Humanities desk
< May 24	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 26 >

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.

May 25

Jeremy Bentham and Human Nature

Did Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, believe that human nature was good or evil? What did he think about the belief and idea that humans were born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the same question you asked above at "03:38, 22 May 2009". Why are you trying to split the discussion into two places? AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you (Bowei Huang) actually read some of the works of the philosophers you ask questions about, or find some good introductory textbooks on the subject. Given the format of this forum noone is ever going to be able to answer those questions satisfactorily in such a short space. If you really care about knowing the details about these philosophical systems there is no easy way around it. Go to the philosophers themselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about just the first question? Can you simply please tell me the answer to the first question?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we are suggesting is that looking at human nature as "good" or "evil" is much too simplistic. For most of us, philosphers included, the nature of both humanity and of human behaviour falls across a spectrum, with multiple influences, and is not an "either-or" choice. While Mr Bentham may personally have tended more to one end of the spectrum than the other, this is not related to his, or others', utilitarian beliefs. It is a little like asking whether Catholics prefer Roman or Greek architecture. You could do a survey and answer the question, but it would be unrelated to the respondents' religious belief. // BL \\ (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start by offering some thoughts of your own that other people can respond to? AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running museum joke in letters to The Guardian

After a few days of reading the The Guardian newsfeed, I finally noticed that the "letters" section has a peculiar running joke. Here's some of the most recent letters I've noticed:

23 May:

A visit to the Tinplate Museum in La Tour Blanche, Dordogne, gave me unalloyed pleasure (Letters, passim).

Ian Churchill

Leeds

21 May:

Hurry to the submarine museum in Gosport - there are fears it's going under.

Clare Ash

Southsea, Hampshire

19 May:

There is a Hat Museum in Stockport that has a rival near Narbonne, in France. There's a lot of titfer tat between them.

John Banbury

Marple, Stockport

Does anyone know when and how this joke started, and is it possible to find a collection of all these letters somewhere?

Baeksu (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of running jokes appear often in letters pages of British newspapers - perhaps moreso The Guardian than others (how long has the discussion of possible alternative uses of 35mm film canisters been going?). This one about puns about museums seems to have started on 31 March when in a section not available online called 'Eyewitness', the Toaster Museum at Kettwig was mentioned. On 4 April, Gaynor Lewis of Smallburgh in Norfolk suggested that a visit there could be followed by going to the Bread Museum in Ulm, and possibly the Cutlery Museum (next to the Wallpaper Museum) in Kassel. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean that mention of the Toaster Museum poppped up. And it needs no funny phrasing to say that the Tobacco Museum in Bergerac is non-smoking. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Sex Museum in New York...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.155 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I alone in not getting the hat joke? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

art history

what is the oldest artisic depiction of the rapture of the church.William Bouguereau who died in 1905 is the last or oldest date i have found thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture of the church? Are you by any chance referring to Bouguereau's Le Ravissement de Psyché, aka L'enlèvement de Psyché? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes thats the oldest i have found-what dates do you have.--Prprd (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This says 1895. I'm only aware of this picture because it happens to be my No. 1 favourite painting. I had no idea it had anything to do with The Rapture; I just took a stab in the dark because of the similarity of the words "rapture" and "ravissement" (which I always assumed to mean something like abduction or rape), and the happy expression on Psyche's face (which would fit if it was about rapture, but not if it was about abduction or rape). -- JackofOz (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, L'Amour et Psyché, enfants tells me it's about the Greek legend of Cupid and Psyche, and nothing to do with the Rapture referred to in the Apocalypse. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend our article on Raptio? Yes, they are cognate terms. The one often used in art history is Frauenraub (which I believe is a redirect)? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. Thanks, BB. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine crown jewels

Are there any crown jewels or regalia of the Byzantine Empire left has survived the Crusade, the reign of the Latin Emperors, and the Ottoman conquest? I came across this article about a Byzantine Empress (forgot who) who was along with another Empress (I think a daughter in law) had crowns made in celebration for Easter. That is the only reference to crowns I ever heard of in Byzantine history. Except the Crown of thorns that was sold to Louis IX of France. Crowns of Byzantine Emperors survived until today, in Budapest, in Venice and Mount Athos, Greece and --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look this up (unless someone else gets to it), but I wanted to clarify that what was sold to Louis IX was a relic of Christ's crown of thorns, not a royal Byzantine crown. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search for "Byzantine crown jewels" leads to Donald Nicol's works, where he says that the crown jewels were pawned to Venice in 1343. Here is an article about them by Paul Heatherington, which looks useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of Byzantine Emperors and Empresses

Does anybody know a complete lits all the coronation dates and places of the Byzantine Emperors and their Empresses? The first one I am sure of is Leo I the Thracian which involved the Patriach but was there any emperors before this date who was crowned?

We might have to compile our own list...Wikipedia articles are a good start, some of them are comprehensive enough to have that info (Alexios I Komnenos, for example, was crowned on April 4, 1081, according to our article.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kongeluns (?) in Denmark

I'm trying to determine the name (= correct spelling) of a place, possibly a rural locale, in Denmark. It's described as "near Copenhagen" and written in my 1933 source text as Kongeluns. Searches have produced Kongelunden in the Danish Wikipedia, which I can't read and am not sure what sort of entity it is, and a Konglungen in Norway. Any help at clarifying this would be appreciated. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is a misspelling of Kongelunden, which is one of the 3 forests on the island of Amager. At least there is no place called Kongeluns in Denmark. It was planted in 1818 mainly with oak trees because there was a general lack of that type of wood in Denmark at the time. One of the main reasons was the need to build a new navy after the old one had been captured by the English in 1807. Incidentally, a few years ago the Forest ministry reported to her Majestys government, that the oak trees planted in various places in the early 1800s had now grown tall enough to be used as ship planks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google map shows a Kongelunsvay, which does go to Kongelunden a bit south of Copenhagen and a bit west of the airport on the island of Amager. It looks like a semi rural domestic suburb. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the word Kongelunden is The Kings (konge=king) Grove (lunden=the grove, lund = grove). I guess Kongelunsvay (is that really how it is spelled in Google?) is Kongelundsvej which means "The Kings Grove Road" (vej = road). But it is possible that your source has mistaken that spelling for Kongeluns. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you could have discovered that this article was about a woodland without reading Danish. The Danish article, by the way, is in da:Kategori:Skove i Jægersborg Statsskovdistrikt; when you go to da:Skove, you'll find that this title redirects to da:Skov, which has an interwiki to Forest. A little looking around can get you a little information about the place, even if you can't read the original. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did get that far on my own before posting the query, thanks! The level of discrimination was inadequate, though, because my task is to validate this keyword (and its spelling/s) in a database of settled (i.e. populated) locales, so need to know whether the place qualifies one way or the other. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical prohibition of fornication

One sometimes hears it stated that the Bible prohibits fornication, that is any sex except beteween husband and wife. Is this correct? There are certainly clear prohibitions on adultery, and some much-debated passages ostensibly prohibit gay sex, but does the Bible anywhere prohibit heterosexual relations between unmarried people? --rossb (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the spring time?--Radh (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the disputes centre around the Greek word πορνεια, which is variously translated as fornication, cultic prostitution or ritual impurity as a result of some sexual activity. I (a theology student) personally find it difficult to make an air-tight case for the prohibition of fornication in the Bible, although I agree with its prohibition on other, theological grounds. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word πορνεια ought on etymological grounds to mean specifically prostitution. And in any case that would take care of the New Testament, but what about the Old Testament? --rossb (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Koine tended to play fast-and-loose (as it were!) with etymology, so I don't think we can be too certain with that one. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting passage here is Deuteronomy 19 22 [1]. It's interesting to compare the different punishments for various kinds of illicit sex. Adultery is punishable by death (including sleeping with someone engaged to be married) but the punishment for sleeping with an unmarried, unengaged person is marriage (without divorce). However sexual prohibitions did develop over the history of Israel, so this passage isn't the last word. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 UTC)

->That passage is dealing with rape, not consensual heterosexual relations between a couple who are not betrothed or married. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons for that is that the concept of "marriage" in OT terms (certainly at the time Deuteronomy was composed) was a fluid and uncertain one. You see that in v24 the girl is described as the man's "wife", even though he is only "pledged to be married" to her. I don't think marrying the unmarried, unengaged girl is seen as punishment for the illicit sex -- the sex in itself is the marriage and all that remains to be completed are the ritual formalities. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the text of the Old Testament goes, it seems that the real "heavy lifting" involved in getting married happened at the time of the betrothal (this included negotiations between the family of the groom and the family of the bride, formalized in a binding legal agreement which, among other things, made the betrothed woman having sex with another man equivalent to adultery) -- and if subsequently the betrothed woman went to live with the family of the betrothed man, and the couple had sex, then that by itself constituted marriage, with or without any accompanying wedding ceremony (in fact, wedding ceremonies as such are barely mentioned in the Old Testament). AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is no use going back to some "true" meaning of a term, you have to focus on the history of the Church to know the true meaning of its teaching.--Radh (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although looking at the original meaning of a biblical text is central to the Church's historical teaching. You rarely find the final answers to questions of Christian doctrine in the Bible, but the quest normally starts there. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are referring to the Christian understanding of the bible, there are clear indications that sex-within-heterosexual-marriage is the "preferred" situation. Actually, if you read 1 Corinthians 7, and other parts of 1 Corinthians, Paul indicates that the "best" situation is no sex at all; as a person's primary focus should be on the work of Christ; however Paul begrudgingly recognizes that people want to have sex, so in that context marriage is the second-best solution, as it allows sex to occur in a manner that is pleasing to God. Also, Jesus recognized, in Matthew 5:27-28 that adultery occurs not when one has sex, but when one looks lustfully at any woman who is not his wife. The sin happens not at the action, but at the thought of the action. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, the sin happens not only at the action, but also at the thought of the action. I've heard it said this is a significant difference between Christianity and Judaism: in Judaism, only deeds can be sinful, while Christianity has "thought crimes" too. +An gr 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting distinction, and one that shows up in early Christian theology. If you look at the theology of Apollinaris of Laodicea, he is generally orthodox (most of his method would be adapted by the hyper-orthodox Gregory of Nazianzus) save for his dualism between body and mind. By his reading, the νους -- the mind -- was good and was corrupted by the sins of the body, and therefore the νους was not adopted by the Word in the Incarnation. Gregory, by contrast, held that sin came from within, that the νους itself was corrupt and therefore it must have been assumed in the Incarnation in order that it might be healed. See also Mark 7.15 [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling Polonius and Fortinbras

Has anyone here seen, or been involved in, a production of Hamlet where Polonius and Fortinbras were doubled (i.e. both parts played by the same actor)? If so, my questions are: Did it "work" artistically (define that any way you like)? Did it lead to an older-than-usual Fortinbras or a younger-than-usual Polonius or somewhere in between? And whichever of those: was that a "problem"? Was there any metatheatricallity to the doubling: i.e. did the production give any significance to the fact that it was the same actor? Also did the same actor also play First Gravedigger? Sorry if the question is a bit vague for WP:RD: but I'd be grateful for whatever insights anyone happens to have on this, however tangential. AndyJones (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of casts in a Shakespeare play and the poverty of most theatrical companies since Shakespeare's time it's almost certain that sometime, somewhere there has been a production in which any two parts have been doubled, unless they are actually on stage at the same time. Most audiences understand that such doubling is for practical reasons, and don't read anything into it (unless you are the Royal Shakespeare Company, when it's assumed you could have afforded two actors if you wanted). If you wanted to use the doubling to make a point, you could accentuate the similarities, or you could downplay them for the reverse effect. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the frequency with which Fortinbras is dropped from productions of Hamlet, I'd be surprised if any readers here have had personal experience with a doubling of Fortinbras and Polonius, but you never know. A recent production that I saw had no Fortinbras, and doubled Claudius and the Ghost, along with the usual doublings of other minor characters. —Kevin Myers 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer trade mag

Is there a big trade magazine for lawyers in the UK? I'm looking for somewhere I can take out an ad and have it seen by lots of lawyers. Thanks! --Tango (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of lawyers (solicitors or barristers? The Law Society Gazette is the professional one, I am told they have adverts, but I'm not certain on tone etc. (not that you've said anyway). Good place to start, if biggest=best. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)There is an advertising link at the bottom, BTW - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it, Wikipedia has to go, right now. I clicked that link only to see an article about Wikipedia on the front page and while I was doing so I was listening to the Radio 4 program Heresy and at almost exactly the same time *they* start talking about Wikipedia. I can't get away from the damn thing!! (To answer your questions, I'm probably looking for solicitors and biggest probably does equal best in this instance. Thanks for your help!) --Tango (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All your information are belong to us! DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or all your media, at any rate. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette is certainly the most read by solicitors. The Lawyer is fairly widely read. Most others I know of are subject-specific. AndyJones (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For comparision, The Lawyer claims to have a circulation of 31,571 and the Law Soc. Gazette 118,927, although since the latter is probably recieved by more people who don't actually read it given that it is associated with the Law Society itself. You can really do the rest. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a lawyer, Chambers and Partners is useful. Depending on how large your transaction is, of course... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest avoiding the law society gazette. The article to which Tango refers (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-business/by-their-wikipedia-entries-shall-you-know-them) blatantly encourages firms to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. I suggest we leave our comments about what we think of this. -- Nricardo (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided about that article. It does emphasise the need to follow "Wikipedia best practices" by citing sources and not using advertising slogans and marketing speak, so it's not too bad. I don't have any strong objection to companies writing accurate and neutral articles about themselves, as long as they are open about the COI. --Tango (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Companies using Wikipedia in the way the article suggests really does seem to me to be very mutually beneficial. It does seem, however, that the author was a little confused about Wikipedia and thought that the primary authors of articles tend to be the subjects themselves - he admits in one of the entries that he didn't understand the "conflict of interest" tag placed on an article and acts as if maintenance tags are things the company itself should be concerned with responding to. Still, though, the more companies that take this attitude, the better (provided regular Wikipedians scrutinize things enough that the articles don't turn into ads). -Elmer Clark (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US it is Lawyers Weekly.

I would say National Law Journal and The American Lawyer for the U.S. -- Nricardo (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding county-level US census data for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990

Hi,

I've been looking at the US census reports for 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990, and I'm having trouble finding county-level data (specifically for Clark County, Nevada; Cook County, Illinois; and Wayne County, Michigan) for the following variables:

- Number of jobs in manufacturing sector - Total White population - Total Black population - Total Latino population - What items were produced (this may not be collected in the census)

I also tried looking at the County Business Patterns dataset, but I can't find reports from before 1990.

Any help finding this data would be greatly appreciated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.175.70 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start here and follow the links for year, then location. If you're familiar with the structure of the reports, you can quickly locate what you're looking for. For example, the 1960 data for county population by race (White, Black and "other") can be found in table 25 of each of the following: Nevada, Illinois and Michigan. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]