Humanities desk
< March 5	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 7 >

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.

March 6

Latin Americans forms of government

Which Latin American nations have presidential system and unitary state at the same time? Are all Latin American nations have presidential system?, yes or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Cuba, for obvious reasons, the vast majority of independent Latin American countries exhibit democracies in the form of presidential republics, in which the president acts as head of state and head of government.

In spite of some experiments, such as the Peruvian prime minister or the Argentine chief of cabinet, Latin American republics are rather strong presidential systems.

Most of the small countries in the region could be described as unitarian. The wikiarticle on unitary states define Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Perú, Uruguay, and Venezuela as unitary, though I have my doubts about the cases of Venezuela and especially Bolivia. The quoted article also considers Cuba a unitary country. Pallida Mors 03:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing my doubts, the article Politics of Venezuela speaks of a federal republic. Some input from a comparative constitutional law expert is welcome! Pallida Mors 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Europe

I know that the British are Protestant and the Irish, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spaniards are Roman Catholics and Russians, Ukrainians, and Greeks and Balkans are Orthodox. But the question is: Is United Kingdom the only Euro nation whose majority people are Protestants? Are Ireland, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal are the only Euro nations whose majority people are Roman Catholics? and Are Greece, Balkans, Russia and former soviet union nations are the only Euro nations whose majority people are Orthodox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at Image:Christianity percentage by country.png, you'll see that in several of the nations you mention Christians no longer form a majority. If you mean: is the UK the only European country in which the majority of Christians is Protestant, the answer is no. The Scandinavian countries are predominantly Protestant. In Germany and the Netherlands the fraction of Protestants is a tiny bit more than Catholics (see Religion in Germany#Christianity and Religion in the Netherlands#Major Denominations). Many more European nations have a Catholic majority, like Belgium, Austria, Poland, and Hungary. Bulgaria, Romania, and Cyprus are also predominantly Orthodox. --Lambiam 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland is nearly evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants. Neither group forms a majority there. While a majority in Estonia are not religious, of those who do profess a religion, most are Protestant. The largest religious group in Latvia is also Protestant, though Protestants are not a majority in Latvia. A majority of people in Lithuania are Catholic. Note that the last three countries are former Soviet countries, and none of them has an Orthodox majority. Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Balkans cannot be simply lumped together as predominantly Orthodox. Islam became the main religion in some areas under the Ottoman empire, and Catholicism in areas under Austro-Hungarian or Italian/Venetian influence. Even Orthodoxy has Greek, Russian and other local variants. I copy and paste the passage below from Balkans.

Eastern Orthodoxy is the principal religion in the following countries:

   * Bulgaria (Bulgarian Orthodox Church)
   * Greece (Church of Greece)
   * Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian Orthodox Church Although not recognized by other Orthodox Churches)
   * Montenegro (Serbian Orthodox Church and uncanonical Montenegrin Orthodox Church)
   * Romania (Romanian Orthodox Church)
   * Serbia (Serbian Orthodox Church)

Roman Catholicism is the principal religion in the following countries:

   * Croatia
   * Slovenia

Islam is the principal religion in the following countries:

   * Albania
   * Bosnia and Herzegovina
   * Turkey
   * Kosovo   SaundersW (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about present day proportions of Catholics v Protestants but historically Holland, and I believe, the other Low Countries have been fairly prominently Protestant. With the north German states a bit less so. I wouldn't lump the countries of the UK together either as Scotland's very Calvinist brand of Protestantism is quite distinct from that of England and Wales AllanHainey (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more accurate to say that Europe today is secular, rather than either Catholic or Protestant. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Albania, more people there have a Muslim heritage than a Christian one, but only a minority of people in Albania who would say they are one thing or the other actually observe the forms of their religions, and they intermarry freely, leading to even less rigidity. You hear people say that an Albanian's true religion is Albanianism. Xn4 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza "On the Improvement of the Understanding"

Can someone please help me to understand better what Spinoza says about the Understanding? - That is explain each of the following statements that Spinoza gives on the Understanding??

I. It involves certainty --in other words, it knows that a thing exists in reality as it is reflected subjectively.

II. That it perceives certain things, or forms some ideas absolutely, some ideas from others. Thus it forms the idea of quantity absolutely, without reference to any other thoughts; but ideas of motion it only forms after taking into consideration the idea of quantity.

III. Those ideas which the understanding forms absolutely express infinity; determinate ideas are derived from other ideas. Thus in the idea of quantity, perceived by means of a cause, the quantity is determined, as when a body is perceived to be formed by the motion of a plane, a plane by the motion of a line, or, again, a line by the motion of a point. All these are perceptions which do not serve toward understanding quantity, but only toward determining it. This is proved by the fact that we conceive them as formed as it were by motion, yet this motion is not perceived unless the quantity be perceived also; we can even prolong the motion so as to form an infinite line, which we certainly could not do unless we had an idea of infinite quantity.

IV. The understanding forms positive ideas before forming negative ideas.

V. It perceives things not so much under the condition of duration as under a certain form of eternity, and in an infinite number; or rather in perceiving things it does not consider either their number or duration, whereas, in imagining them, it perceives them in a determinate number, duration, and quantity.

VI. The ideas which we form as clear and distinct, seem so to follow from the sole necessity of our nature, that they appear to depend absolutely on our sole power; with confused ideas the contrary is the case. They are often formed against our will.

VII. The mind can determine in many ways the ideas of things, which the understanding forms from other ideas: thus, for instance, in order to define the plane of an ellipse, it supposes a point adhering to a cord to be moved round two centres, or, again, it conceives an infinity of points, always in the same fixed relation to a given straight line, or a cone cut in an oblique plane, so that the angle of inclination is greater than the angle of the vertex of the cone, or in an infinity of other ways.

VIII. The more ideas express perfection of any object, the more perfect are they themselves; for we do not admire the architect who has planned a chapel so much as the architect who has planned a splendid temple.

Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.148.10 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? Phew. OK. Well, you can start by reading Baruch Spinoza, particularly Baruch Spinoza#Ethical_philosophy. Then move on to Relativism. Conatus may also be helpful. Also, have you tried reading "On the Improvement of the Understanding"? --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd need to get some clear (and distinct) ideas about the Cartesian background first. Have you done that?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 14:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

83.148, I am reminded here of a response T.S. Eliot once gave on being asked at a public reading of the meaning of a poem he had just recited: he proceeded to read the whole thing again! What you have done here is simply to list Spinoza's summary of the issues he has addressed in the body of On the Improvement of the Understanding. An explanation along the lines you have requested would require, in essence, a full recapitulation, or, what is even worse, an amplification of the text, perhaps to impossible lengths.

Yes, I know it's difficult, but you will find the answers you are looking for if you read the essay again, perhaps more than once. If you are still having problems the best thing is to come back with some more tailored question, using your own words. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism: what are the advantages?

what are the advantages of tourism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.63.97 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid your question is a little vague. Do you mean what are the advantages to a country of having a developed tourism industry? Or do you mean what are the advantages of being a tourist? Both of these questions seem to have answers that are fairly obvious, so I'm wondering if you mean something else entirely. Can you explain what you're looking for? In the meantime, reading our article tourism might help. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Increases cultural awareness (to a point), and greater communication worldwide, creates jobs for locals, aids the continuing existence of small towns and shires and keeps (or puts) them on the map, raises the local standard of living, can aid in preservation of wildlife, indigenous arts and crafts, creates access to remote areas, replaces failiing local industries with new one, incrreases the chances of raising occupational health and safety standards for workers and travel standards for tourists through competition, gives adventurers ways to earn real money for their special talents, can be therapeutic for people getting away from the ratrace, their home town, opens the mind... (I know, some of these are arguable causes for the downside of tourism) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and promotes growth of eco-tourism, creating wildlife parks and other nature-related industries such as whale-watching and strengthens anti-mining/logging lobbies, highlights reserves and raises the profile of national parks (within limits), enhances importance of hospitality industries and their regulatory bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Rossi (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight savings time zones, Canada

What cities in British Columbia do not follow the time zone change ... my understanding is that there are some cities for historical purposes what cities would this be ? samm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.16.135 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the section on British Columbia in our article Daylight saving time around the world, (eastern) parts of Peace River Regional District (whose largest towns are Dawson Creek and Fort St. John) are on Mountain Standard Time year-round. In effect, they observe the same time as Alberta during late autumn and winter. During the rest of the year, their clocks are set the same as the rest of British Columbia observing Pacific Daylight Time. On this map, the more northerly portion of British Columbia shown as part of the Mountain Time Zone is the one that does not observe daylight saving time. (The more southerly portion on Mountain Time, the East Kootenay region, does observe daylight saving time.) Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]