Humanities desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 19

How many of the traditional cultural icons of Britian are actually imported?

While researching the meaning of being British, I couldn't help but think that quite a lot of the traditional cultural icons hailed from foreign lands before Britain claimed them as it's own.

I'm just wondering if anyone would have any more information about an object/food which would usually be associated with the United Kingdom, but in actuality came from elsewhere?

Here's a rough list I have compiled:

Bangers n mash (sausage - Sumer (iraq) potatoes - Peru)

taxicab (might be from Paris)

football (china)

The rose originated in Central Asia and spread across the northern hemisphere

HP sauce produced in Elst, the Netherlands

HP sauce originated in the UK in 1896. It was produced in the UK from 1903, and only in 2006 commenced production in the Netherlands. -- JackofOz 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haggis arrived in a longboat from Scandinavia

The first cheese may have been made by people in the Middle East or by nomadic Turkic tribes in Central Asia.

Tea (china)

Tea Cup - imported from the Japanese port of Imari

Sugar - New Guinea

Cow’s milk was first used for human consumption in the middle east

Lace tablecloth - Flanders & Italy

The Bobby - The first police force comparable to present-day police was established in 1667 under King Louis XIV in France

Punch & Judy was derived from Italian street entertainment.

The Bus - France 1826

The Mini, designed by Sir Alec Issigonis (Greek)

Blackpool Tower

Freddie Mercury - Zanzibar

baked beans - According to alternative traditions, sailors brought cassoulet from the south of France, or the regional bean stew recipes from northern France and the Channel Islands. Most probably, a number of regional bean recipes coalesced and cross-fertilised in North America and ultimately gave rise to the baked bean culinary tradition familiar today.

The BBC has labelled Tikka Masala as "Britain's national dish"

Does anyone have any more?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.151.193 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Enoch Powell said in a speech to the Royal Society of St George on St George's day, 23 April 1961 - "What do they know of England who only England know?" He was (of course) alluding to Rudyard Kipling's poem The English Flag (1891). Xn4 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chutney - Nunh-huh 02:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the cultural exchanges and suchlike of Europe's complex history, plus England's history as a colonial empire, just about all of the cultural icons you can think of will be foreign or also used somewhere else. If you want something that is actually British, it would have to be something invented right there in Britain itself. 130.56.65.24 02:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did football really come from China? I assume as it's the simplest game to play there will have been versions everywhere, but I think it is disputable that it's form in England was imported. Surely we can claim rugby and cricket. And parliamentary democracy? The stiff upper lip? Cyta 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St George (Anatolia), apples introduced by the Romans, rabbits introduced by the Normans, Roast beef (rôti de boeuf)... SaundersW 08:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Family, I seem to recall they have significantly large amounts of 'continental' genes. (pardon me Your Majesty - just stating a fact)Richard Avery 10:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football comes from China? There's documentary evidence of football being played in England before China was "discovered" by the West. --Dweller 10:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Teddy bear came from the USA, as did the Crossword puzzle and the expression "stiff upper lip". Rhinoracer 14:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the one true form of crossword appears to be an entirely British creation. Algebraist 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis: You shall desire your husband

A group of us were discussing the scripture as part of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden story. Of course, no corresponding command exists to desire your wife. I am interested in a discussion of what it means, apart from the obvious. I am particularly involved in a Jewish explanation. I would like to know where to research it.75Janice 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)75Janice75Janice 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea here is that God was condemning women to be subordinate to men ("I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Gen. 3:16, emphasis added). Way to go, God! Way to cause millennia of patriarchy! What a jerk, right? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should remember that any version of the bible is colored by who translated it. I wouldn't be surprised if the bolded phrase was a result of the suppression of women (some jerk of a translator putting it in - by himself or by church order, after all it was the general view for quite a long time), rather than the cause. Have you read the original Hebrew scripture? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't an excess of female emancipation in the society that produced the Hebrew scriptures either, despite characters like Sarah, whose husband God exceptionally told to obey her, and the portrait of the ideal (economically active) wife in Proverbs. By the way, there is an injunction in Ecclesiastes to delight in the wife of one's youth, and as Twas Now points out, the sentence you read as a command can be interpreted as a simple statement of future fact. SaundersW 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a commandment, it's a statement of fact, as with the rest of the punishments handed out (man has to work, woman will suffer in childbirth, mankind will seek to destroy snakes etc). The Hebrew is "וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ" which is, indeed usually rendered "and your desire shall be to your husband". If you are indeed most interested in Jewish interpretation, the first source usually sought out by Jewish scholars is Rashi. His comment on these words may not seem very PC, but then again, neither were the times he lived in! ([1]) Rashi connects the "desire" with the subsequent note of the husband having mastery, by interpreting this that while women will have sexual desire, men will be the initiators. For several millenia since this statement was made by God, it was certainly largely true and I'd guess it remains largely true today, although probably to a lesser extent. You could say similarly for the pain of childbirth for that matter. --Dweller 10:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of fact? Like the preceding statement of fact to the snake: "And dust you will eat". Is that correct? I've never heard of snakes eating dust. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That line's about serpents crawling around on their bellies. Corvus cornix 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I part company with some of those above is over the notion that everything in the Bible is the word of God. We can see divine inspiration in many parts of it, but we can't escape the truth that every book of the Bible was written by men, and it has to be read through the veil of history. I remember hearing a divine offer this question in a sermon, a question which he said we should always have in mind when reading any ancient text: "What must the truth be now, if men who thought as they did put it that way?" Xn4 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible was written thousands of years after the Old Testament happened. To assume the writers could correctly recollect what was said and to assume they had no POV that seeped in would be ridiculous. Stories get embellished over the years and the stories that entered the Bible are no different, no matter you believe about their veracity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner asked "a Jewish explanation". Your POV and OR about the Bible comments are interesting, but not really relevant. --Dweller 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between index futures and underlying index?

What is the relation between an index future and the underlying index? How does the change in value of the index future foretell a similar change in the index? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.47.15 (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An index future is a future based on an index: for example, a stock market index future is a future based on the value of a stock market index. Its value will be based on an educated guess of where the index will be in the future (depending on the type of future contract, either on a specific day, or over a period), taking into account factors such as general economic indicators and market sentiment.

I'm sure the economists can wax lyrical about how in theory the pricing of an index future reflects predicted future movements of the index, but the world does not work like that in practice. -- !! ?? 11:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "educated guess" of the future value of the index - this is a common misconception. Equity index futures are priced to replicate the economic cost of buying and holding the constituent equities in the index in the same proportions as they are represented in the index. This has to be the case, because if the futures price deviated from this, there would be an arbitrage opportunity - a chance to make a risk-free profit by buying the underlying equities and selling index futures or vice versa.

One part of the economic cost of buying and holding the constituent equities is the cost of borrowing funds for the duration of the future (say 3 months) - this is known as the "cost of carry". The other part is the dividends that would be received on the equity holdings, which is usually expressed as an annualised dividend yield. So

Futures price = Index value x (1 + annual interest rate - annual dividend yield) x days to maturity/365

Cost of carry depends purely on current interest rates. Dividend yield depends on estimates of future dividends, which may be be subject to some uncertainty, especially for long-dated contracts or indexes containing relatively few stocks.

The futures price will get closer to the current index value as a futures contract approaches maturity. The futures price will move as the index value changes, but it will also move if interest rates change.

For more details see Stock_market_index_future#Pricing, this link and this article. Gandalf61 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I am glad to have fallen for a "common misconception". Good thing I don't buy and sell these things. There are also dealing costs to take into account, I suppose. How do you know in advance what the dividend yield is going to be?

So in essence you are swapping the current interset rate for index movements and dividend yield over the period of the future? -- !! ?? 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be dealing costs. There may be a spread - difference between bid and offer prices on the index future. And you will have to lodge margin with your futures broker or the exchange, which has its own financing costs.

The dividend yield is not known for certain in advance - it is estimated. Over a diverse index such as the FTSE-100, variations in individual dividend payments can be expected to balance out, so the overall dividend yield can be estimated with reasonable accuracy.

You are correct - you are swapping the current interest rate for index performance (which reflects the weighted average price performance of its constuents) plus dividend yield. Prices for index futures are calculated in much the same was as pricing a total return basket swap. Gandalf61 13:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

industrial pollution

What is indutrial pollution?-definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.139.77 (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, industrial pollution is a redlink, but you could consider which forms of pollution are caused by industry. Or you could look in a dictionary. -- !! ?? 10:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on us for not having an article on that. Then again, what other pollution than industrial pollution is there? Household pollution? Sewage (or lack thereof)? The pollution article seems to be only about industrial pollution, apart from mentioning stuff like 'sound pollution', which is more of an analogy than a real meaning. DirkvdM 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is pollution caused by domestic and private activities (cars, aerosol sprays, furnaces etc), and there are also natural or biological sources and pollutants (wildfires, volcanic activity, radon gas, animal flatulence ...). The terms noise pollution and light pollution may have originally been created as analogies, but they are good analogies, since both can have detrimental health effects on humans and ecosystems depending on concentration and exposure.

Pollutio meant defilement in Latin, and, according to etymonline, the usage of pollution in the sense of "contamination of the environment" was once a novel analogy as well - first coined around 1860, but only common since the 1950s - its original first recorded meaning in English (ca. 1340) was "discharge of semen other than during sex," (ca. 1340) later, "desecration, defilement" (1382). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. And I don't just mean that last bit. Natural pollution? I implicitly assumed that pollution is always anthropogenic. Is a wildfire a pollutant? To some species, but not to others that have adapted to it, learned to make use of it and even depend on it for their seeds to germinate. It's part of the natural course of things, so I wouldn't call that pollution. Is volcanic activity a pollutant? It's too violent and erratic for species to adapt to (or are there counterexamples?). So I'd agree that that would count as pollution. Humans are also natural (unless you define them not to be). But human activities and especially the scale (due to the immensely (unnaturally?) large population) are something that the rest of nature couldn't possibly have prepared for through evolution. So I suppose that's why those activities would also count as pollution. Sounds good, I think. Alas I can't add this to the article, because it's completely OR. DirkvdM 07:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Air_pollution#Sources_of_air_pollution or water pollution. You may well be right, this definition, for example, but also the articles on water or land pollution restrict the causes to human activities. The article on air pollution does not make this restriction, while the article on pollution speaks generally of the "introduction of pollutants". I guess it depends on the point of view : Poltiically, anthropogenic pollutants are almost all that count. For people living near Lake Nyos, or someone studying the global spread and effect of pollutants, natural sources may be equally interesting. Back to the original question, the article on anthropogenic classifies the sources "industry", "agriculture", "mining", "transportation", "construction", and "habitations". Adding another immaterial nuisance to noise and light, WP also has an article on thermal pollution. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Holocaust deniers cranks?

Or would the term "crank" not be applied to them? --KnightMove 09:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a crank tends to be alone and work on his own, while Holocaust deniers collaborate with one another. A crank's activities may be seen as harmless and not necessarily malevolent, while Holocaust denial is usually not seen as harmless, and sometimes seen as malevolent. But I wouldn't say it can't apply either. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly cranks. There's a law called Hanlon's law..........11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.7.57 (talk)

Valid point - I can live with that law. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cranks are more defined as eccentrics or monomaniacs, in particular people possessed with a hobby. I don't know if Holocaust denying can be classed as a hobby? Lord Foppington 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under a broad definition (and one which recognizes that not all hobbies are good ideas), sure. Most are not doing it for a living. --24.147.86.187 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell

Can Cromwell be considered a dictator in the modern sense of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.20 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to say, because one's definition of "dictator" is irretrievably governed by POV. The term is bandied about so much that it's almost debased beyond usable understanding. Look into the development of the term "tyrant" for a most interesting parallel.

What you'll need to do for your (I presume) essay, is outline the areas in which Cromwell undertook a personal rule similar to that of the monarch he'd ironically disposed of, and the extent to which he consulted Parliament. You'll also need to bear in mind the need to be careful of anachronistic thinking. You can't compare Cromwell with a modern PM. For one thing, he wasn't elected leader of the country by the people. For another, he had no real model to follow... (comparisons with ancient systems are probably spurious) he was making it up as he went along. --Dweller 10:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he used the army to suppress parliament when it wouldn't do what he told it to, and ruled personally after that, so yes, dictator seems pretty fair. DuncanHill 15:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a dictator in the modern sense? Probably not, inasmuch as he was always at pains to try to find some constitutional underpinnings to his system of rule. He did, indeed, dismiss the Rump Parliament in 1653, as Duncan has said, but he went on to summon another three. These experiments met with limited success, but it is not entirely fair to place the blame for this on the Lord Protector. Of necessity, the outcome of the Civil War, the establishment of what was, in essence, government without national consensus, forced him to rely on the army as the chief prop of his rule. England came closest to pure military despotism in the period from the summer of 1655 to January 1657, when the country was divided into a series of regional commands, headed by individual Major-Generals. It was an experiment that certainly re-introduced a degree of stablity, much needed after the Penruddock uprising, but it was expensive and it was unpopular, especially when it came to the 'reformation of manners.' But, unlike true despotism, the whole thing was quite patchy, with local commanders receiving little in the way of direct support from the Protector. When attacked by a new parliament, and without Cromwell's backing, the whole experiment collapsed. In the end Cromwell was caught between his understanding that only a full monarchy could bring the political stability that England needed, and the realisation that the army would not tolerate his acceptance of the crown. Just how far the country was from true dictatorship was later shown in the speed with which Richard Cromwell, the second and last Protector, with no support in parliament or the army, was forced to exit the stage. Clio the Muse 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proffesions

I saw a question on the Miscellaneous desk about people who answer questions i and i thought it might be interesting to ask what kind of professions people here have? Some of the responses really knock me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.20 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bordering on crossposting which is probably why no-one has replied. Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reference_Desk_Article_Collaboration as well as the original question. Lanfear's Bane | t 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Scholar Question

Hello, What made a person a scholar during the Golden age in China? I have tried numerous web-sites and just can't find the right answer to this question. Thank you. 72.15.113.183 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chinese golden ages are the Tang and Song dynasty dynasties I assume, the deinition of scholar is all you need here.. In general people who were in the civil service would be able to undertake scholarly pursuits in general - such people are refered to as scolar officials eg see http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/lit/scholar.htm 87.102.7.57 15:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Imperial examination useful - in general though, as ever - a scholar would be anyone undertaking scholarly activities - however literacy was not universal in those times - so only those who had been chosen for an education were likely to be scholars.. I can't exclude the possibility of self taught scholars.87.102.7.57 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Scholar-bureaucrats may help.87.102.7.57 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Medal of Honor

How come the Pope did not get a Congressional Medal of Honor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadiddlehopper (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is sometimes referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor because the President presents the award "in the name of the Congress". It is bestowed on a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself "…conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States…" Because of its nature, the medal is commonly awarded posthumously. I'm gusesing that's why... Lanfear's Bane | t 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the questioner meant a Congressional Gold Medal, the "the highest civilian award which may be bestowed by the United States Congress"? In which case, the answer is Pope John Paul II did, as did John Cardinal O'Connor, and Mother Teresa of India, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson - see List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients). Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will do in due course: who knows. But I doubt whether any of them are ever going to win the Medal of Honor. -- !! ?? 15:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Nick

Was Machiavelli as amoral as his reputation attests? 81.156.3.156 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who read Machiavelli almost never get beyond The Prince, by which standard he has also entered popular consiousness. But this is only a small part of his work. In may ways his Discourses on Livy, weighter in every way, provides far better insight into the range and subtelty of his thought. The Prince itself, as I have said before, is really no more than a commentary-perhaps even a satire-on sixteenth century Italian politics. Machiavelli's reputation for amorality is derived ultimately from his sense of politiacl realism. He describes politicas as a practice, stripped of the comforting fictions. It's his own appeal to power, his plea to be noticed. In the Discourses you will find hom more at leisure, and more reflective. People, he says, are rarely entirely good nor entirely bad. More than this, when a community is taken as a whole it can show high degrees of courage; it is only individuals who are cowardly. There are also clear republican sentiment in his defence of the people and their virtues when set against the princes and their vices. He lived under despotism, under the rule of tyrants he was forced to laud, as an act of personal survival. But he was still able to look beyond. Clio the Muse 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pius XII-Hitler's Pope?

Can Pius justly be described as 'Hitler's Pope'? 81.156.3.156 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not justly. Consider the meaning of the words just, justly.87.102.7.57 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Pius XII and Hitler's Pope? Cornwell's book serves an excellent purpose: it's a perfect illustration of how not to write history! Clio the Muse 02:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War

Hello. Please explain the political and strategic background to the Korean War of 1950 and who is most responsible for its outbreak? Thank you. K Limura 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean_War#Background 132.206.33.42 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming an officially recognized state religion

I'm looking for information on how to become an officially recognized religion in the United States. Ztoddz 17:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)zToddz[reply]

You might need to amend the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prevents any establishment of religion. The government is supposed to stay out of religion, and not distinguish between "officially recognized religions" and unapproved religions. If you and I want to start the First Church of the Holy Salt Shaker it should be our right. Edison 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, some senses in which the US government does recognise religious bodies. For example, they get exemption from most taxes (the universal life church had some trouble convincing the IRS it was a real religion at one point) and only some religious symbols are approved for use on veterans' gravestones (the Asatru are currently trying to get this one). Algebraist 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccans are still fighting to get recognition by the military. Corvus cornix 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's at least partially won [2]. Donald Hosek 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scientology gets special IRS-approved tax exemptions which no other religion in the United States gets, as established in the Sklar lawsuit (see Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion , last section, and this external link). AnonMoos 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admission into medical by an international student

17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)213.255.196.214Dear Sir, Am an international student requesting for admission into your university. Please tell me how I can apply. I have produced excellent results in my schools I can send you a copy of my credentials and also my results. I promise not to disappoint you if you give this opportunity to proof my excellent academic performance. Thank you, I await your reply.

Wikipedia is not a university; it's just an online encyclopedia. If you want to go to university, you should talk to a high school adviser to learn more about good medical colleges. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really bizarre; I've seen this same thing asked before. What on Earth gives people the impression that Wikipedia is a university?? If the questioner is still around I'd appreciate it if he'd explain... -Elmer Clark 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once I mistyped the URL address of Wikipedia and got a page about a university. Don't ask me for more information, since I don't know anything else. --Taraborn 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time when people google the name of a university, they find a wikipedia article on said university, and on occasion they mistake wikipedia for the official website of the university. --VectorPotential^Talk 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the cause is what I said, but I'm unable to reproduce that result... --Taraborn 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parerga and Paralipomena

I enjoyed reading this sampler of Schopenhauer's wisdom but I am left wondering if it is a good introduction to his philosophy? 81.156.7.205 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but if you enjoyed it, perhaps you enjoy collections of insightful aphorisms more than you would enjoy The World as Will and Representation, in which case you may want to go from Schopenhauer forward to Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human, or maybe Twilight of the Idols) or backward to Chamfort (in English, ISBN 0865471452). Wareh 19:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, master of aphorisms, whose thoughts and writings inspired Schopenhauer as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lichtenberg is right on the money, the closest to what you've read you'll find anywhere. Wareh 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just read his philosophy so you can have your own opinion on whether the book is a good introduction to it or not? A.Z. 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Wareh, Parerga and Paralipomena, with all of its superficial and aphoristic charm, is not a good introduction to the full complexity of Schopenhauer's thinking. It gives little indication of the true depth of his knowledge and understanding. I should warn you, though, 81.156, if you do decide to tackle The World as Will and Representation you may be in for something of an intellectual shock. Compared with Parerga it is the mountain; Maxim's after MacDonald's! You will really need some grounding in metaphysics, especially in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. So, a good general introduction might be best; perhaps Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer, or, better still, Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction by Christopher Janaway. If you do decide to go straight for the man try On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason to begin with. Best of luck! Clio the Muse 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sensitive index

what is the effect of rising sensitive index on indian economy?210.212.113.3 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economists disagree about the causal links in either direction between finance, including stock markets, and the real economy of business and employment. One effect of a rise in the BSE Sensex is that listed Indian companies will have higher market capitalization. This could allow them to raise more capital to fund investment, which would cause the Indian economy to grow. A rise in this index also indicates that Indian investors are seeing capital gains. This could encourage still more investment, or it could give them confidence to increase their consumption. Either of these effects would also cause growth in the Indian economy. On the other hand, rises in stock prices and indexes can simply be a reflection of inflation, in which case little or no growth in the real economy takes place. Rising stock prices can also be a symptom of a stock market bubble, in which case short-term growth in the Indian economy could be reversed when the bubble deflates. Indeed, if companies and individuals have overinvested, or gone into debt to invest, the collapse of a bubble could limit the economy's growth for some time thereafter. Marco polo 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought on this. Some evidence indicates that the Sensex has been driven up at least partly by speculative foreign investment. Such foreign investment has probably driven up the exchange rate of the rupee, since foreigners must sell their currency and buy rupees in order to purchase shares on the BSE. The rise of the rupee makes Indian products less competitive globally and makes imports less expensive in India. This could hurt the Indian domestic economy. Also, to the extent that the rise in the Sensex is due to foreign speculation, India faces the danger of a financial crisis similar to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which caused serious recessions in the countries affected. Marco polo 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]