Quebec still ties with British Columbia as having the lowest rates of

overweight in the country" according to [www.gpiatlantic.org/pdf/health/obesity/que-obesity.pdf|this report]. I continue to bow the knee to you in all matters UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I would presume that the magnitude of the rises would depend significantly on the percentage of the cost of food that is from the raw materials (which AFAIK is what's mostly causing the rise). I would expect that in developed countries in general, the raw material cost is a much smaller percentage of the final cost so the price rises will therefore also be smaller. This combined with the fact that food in general takes a much bigger percentage of a person's income by the poor means that the poor in developing countries are hit especially hard. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This article in Wednesday's Guardian has a table showing that the price of a white loaf has risen by 63% since 2005. Their source is the UK's Office of National Statistics. --Heron (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A guest on the Charlie Rose show the other night said that wheat and rice prices have doubled in the past few months (in the U.S., I assume). A big part of the reason is that 30% of corn production now goes to ethanol, and farmlands previously used for other crops are now being converted to produce the moneymaker. It is outrageous, IMO. Imagine Reason (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry III and Edward the Confessor

Is tere any particular reason why Henry III associated himself so closely with the cult of Edward the Confessor? Marilyn Struthers (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward had a lot that Henry liked and aspired to be. Edward was a bit like Henry's "role-model"; he was reputed to be a man of peace, a man who could be looked up to. Henry, like Edward, was an orphan, so they had something in common. It was all about the model of medieval monarchy, and he couldn't get a better model than Edward. PeterSymonds | talk 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We cannot say for certain, Marilyn, what it was that attracted Henry to the cult of the Confessor, though is devotion was real enough. In The Reign of Henry III David Carpenter suggests the key period in the development of Henry's interest in the Edward cult came in the mid 1230s, closely tied up with a number of religious and political considerations. It's possible that the senior monks of Westminster, who had much to gain from the amplification of the Confessor, persuaded the king to take an interest in the native English saint. Henry also adopted Edward at the time of his marriage to Eleanor of Provence in 1236, suggesting that the acquisition of a personal saint was a sign of growing up. The monarchy, moreover, was beginning to lose its Norman origins, acquiring a more English identity in the process. And what better way of doing this than by linking its destiny with that of an English royal saint. Henry was to take this one step further by giving his sons Edward and Edmund Anglo-Saxon names.

I should say that while Edward was certainly a suitable subject for devotion he was not the best model of Medieval kingship, which required altogether more earthly qualities. Henry's lavish devotions were high among the factors that led to a new round of baronial wars, in the course of which a far worldlier Edward came to the rescue of the crown. Clio the Muse (talk)

[edit] journalism through other people's skins

I have been reading about John Howard Griffin, author of Black Like Me.This biography tells how Griffin, a white man, darkened his skin, changed little else, and passed as a black man in the Deep South of the United States in 1959. No one, white or black, challenged him: all accepted him for what he presented himself as. In 2006 Norah Vincent published Self-made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man, describing how she transformed herself for a rather longer journalistic experiment, and how everyone, male and female, accepted her version of herself. My question is, are there other experiments like this available online or in print, of lengthy serious personal transformations undertaken for the purposes of investigative journalism or sociology (as opposed to e.g. transgender curiosity)? These could be people switching class or gender or race. (I seem to remember one young woman disguising herself as an old woman, perhaps for a PhD thesis?) Has anyone tried race switching in South Africa since the downfall of apartheid -- not reclassification for personal benefit, but as an investigation to expose harsh truths to the public eye? Any related info would be welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To Be Fat Like Me is based on a true story. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a German investigative journalist about 10 years ago who made himself up as a Turkish 'guest worker' for a documentary. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And there was Tony Wilkinson, a British journalist who lived rough for a month in 1981 to expose conditions for the homeless. There doesn't seem to be much online, but a Google search turns up a few hits. Not forgetting Donal MacIntyre, who has made a career out of this sort of thing. His infiltration of a gang of football hooligans was particularly memorable, as I recall. --Richardrj talk email 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Any name for the German? I hadn't heard of any of these, so thanks. There was an Israeli male journalist who went undercover with the Palestinian day workers, lived in their dorms and risked his life if he had been exposed -- they never would have believed he wasn't a spy. At least ten years ago? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The German journalist was Günter Wallraff. Valiantis (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford

Hello ! Can you tell me when Henry Ford has written (or said ?) "Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently" ? Thank you for your help ! (Please, excuse my bad English, my mother language is French.) --Égoïté (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Try wikiquote
Thank you. I tried, but : unsourced... --Égoïté (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not in the Oxford Reference Library, which suggests that they couldn't find a reliable date/source for it. I've looked quite hard and come up with nothing, sorry. PeterSymonds | talk 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The exact words are "Failure is only the opportunity more intelligently to begin again." This line appears in Henry Ford's book My Life and Work, published in 1922, page 19. It can be read online at Gutenberg. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Marvellous ! Thank you very very much Milbreath !

[edit] Nietzsche and Wagner

When and under what exact circumstances did Nietzsche begin to distance himself from Wagner? Mark of Cornwall (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was in 1878, when Nietzsche published Human, All-too-Human.[3] I can't find exactly why though. but the author of the article suggests that it was due to N's friendship with Paul Rée. PeterSymonds | talk 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You can trace Nietzsche's disenchantment with the Wagner cult in his notebooks, Mark, where he discusses the master's addiction to luxury and glitter at his Bayreuth shrine; his misuse of the music medium; the false liberation his music brings; his desire to submit audiences to the power of his will; and above all his vanity, and yet again his vanity. Nietzsche was maturing beyond the kind of abject devotion that Wagner, a monster of egoism, demanded. His task was "Neither to suffer so intensely from life, nor live in such a flat and emotionally deficient way, that Wagner's art would be needed as a medicine." Wagner was undermining Nietzsche's efforts to lay hold of life, so he removed himself physically from his orbit and intellectually from his cult, as he shows in Human, All Too Human and still later inThe Wagner Case. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worst poems and poets

Hi. I'm looking for some examples of the worst poems and poets in English literature. I'm thinking here of published poets, those who at one time may have been rated highly but underwent a subsequent reappraisal. Can you think of any?86.157.195.234 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the most famous bad English poet of all time is William MacGonagall, but I'm not sure if he was ever rated highly. --Richardrj talk email 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
HEY! William McGonagall wasn't a bad English poet, he was a bad Scots poet... 86.18.31.159 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, sorry about that. The OP used the phrase "English literature", which I take to mean "literature in English". --Richardrj talk email 09:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
He was never rated at all, Richard, for the simple reason that his 'poetry' is truly terrible! It is absolutely hilarious, though, which was not the writer's intention. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Clio, I'm well aware of McGonagall's work. And of course the writer's "intention" is neither here nor there when it comes to critical evaluation of literary texts. --Richardrj talk email 06:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's really happened in that order. Certainly vice versa, but if a poet was loved at the time, they generally become better with age, not worse. PeterSymonds | talk 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings? — Kieff | Talk 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if 'he' qualifies: Ern Malley. AndrewWTaylor (talk)
I'll probably be shot down for this, but how about Algernon Swinburne?--Eriastrum (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, he was considered for Poet Laureate after the death of Lord Tennyson. Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The person who actually got the job, Alfred Austin, is worth mentioning here. He succeeded Tennyson only after a gap of 4 years while Queen Victoria made up her mind. She offered it to William Morris, who declined. Eventually, Austin got the nod, and agreed. But after all that waiting, it proved to be a bad choice. Apparently, 2 anthologists of the world’s worst writers have separately considered him the worst Poet Laureate ever. His verse was indeed tedious, but it was not actually as bad as it was made out to be - in 1871 a story was put about that to mark the Prince of Wales's recent typhoid attack, he had penned the immortal lines ”... along the wires the electric message came, He is no better, he is just the same”. This has now entered the hallowed halls of apocrypha. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Your tail-plane has broken into flames, Eriastrum, as Clio opens fire, swooping down out of the sun! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is, for me, only one candidate for this prize: Felicia Hemans's Casabianca The boy stood on the burning deck/his bum was full of blisters (ass, for the benefit of our American readers)! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually read a little of Alfred Austin's work (the "World's Worst Writers" book made me curious). It isn't horrible or unreadable by any means; it's just often unintentionally humorous. He can have a weird, bouncy, jolly style. I think he seems worse by comparison to the many great poets of the 19th century. Nowadays, he would probably shine! Vultur (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Americans say "bum" too; the The Bum Bum Song was a big hit here. Speaking of Americans, Edgar Allan Poe was viewed as an atrocious poet both by his contemporaries by some critics today (most notably, Harold Bloom). There's an interesting essay/blog about Poe's awful-but-great writing here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really? Thanks for the enlightenment! I thought bum would be understood as a hobo (a tramp, in England). Clio the Muse (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the Bum Bum Song was a "big hit"...but anyway, local pride compels me to submit James McIntyre:
We have seen thee, Queen of Cheese,
Lying quietly at your ease,
Gently fanned by evening breeze;
Thy fair form no flies dare seize.
Classic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated, but there is the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, of which some awardees have created mind-bogglingly horrific descriptions. For example, the classic "She made a noise somewhere between a beached seal and a police siren," by Nicholas Royle. bibliomaniac15 04:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"It was a dark and stormy night/None of my lines would scan right." BrainyBabe (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A Tragedy by Theo Marzials is sometimes nominated as the worst.[4] Kirs10 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a collection of bad verse called The Stuffed Owl (named after a poem by Wordsworth, I think). It's the sort of thing that keeps getting reprinted - could be worth having a look for. AJHW (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Although she's known more for her fiction, Amanda McKittrick Ros also wrote some unforgettable poetry. -- llywrch (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Train passes in the Uk

Does anybody know where i could get a train pass from in the United Kingdom and maybe send me a link to where you could apply for one, thanks --Hadseys ChatContribs 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c -- twice!) :Train pass? Do you mean ticket? If so, then this is the site I use: TheTrainLine.com. PeterSymonds | talk 18:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(also e/c twice) To be sure that I understand: do you want to buy a train pass 1. in the U.K. for use in the U.K. 2. from outside the U.K. for use in the U.K. 3. from inside the U.K. for use outside the U.K.? If the answer is 2 or 3, please tell us where "outside" is. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For use in the UK, and its from Solihull but i need to get all over the country so just wondered if trains had something like bus passes --Hadseys ChatContribs 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Much to my astonishment, the world-famous Brit Rail passes appear only to be availble for purchase outside the U.K. Curious. And even curiouser, I couldn't find anything like a national pass for nationals. I wonder how that is enforced? Could you take a quick drive through the Chunnel and buy the pass on the French side, or do you need to show a passort to make such a purchase? ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c -- only here!) I don't think there are passes for the whole country, simply because there are so many different operators and companies that it wouldn't be possible. The closest thing is a railcard which gives you money off, but I don't think there's a system similar to bus passes. PeterSymonds | talk 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ask the man in seat 61. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The man in seat 61 says "If you're a UK resident, Rail Rovers give unlimited travel over all or selected parts of the UK network" [5]. --Heron (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you learn something new every day, [6] this is the page. Ouch, expensive! PeterSymonds | talk 09:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, since a Rail Rover is the equivalent in availability to an "open" ticket (available on any train at any time, without reservation), then £375 for a 7-day standard class or £565 for 14 days isn't that extortionate - an open standard class return from Manchester to London Euston is £230, it's only when you compare the price against restricted availability savers that the eyes begin to water. If you tried to buy a season ticket for anywhere much further than Newcastle to London, you'd be advised to buy a Rover as it's cheaper. (I actually do have a 1st class pass that covers the old London Midland region and is good for 5 years and renewed for the rest of my life, but that's because in a previous existence I worked for many years for the railways and reached a particular point in the management pay scales!). -- Arwel (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Orwell

I've just finished reading a biography of George Orwell and it occurs to me that a good case could be made for comparing him to Edmund Burke in that both were concerned with the negative effects of revolution and modernising ideologies. Would anyone agree with this? Div Dec (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He was certainly interested in revolution (he called the court of George V alien and uninspiring), but Animal Farm was written to show Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution. So yes, that shows that he was concerned with the negative effects of revolution. PeterSymonds | talk 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter, Animal Farm was not written to show Stalin's 'betrayal' of the Russian Revolution, a fairly common misconception. Orwell's satire is about a revolution that starts to corrupt almost from the outset, before Napoleon/Stalin takes power. Snowball/Trotsky is part of this process. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, how odd. I didn't think the BBC could get it wrong: "n 1945, Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was published. A political fable set in a farmyard but based on Stalin's betrayal of the Russian Revolution..." [7]. PeterSymonds | talk 07:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe it was H. G. Wells who made the "alien and uninspiring" remark. (To which the King replied, "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien".) Choess (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, so it was. PeterSymonds | talk 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter, do you really believe that the BBC does not get things wrong?! If so, that is a bad mistake! Anyway, read the book, keeping your eye on those windfall apples. This is where the rot begins. Clio the Muse (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting parallel, Div Dec, with much to commend it. Both Nineteen Eighty-Four and Reflections on the Revolution in France might be read as prophecies and warnings. Orwell's chief concern is with the globalisation of totalitarianism. Edmund Burke, writing in 1790, warned that the upheavals in France would only lead to further political destruction, terror and dictatorship. Both men also expressed views that were not wholly welcome in their own political and intellectual milieus; in the case of Burke, the radical Whigs of Charles James Fox; and in the case of Orwell, the circle most associated with the left-wing demimonde. Their critiques were thus all the more trenchant because they were made from within the citadel, so to speak, not from the perspective of the establishment.

Orwell and Burks also shared a distrust of their fellow intellectuals. Orwell expressed his contempt of a certain kind of 'Bloomsbury highbrow in The Lion and the Unicorn, his wartime essay on socialism and patriotism, just as Burke disliked Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the 'literary cabal', as he put it, of the French philosophes. On the fate of Marie Antoinette he wrote "But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and calculators, has succeeded."

Both Burke and Orwell, two of the greatest political writers in the English language, were, in essence, defending human values threatened with destruction by waves of violence and intolerance. Both stand against the notion that cruel means justify abstract ends. I'm reminded, in particular, of Burke's warning in Letters to a Noble Lord to those aristocrats of his day who embraced radical chic-"...these philosophers consider men in their experiments no more than they do mice in an air pump." But it is in his riposte to Rousseau, the grandfather of Fascism and Communism, that he is at his greatest: "Society is indeed a contract...but becomes a partnership...between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born." You will find an echo of this in Orwell’s defence of patriotism as "…the bridge between the future and the past." Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What a GREAT answer, Clio the Muse. I would give you a prize if I could! Div Dec (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would accept it-if I could! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quest

how many islands does puerto rico have i cant find it any

Here's the complete list: List of islands of Puerto Rico. PeterSymonds | talk 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Existentialism "Cure"

Is there any way to rid oneself of existential thoughts, other than by embracing religion? --207.63.254.167 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion will just make you ignore your own thoughts and accept the ones someone else created. It won't cure or replace them. But why would one want to do that? Choosing your own purpose is the best thing you could ask for in life. — Kieff | Talk 20:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the above opinion is only one POV. A recent study proved people with a religion to cope better with death or indeed dying...Just thought you might like to know...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[citation needed] on the study? Either way, it's all a matter of opinion of what's "better". The point is that living this life while expecting another life after it may be a huge waste of your only chance to be alive. If there's no afterlife, and there's no reason to assume any of the several different versions of it are correct, then all these people who coped better with the death of others and themselves because they expected something else may very well have wasted their lives and not fulfilled their true aspirations. It's a terrible thought. I just can't see anything exceptionally wrong in encouraging people to make their own decisions in life, even if they decided to choose some faith, at least they did so deliberately. — Kieff | Talk 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well this isn't the place to do it, let's avoid a religious debate. The question was excluding religion anyway, so it's best to stay focused. PeterSymonds | talk 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I excluded religion from the possible solutions because I am an atheist and am not interested in becoming religious. --207.63.254.167 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Think about other things :) Wrad (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; but it's rather drastic! I should say that there are other absolutes beyond religion, political and ideological in nature, which serve to minimise, or eliminate, the 'dilemmas' one faces in thought and choice. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You could just try embracing being existential, in moderation of course. Not to sound Emo, but you could try writing poetry, reading some good books (Camus, Gorky, Neil Gaiman) or watch some existential films (Fight Club, The Matrix, anything by Bergman).
What you need is to find something to believe in, like faith but not of a religious nature. I believe in my artistic vision, that I'm capable of producing something of great literary value. Or perhaps, just wanting to fall in love again. Zidel333 (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't embracing one of the many forms of atheism and its way of looking at things a way to do this? Wrad (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I’m not sure what you mean by “atheisms way of looking at things.” People are born atheists. Atheism is, by one definition, simply the lack of belief in a deity without proof. How can the lack of a belief structure generate a specific point of view? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "people are born atheists", S.dedalus? They come out of the womb believing in the non-existence of God? I hardly think that's true; babies aren't born believing anything at all. Belief (including non-belief) is not innate but comes a considerable time later. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that would be correct. A-theism is literally a lack of belief, so it's accurate to say we are born atheists. -- Kesh (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Babies are not born with a belief in god because “god” is a concept that must be imprinted on a child. Therefore all people are born atheists. From another point of view if babies were born with a belief in god why do holly books instruct followers to teach children about the “true god”? Wouldn’t the children already know? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't I say "one of the many forms" when describing atheism? I didn't apply any specific view to it, so I don't see your point. Also, how in the world do you know what babies are thinking? I'd really like to know the trick! Wrad (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
S.dedalus and Kesh, I see atheism not as a passive lack of belief in God, but an active disbelief in him. That takes complex thought. Babies are not capable of having thoughts of such complexity. Hell, they don't even become aware that they're separate from the world around them for some considerable time - up until whenever that happens, there is no "other", there is only "me". They haven't even got to the point of conceptualising their own mother, let alone an unseen being, so how the heck can they have any position at all on the existence or otherwise of God? Answer: they can't. They're neither theists nor atheists because that is a completely inappropriate paradigm for them. Your argument holds as much water as saying that all babies are born heterosexual because there's no evidence of homosexuality. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
While there are those who take an active disbelief in god, atheism at its core is the lack of belief, so I don't see your argument as valid. Your final analogy is flawed in numerous ways ("no evidence of homosexuality"? My boyfriend would disagree!). Aside from that, aren't we getting way off-topic for the refdesk now? -- Kesh (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, verily. I've taken it your talk page. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly one absolute, Wrad! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally feel that a person should find a balance between trusting himself and trusting authority. Assuming God exists, I doubt he want us to be his puppets. If he did, why would he let everybody do things he says not to? Assuming he doesn't, there's always the danger that your personal perception of reality is wrong and could bring you harm (I'm thinking of the film Beautiful Mind.) Wrad (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts, guys, and duly noted. I'll try to find some sort of fulfillment through existentialism, atheism, art, or a combination of the three. --207.63.254.167 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is not with your existentialist thoughts per se, but that they clash with your expectations for life, the world, and yourself. If this is the case, it is the expectations that need to brought to heel, not the existential thoughts. Vranak (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found studying quantum physics a suitable way of getting rid of existential thoughts. User:Krator (t c) 10:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)