Humanities desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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.

June 16

Rorty for beginners?

After reading so many eulogies for Richard Rorty lately, I'm interested in learning more. What would be a good starting point for reading Rorty for a layman who took a handful of college philosophy courses many years ago? --69.227.128.60 01:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a layman. I could read and understand (well, sorta) Wittgenstein. I couldn't make heads nor tales of Rorty. I'm interested in any solid answers we get here. What I did get, I didn't like, from a philosophical point of view, but I should be delighted to find that I was all wrong and all wet. (I often am.) Geogre 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you begin with Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Rorty's magnum opus, where he laid down his challenge to the central preoccupations of the western philosophical tradition from Descartes onwards. If you already have some grounding in philosophical concepts it should not be too difficult to penetrate. I would also suggest Rorty and his Critics, a collection of papers edited by Robert Brandom. This helps to put some of Rorty's themes within a wider intellectual perspective. And, Geogre, I make no comment on how wet or dry you may be, nor, for that matter, do I pass any judgement on Rorty's lasting value as a thinker! Clio the Muse 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took just one university philosophy course, but I did not find Rorty difficult to understand and frankly enjoyed reading Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. I, too, recommend it. Marco polo 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clausewitz and Tolstoy

Both Carl von Clausewitz and Leo Tolstoy wrote books which draw general conclusions about conflict from the historical experience of the Napoleonic Wars. Are there any points of similarity in their individual perspectives? General joffe 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, there are not: the conclusions both men draw about the nature of war are quite, quite different. In War and Peace, Tolstoy advances a philosophy of war, in which the individual, no matter how great, is subject to impersonal forces, and in the face of which specific actions, no matter how significant, have little or no bearing. In his seminal study On War, Clausewitz is far less interested in grand concepts, and universal notions, and much more in war as an instrument of policy, based upon a rational and predictable set of criteria. His philosophy is empirical and pragmatic. It is, in other words, that of a strategist concerned with a specfic set of problems. He takes pains to draw a clear distinction between war in the abstract and war as it is actually planned and fought. For Clausewitz war is "an act of violence intended to compell our opponent to fulfill our will." (On War, A. Rapoport, ed. 1976 p. 101) For Tolstoy even the will of Napoleon himself is irrelevant. For Clausewitz war is like a grand game of chess. For Tolstoy people themselves are the chess pieces. It is never entirely clear who the players are, other than 'History' and 'Destiny' in the style, it might be said, of ancient mythology. For Tolstoy war is drama; for Clausewitz war is science. Clio the Muse 01:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, dear Clio, I am in your debt! General joffe 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Empire

When did the Holy Roman Empire cease being a somewhat unified state, capable of a single foreign policy, and become the mess of competing prince-bishoprics, duchies, and kingdoms it had become by its end? 208.114.153.254 05:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty much always like that. It was unified under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, but the Franks expected territory to be divided equally among their sons, so it began to fall apart after that (similarly, France was never a unified state until at the earliest the 13th century and maybe even as late as the 17th). The emperor very early on became an elected position, and while he had nominal authority during the Middle Ages, he never really had any territory of his own (like, say, the French king ruled Ile-de-France), and there was a constant struggle with the Papacy over various things (technically the emperor was only a king until the Pope crowned him; they both claimed authority to invest bishops; etc etc). The rulers of the counties and duchies and bishoprics within the empire sided with the emperor or the pope depending on the circumstances. It was a mess of competing territories by the 11th century, but it was made worse by the Reformation, and the Peace of Augsburg cemented that by declaring that each state could choose Catholicism or Lutheranism as its official religion. Who then would be loyal to whom? There was constant civil war after that, which were ended by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, but Westphalia only further cemented the differences created at Augsburg, and it was easy for France, Austria, and others to take advantage of the Empire's internal weaknesses. Adam Bishop 16:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The emperor had no territory of his own as emperor, but how many HR emperors were not kings or dukes before their election? —Tamfang 01:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, I meant that there weren't usually any dynasties in the Empire, so the emperors had to territorial base, but of course they all ruled something before they were elected. But the Habsburg dynasty slipped my mind! Adam Bishop 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My empire is of the imagination. So says Ayesha, the sorceress queen in She, the novel by H. Rider Haggard. In a sense the Holy Roman Empire was also of the 'imagination.' It was an ideal that never quite became a reality, and never developed in any meaningful sense as an integrated state. The maps showing the imperial borders, even before it turned into a crazy patchwork of political and religious entities, are actually quite deceptive, because even at its height under Charlemagne and Otto the Great, the Empire was always a federation to a lesser or a greater degree. Charlemagne created a Universal State, in other words, with roots in the old Germanic tribal system. Over time tribal chieftans turned into kings and princes in their own right; and thus the Emperor, no matter how much reverence was attached to the title, was never in the strictest sense a 'monarch.' After Charlemagne the closest they ever got to the old Roman form was as primus inter pares-first among equals-and sometimes not even that.

Beyond this, the Empire, from the very outset, was shaped around a dangerous political contradiction: that between the 'Universal State' and the 'Universal Church.' Charlemagne's Frankish empire arose at a time of papal weakness; but once the papacy began its steady ascent, from the tenth century onwards, the struggle between Church and Empire was to become one of the great defining features of the early Middle Ages. There were points when this struggle broke down into outright civil war between the Imperial faction or the Ghibellines, on the one hand, and the Papal faction or the Guelphs, on the other. The struggle reached its height during the reign of the Emperor Frederick II of the House of Hohenstaufen and Pope Innocent IV, with the Papacy emerging as the final victor. After the death of Frederick in 1250 the whole Empire made an ever more rapid descent into the twilight, and was no longer taken seriously as an entity in European power politics. The later Emperors, from Henry VII onwards did have a distinct territorial power base, contrary to the point made by Adam, which introduced an additional element of rivalry, contributing still further to the decline.

I began with a quote, so I will end with a quote, that of Voltaire, which serves best as the Imperial epitaph-The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire. Clio the Muse 00:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought that quote came from Linda Richman. :) Corvus cornix 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always surprised by the things one discovers here. Is Linda rich, is she a man, or is she both? Discuss. Clio the Muse 22:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a New Page

Creating a Wikipedia page:

  How can I add a new topic? I'm a published author in the genre "the old west & its pioneers."

  Dr. Dennis McLelland

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Livereatingjohnston (talk • contribs)

Hi, Dr. McLelland. Just follow this link for instructions. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! You will first need to createa an account and wait a few days. If you areticle is about somethihng other than yourself or your own works, then just create your article. If you are considering an article about yours self or your works, please read WP:COI and WP:N first. If you are conderned that your article may violate WP:COI, then create it initially as a subpage of your user page and then ask for comments.

In general, the reference desk is for questions about content. Questions such as yours get better help at WP:HELP -Arch dude 17:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruits in Islam

Are there any fruits that play a symbolic role in Islam, like the apple in Christianity? (also in other major religions if anyone knows) - Thank you. --AlexSuricata 17:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe oranges are fairly significant... You can check our article on Islam. 24.1.137.20 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is about trees, and not fruits specifically, you might find some of what you're looking for here. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Garden of Eden has anything to do with Christianity, in one corner of the Garden of Eden lies a fruit tree not necessarily an apple tree and a fountain of flowing water. If I am wrong, please excuse me. --Mayfare 19:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was never identified; tradition considered it to be an apple, but there's really no basis for that. Grapes, on the other hand, do have significant symbolic value in both Judaism and Christianity. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe dates, which are at least economically important in Arab countries. Adam Bishop 20:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are, for example, recommended for iftar (breaking the fast).[1] It is not clear, though, that this has a symbolic meaning. Is a date, destined to be eaten, a date with destiny? --Lambiam ^Talk 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two distinguished trees in the Garden of Eden, actually: the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life. The former was the prohibited one, which, Genesis says, Adam and Eve ate from. Presumably, they were supposed to eat from the second, although that is not explicitly stated. In any case, apples are not mentioned. (And meanwhile, I know nothing about fruit symbolism in Islam.) --Tugbug 20:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have any particularly good evidence to back it up, but I believe the word 'apple' came from an older (Saxon?) word that referred generically to fruit, which is maybe where the mix-up occurred. Confusing Manifestation 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check our article on Pomegranates. Matt Deres 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe

Hello. Most of Poe's short stories are terror and horror. The protagonist instead of the antagonist often seems deranged. Why did Poe write so many stories of this kind?--Mayfare 17:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From his article, "Poe died at the age of 40. The cause of his death is undetermined and has been attributed to alcohol, drugs, cholera, rabies, suicide (although likely to be mistaken with his suicide attempt in the previous year), tuberculosis, heart disease, brain congestion and other agents." This probably offers some insight into his personal life; although the cause was indeterminate, the likely suspects certainly show his peers' perception of his activities, and his physical health was not the best either. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does any author write in the fashion he or she does? I suppose it comes down to a mixture of talent, interest, motivation and a degree of awareness of what is likely to attract the reading public. I think it is certainly true that Poe was interested more in psychological themes than many of his predecessors in the 'Gothic' style, but that I take to be a sign of both his originality and his genius. And as far as notions of what is and what is not deranged are concerned, is there any better twist to this than in the story of The Gold-Bug? Poe is very much a genre writer; and while horror was one such genre he made effective use of, there are others, most notably science fiction and crime. In fact the character of C. Auguste Dupin, who appears in Murders in the Rue Morgue and other stories, anticipates such famous detectives as Sherlock Holmes. Poe was also a very good essayist and a decent poet; so I do not believe his art in the most general sense is reduceable to any given set of personal circumstances. Clio the Muse 01:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zahakiel and Clio the Muse. If anyone would like to add more to this question, they are more than welcome to do so. --Mayfare 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about the premises, here. There was a great deal of madness being written about at the same time. From Prometheus Unbound to the Victorian obsession with madness, there was keen interest in the idea of the refined sensibility. If, as they thought, an artist was a person whose faculties were sharpened and whose imagination was unbounded, then what happened if those sensibilities took just a slightly greater turn, those imaginations a larger leap? Poe's crazy people are all images of artists. He does not deal in run of the mill crazy, but always with the overly sensitive and the ideé fixe mad. Note that Freud was, at nearly the same time, positing his theory of poetic madness, and Coleridge had already done something not too dissimilar (based on/stolen from, whatever, Schiller). These are not, therefore, insane people written because Poe was nuts, or because nuts were more common, but rather as a sort of zeitgeist-wide preoccupation with sensibility, the meaning of civilization, and theory of mind. At least it seems that way to me, even though Poe was probably pretty nuts, too. Utgard Loki 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all valid contributing factors... it's probably not possible to narrow it down to any small subset of causes, but perhaps we get as close as we can by considering a blend of demand for that kind of writing due to the spirit of the age, the author's tastes (which may or may not be related to the various personal factors mentioned in his entry) and the other literary influences available at the time. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]