Humanities desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 17

Quote

I am looking for a quote i heard a while ago that basically says a leader must be able to do everything those he commands does. Note this is NOT a quote saying a leader must not be a hypocrite (ie must hold himself to the same standards he holds his subordinates to) or that leaders always have to do everything, just that they be able to. Does anybody recognize it? For my purposes I'm not looking for a specific quote--there is one I have seen but a similar one will work just as well. Thanks, 24.92.85.35 (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing thought: The show Undercover Boss featured bosses doing their employee's jobs, so they seem to subscribe to that theory. Could the quote have been made on there ? StuRat (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context would be useful, where did you hear this quote?

It's quite a common philosophy in some areas, much less common in others, so it's the kind of rhetoric you'll hear from union reps.

ALR (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Steve Jobs would have agreed. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is possible in a modern business environment. A boss in a corporation would have several specialists under him. 88.9.213.105 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean literally! It's just saying that the boss should understand his or her underlings and what they have to do. Again, any similar quote wil do, but if it helps I have the vauge impression I saw it in the context of pre-20th century warfare, about a general. thanks again. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I havent got a quote but it sounds military to me too, as in the naval phrase "learning the ropes", where Lord So-and-so's son would start as a humble midshipman, tieing knots and rigging masts, even though he could reasonably expect to end up as an admiral.

Indeed it is often a point of honour that senior officers can still shoot straight, complete an assault course, etc, and wouldnt expect their subordinates to respect them if they couldnt. You see obituaries which say "never asked his men to do anything he couldnt do himself", for example. It used to apply to a certain extent in civilian life where the boss's son was expected to "start at the bottom", "get his hands dirty", (albeit briefly) before taking on a managerial role and ultimately inheriting the company. I imagine the rationale was that he wouldnt be able to judge the efficiency (or otherwise) of an employee unless he himself could do their job competently. But nowadays, presumably since the advent of management schools, "bossing" seems to be seen as a separate job in itself where senior managers switch from one company to another (even if they are making quite different products) rather than always staying in the same sector all their lives. (Unlike in the military, where an Army tank commander would not be headhunted by the Navy and given a battleship to command) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an IT professional for most of my life I've had several bosses from other backgrounds who pronounced that they understood what I did in my job because they had "created a few spreadsheets" themselves. Idiots! HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream dictionaries

I was wondering if any of you found any of those "dream dictionaries" helpful? By "helpful" I mean whether they've helped you to understand veiled psychological or perhaps spiritual symbolism of your dreamscape. Some people have argued that symbolic contents of dreams are far too personal/individual to assign generalized dictionary definitions to them. What do you think? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own perspective is that, while there may be some mileage in a generalised "dream meaning", you will get more mileage from reflecting on your own life and what's going on in it. An example from my own life: I used to have dreams where I was going to the toilet in a public setting, such as on a busy roundabout, or maybe the walls of the toilet would disappear and I'd be in the open air. After a few months of this dream, I concluded that it referred to the job I was doing, which I loved but wasn't really qualified to do, so a part of me felt exposed and vulnerable. As soon as I got a different job doing something I felt confident about doing and was fully qualified to do, the dreams stopped. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dream you described is basically equivalent to a dream of being naked in public, which is quite common and almost archetypal in fact. I just checked I Had the Strangest Dream...: The Dreamer's Dictionary for the 21st Century and found this:

Naked: ... They can also represent the fear of others knowing your private thoughts and feelings. (snip) If you are uncomfortable, ashamed, or embarrased, then a dream of being naked is telling you to do some ego intergration work, and begin the process of releasing your own judgments and criticisms.

This entry makes a reasonably good sense, don't you think? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very pretty, but didn't really cut the mustard with me. The danger with it is that you look at the entry and think "ok that's what it means" and leave it at that, without actually doing the work of establishng what the dream was telling you. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a point. I suppose the ideal way to work with dreams is that you keep your own dream journal and use the dictionary as a reference. Anyway, I am relieved that the dream dictionaries are not completely useless. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist schools

What are the main differences between Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists besides being geographical different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.212 (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and also Schools of Buddhism for a very brief description of each. Staecker (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly put, it's sectarian differences over philosophy and practice. Theraveda tends to focus on the gradual liberation of the self over lifetimes, Mahayana is focused on the liberation of all beings (and tends to see 'personal' liberation as a form of attachment), Vajrayana (which is a good but more 'Indian' than the other two schools) takes a more aggressive, active approach to liberation. Take that as a nutshell - many people will disagree with the details of what I said, but it captures the gist. The differences are on roughly the same scale as the Catholic/Protestant distinction in Christianity (and more pronounced than the Sunni/Shi'ite distinction is Islam) - i.e. fairly major divergences in interpretation of doctrine, but still recognizable as the same essential faith. --Ludwigs2 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir is sometimes considered to be more or less the formal founding of Mahayana as a somewhat distinct school. One of the main differences is that Mahayana tends to recognize whole successions or hierarchies of Bodhisattvas of various past and future cosmic eras, so that the historic Gautama Sakyamuni tends to be a little de-emphasized... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is also important to emphasize matters of historical attitude as well. The Theravada sect was driven primarily by a sense of conservatism and a need to preserve what they believed to be the teachings of the historical Buddha as taught in the Suttas, so you find a lot of the material of the Theravada sect is in the form of commentaries on the Pali suttas as found in the Pali Nikayas. The Mahayana and Vajrayana groups were less focused on stressing such a historical link and so composed new works in diferent styles and genres. Rabuve (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles IV of the United Kingdom

What would happen if Charles, Prince of Wales decided to style himself Charles IV in recognization of the Jacobite Charles III? It can be possible like Napoleon III could have styled himself Napoleon II instead and Louis XVIII, Louis XVII, both disregarding their precarious predecessors. Also on another note how big is the Jacobite movement today. Does it still even exist?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Jacobite claim has been made by the descendent himself since 1807, so it's in a very weak position. There's no way we can tell what would happen if Charles III were recognised. It's so supremely unlikely - not least because Charles may well avoid using that name. That would be recognition of a Catholic king after they were banned, so it would automatically throw the monarchy into disarray. Anything could happen. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he Prince of Wales has often stated in past interviews that upon his ascension to the throne, he will assume the name and regnal George VII. He has offered the explanation that the name Charles has negative connotations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's decided anything yet - do you have the record of such an interview? I know George VII has been widely speculated upon, but that's because there aren't many options. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read this in various interviews over the last three decades. As you say, nothing has been firmly decided upon.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been speculated, but the most recent source I could find, [a Guardian article from 2005], says he's denied it. Smurrayinchester 00:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur II ? Or would that be raising expectations too high or seen as assuming inappropiate airs? (As those who heard his first wedding will remember, he was christened Charles Philip Arthur George.) Since the Spanish Armada is still remembered, Philip II (since Philip II of Spain was styled King of England upon marrying Mary I of England) would probably be a less fortunate choice than Charles ~~VII~~ [added after edit conflict] III or (less likely) Charles IV. Pretenders are very rarely counted in a name's succession; for example there was at least one schismatic Pope (or Antipope) John XXIII centuries before the 20th-century Pope John XXIII.. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there never was an Arthur I, Arthur II seems unlikely. Even if one accepts the dubious historicity of a "King Arthur", British monarchs are numbered starting from the Norman Conquest. - Nunh-huh 20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. (I'd forgotten.) It would then probably be even more confusing for Elizabeth II's successor to style himself King Arthur or (unconventionally) King Arthur I. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Royal Family's website doesn't list Philip as King, I doubt he'd add make his name Phillip II. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what precise purpose the Royal Family page you're referring to is intended to serve, but Philip and Mary were definitely the King and Queen of England after their marriage, and it was a serious legal offence to deny it. The laws of subsequent reigns, starting with Elizabeth I's, refer to the Parliaments and laws of Philip and Mary. [The exact constitutional position of Queen Mary I's husband, both theoretical and practical, is another complicated and disputed question, especially as King Philip returned to Iberia after his wedding.] See for example the documents in The Tudor Constitution, edited by G.R. Elton (Cambridge Univ. Press). See also the extensive discussion and citation in (of all places) the comments section of this Sporcle quiz. It would be anomalous to have two King Philips without some differentiation. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second part of the question... There is no serious Jacobite movement today (those who would actually support a Stuart heir to the throne are a very tiny fringe)... but there is a very large Jacobite fandom. Lots of people play at being Jacobites (especially here in the US)... toasting the "King over the water", growing wistful at the mention of "Bonnie Prince Charlie", and dreaming about "what if". Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across a copy of The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland in a charity shop today, which seems to be a book written espousing the claims of a pretender to the Jacobite pretendership. I have no idea how many followers he has, but I suspect they don't need a very large room for their meetings. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That guy is a grandiose phoney, but the people on the Jacobite succession page have potential claims that might theoretically be considered valid in some circumstances (though extremely unlikely by now)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely, as the Jacobite claimant, Charles Edward Stuart, was Catholic, and the UK has a law against that sort of thing. It seems unlikely that Charles would make any moves to commemorate a Catholic pretender, nor would Parliament, who controls the succession (along with the other Commonwealth parliaments), be likely to do it. By "very unlikely", I'd put it on par with "The sun exploding yesterday". --Jayron32 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is much like the problem of deciding the regnal name of Robert III of Scotland; as regnal name#Scotland notes, John was a problematic one (one John was deposed, another was of contested legitimacy) so they fudged the issue and went with the safe alternative. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm sure we used to have, but I can no longer find, a table of future regnal names of British monarchs. If memory serves, the decision that Elizabeth II would be II even in Scotland (which had no ER-I) led to an agreement between the King of Arms and the Lord Lyon that future British monarchs would take as a regnal number the greater of the next-English/next-Scottish/next-UK number. We had a table (extrapolated by that scheme from the numbers of previous monarchs); I wonder where that table went? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search found this AFD Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]