Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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 17

Natural and Positive Law

Which philosophers believe in natural and which philosophers believe in positive law? Which philosophers disbelieve in natural law and which philosophers disbelieve in positive law? Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Justinian, Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin or John Stuart Mill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.237 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Justinian, Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin or John Stuart Mill would be a quick way to find out. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CASPOROVA- INTERESTING PERSONALITY NOT FOUND IN ANY SEARCH ENGINE.....

CASPOROVA, HE IS A PERSON FAMILIAR FOR HIS MUSIC...THERE IS ALSO A ENGLISH MOVIE IN HIS NAME...HIS DIARY IS A FAMOUS ONE.. BUT COULD NOT FOUND HIS LIFE HISTORY IN ANY SEARCH ENGINE....WILL BE HAPPY IF GET THE INFO...ABT HIM...HE MAY BE A ITALIAN BELONG TO FEW CENTURIES BACK... ALL THE BEST! THANK U! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.132.42 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you mean Giovanni Francesco di Caspará? dab (𒁳) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Giacomo Casanova, perhaps? He matches the film part and the famous diary part (if one takes "diary" to mean "memoir"). The only connection with music that I'm aware of, however, is the persistent rumor that he had a hand in Lorenzo Da Ponte's libretto for Mozart's Don Giovanni. Deor (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he famous for SHOUTING?-- Mad031683 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do knights call each other "sir"?

Hi, can anyone help me with the above question? thanks in advance, 203.221.127.156 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In formal protocol, yes. The rest of the time, who knows. DAVID ŠENEK 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sir states "Sir is an honorific used as a title (see Knight) and in several other modern contexts." Knight notes that "Outside the British honours system it is usually considered improper to address a knighted person as 'Sir'." So, assuming the two knights in questions are both British, they would address each other as "Sir", at least if they were being formal about it.

"Sir" replaces the common title "Mister" for someone who has been knighted in the British honours system. It would be used in the same context that one would use Mister. If one were speaking with plain old Tommy Atkins, and was to stand on formality, one would address him as "Mr. Atkins". If he had been knighted, one would address him as "Sir Thomas". However, in both cases, if one had a more informal relationship, one could call him "Tommy". I think the big difference between addressing knights and commoners is that one is much more likely to be formal with the former than the latter. I would guess that, between knights, formality is less of an issue. (I'm now wondering what happens if Sir Paul runs into Sir Mick at a party.)

I am casually acquainted with one person who has been knighted in the British system. He's a fairly down to earth sort. Typically, when I see him for the first time at an event, I will address him as "Sir X", but if we are having a casual conversation I drop the Sir. (But I'm a rude colonial, so who knows if that's a faux pas or not.) I'm also not a knight myself. - Eron^Talk 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Sir, the brash statement "Outside the British honours system it is usually considered improper to address a knighted person as 'Sir'" is apparently not informed by experience in the larger world. "Sir" is always an appropriate interjection when speaking to anyone with whom one is not on a first-name basis and who is in fact a great deal more important, a great deal older, or a great deal more experienced than one is oneself. "Sir" is only improper in a circumstance where it might possibly be taken for an ironic impertinence. --Wetman (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that brash statement is simply meant to suggest that those knighted in other honours systems have other - or no - honorifics. I didn't read it as suggesting that no one but a British knight should be called sir.- Eron^Talk 22:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the title sir isn't quite as formal as "mylord" or the likes. Sir more or less become attached to one's given name. I address knights as "sir" whether I know them personally or not. "Mylord" is rather more formal and I wouldn't use it whilst addressing a friend. Mind you if you're talking about internet correspondence: YOu can refer to people as what ever you want. = ) There are so many "lords" on the internet it's a wonder HM The Queen ever gets time to have break from her knighting activities! I have also noted the refusal of republicans to use such titles, even at formal occaisons. Pure rudeness and disregard for culture if you ask me. --Cameron (T|C) 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "My Lord" applies to most peers - barons, viscounts, earls and marquesses - but not dukes, who get "Your Grace". It never applies to knights. But again, if you're a close personal friend of one of these people, these forms of address would go by the way, except maybe on very formal occasions. (Proper form on encountering your old school chum for the first time since he was elevated to the peerage: "What ho, Algy, old boy. Kicked you upstairs, have they. That'll keep you out of harm's way, eh. What, what. Toodle pip. Oh, regards to the wife, whoever she is these days".) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHRONOLOGICAL YEARS

Hello everybody, I wonder if it is possible to advance in Chronological years,but in appearance look and feel younger as the years go by. I find myself in this position in life,and often ask other peoples estimate on my age,which is often 20 years less than my present age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I went into semi-retirement as a lawyer because of the stress. I still do a will or two, though nothing else, in addition to my new career (ministry.) I had a client from 5-6 years before (the height of the strain) come in to have a codicil done, and she remarked that I looked younger than I had 5 years earlier.

Former American President Jimmy Carter looked about 80 his last days in office, because he was under the strain of the Iran hostage crisis. When he had been out of office for a few years, though, he look about his chronological age, 60.

So, the stress and strain you were under versus what you are now, lifestyle changes (Carter was very physically active post-Presidency, especially with Habitat for Humanity), and other things can all contribute to one appearing to age backwards for a time.209.244.30.221 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

170.86, I just hope you aren't 21, 203.221.127.156 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain of Youth. Strawless (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or The Picture of Dorian Gray? Fribbler (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live life backwards, like Merlin. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painting

I'm trying to find a painting - it's in a medieval (classical) style, and has a pale skinned women (Mary or another saint?) surrounded by red and blue angels (cherubim?) Anyone know?87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found it http://www.pbase.com/karlc/image/55323496 also Image:Fouquet Madonna.jpg

But I still have a question - there seems something odd about this painting - compared to the little I've seen of the rest of 'fouquets' (sp?) work it seems to be 'on a different level' ie looks like a different painter did this.. Is much known about it? Has it been very heavily restored or something??87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different media, perhaps? this is a painting on panel. You may be comparing it to Jean Fouquet's manuscript illuminations. --Wetman (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly - I find the painting remarkable - any idea why the angels are red and blue?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's to distinguish the seraphim from the cherubim. I know she's supposed to be breastfeeding, but all the same I can't recall ever seeing a portrait of the Madonna with an, er, wardrobe malfunction before. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or one with surgical implants, either! ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The iconological type is that of a Madonna lactans. Google Madonna lactans and Madonna lactante for more examples and contextual discussion. --Wetman (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Wetman. That's the most out-of-the-way information I've come across all week. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly heavily over-restored, in common with almost all old masters. See the article on ArtWatch International, although it's not particularly informative. The painting looks particularly 'flat', ie. with little depth, which suggests to me that some restorer has been too enthusiastic in removing varnish and has taken the picture's tone with it. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric layers of tinted varnish may be expected in sixteenth-century and later paintings, but not pre-Leonardo.--Wetman (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more about the painting from Johan Huizinga's The Waning of the Middle Ages:

In the seventeenth century, Denis Godefroy noted down a tradition, then already old, according to which the Madonna had the features of Agnes Sorel, the royal mistress, for whom Chevalier (Etienne Chevalier, the donor of the dyptych, depicted on the other panel) felt a passion that he did not trouble to conceal. However this may be, the Madonna is, in fact, represented here according to the canons of contemporary fashion: there is the bulging shaven forehead, the rounded breasts, placed high and wide apart, the high and slender waist. The bizarre inscrutable expression of the Madonna's face, the red and blue cherubim surrounding her, all contribute to give this painting an air of decadent impiety in spite of the stalwart figure of the donor. Godefroy observed on the large frame of blue velvet E's done in pearls linked by love-knots of gold and silver thread. There is a flavour of blasphemous boldness about the whole, unsurpassed by any artist of the Renaissance.

— Kpalion^(talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding/knowing that -splendid - not sure if I agree - but I certainly see the point.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wetman: according to an article in the most recent ArtWatch UK journal (number 23, Spring 2008, p.9, 'Amber Delight' by Donald Fels), which specifically relates to [...] 15^th to 17^th century Flemish paintings [...] an amber oil of resin was typically used, with drying oils made with lead or manganese and a solvent of 'spike of lavender' (apparently a distillate of lavender, it subsequently evaporates after application and is, therefore, effectively impossible to discover through later scientific analysis). Leonardo da Vinci is cited in the article ('Treatises on Painting', by L da V, Codex Urbinas Latinos Nr. 1270, translated and annotated by Philip McMahon, Princeton University Press, 1956, p.200 nr. 557) as suggesting that an 'amber varnish be used as a final coating for an oil painting'. Other varnishes discussed in the article include walnut, copal (from trees not indigenous to Europe: first recorded purchase in 1592, first reference to use as a varnish, 1641), linseed/ hempseed oil (these in use in Novgorod in the 12^th century for the production of icons), pine resin, rosin (amber dissolved in turpentine), and 'sandarac or mastic'.

A light varnish, which might be referred to as a wash or glaze, would probably have been applied by the artist after he had finished the main picture in order to dampen down the colour of the background in order that the eye is naturally drawn to the main subject of the composition, in this case the Virgin Mary. In applying such a wash, the garish reds and blues would be subdued and a sense of depth added to the picture. Remove such a wash, and those reds and blues become discordant. Over the entire picture, a 'sealing' coat of varnish would have been applied, in order to protect and fix the painted surface. What usually happens in the case of a restoration is that the conservator removes both the 'preserving' and 'tonal' varnishes; the effect is then to reduce the sense of depth to a picture. As a cited example see Luncheon of the Boating Party#Cleaning, but, as I say, almost all of the Old Masters have been buggered-about with by ham-fisted restorers over the last 500 years. The pictures in the London National Gallery generally, I'm afraid, exhibit a 'house style' (of the restorers); what's happened to the Titians and, in particular, Holbein's The Ambassadors is a disgrace and a tragedy.

As an aside, may I say how much I appreciate your comments on this page, particularly the more witty examples! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I take it that the shaven head is because she is considered a 'servant (slave) of God'? See: Tonsure#History. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an often repeated fact especially in the context of this painting that shaved foreheads (and plucked eyebrows) were simply the fashion for women at that time - to emphasise a high forehead (still appreciated today I believe)87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

decents

of what decent are bahamians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.53.98 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Demographics of the Bahamas. DAVID ŠENEK 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television Programming

Here in the U.S., on February 17, 2009, all television programming is required by law to become digital by the Federal Communications Commission. Under U.S. law, how is it legal for the government to mandate such a thing? Thanks, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Communications Act of 1934 gives the FCC power to assign parts of the broadcast spectrum to certain types of users. Congress granted the FCC that power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The FCC has decided to reallocate the frequencies currently used by analog TV to other uses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, it's not programming that will change, but over-the-air broadcast signals. The legal theory is that the public (ie. the government) owns the airwaves and merely licenses broadcast rights to the broadcasters. Those licenses are periodically renewed and can be revoked or modified. See Digital television in the United States. --D. Monack | talk 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "all" part isn't correct either, even though they are saturating the airwaves with announcments that say just that. The transition does not include "low power, class A, and translator stations". And, of course, border cities will continue to get analog broadcasts from Canada and Mexico. Why every TV station is putting out ads saying that all analog broadcasts will stop then, when this is untrue, is a question I'd like answered. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good summary, and the (major) broadcast networks have a vested interest in making sure you keep watching them, not some other class of station that doesn't require you to purchase new hardware. — Lomn 13:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every TV station is putting out those ads because the FCC is mandating that they do so. In fact, recently the FCC decided that the stations weren't putting out enough warnings and ordered them to step it up. Corvus cornix_talk 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that. The government telling them what they must put on TV. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with it if the government wasn't telling them to lie to the public and tell us ALL analog broadcasts will stop then. This can cause people to make poor purchasing decisions based on incorrect info, like getting a CECB without the analog pass-through feature that would allow them to continue to get analog stations. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC requires stations to show public service shows, even if they are shown in the wee hours of Sunday mornings. The broadcast networks belong to the "public", and there are quite a lot of FCC rules as to what can not be shown, what must be shown, etc. Corvus cornix_talk 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]