Humanities desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

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.

August 22

Murugan vs The Morrígan

Is there any connection between the Hindu and Irish deities?

What is being depicted at the right? Is Murugan the peacock?

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the leader of the Dark Fae? --Trovatore (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some TV character? No.

These are mythological/religious characters withsimilar names, one an Irish female and one an ambiguous (to me, at least) Hindu. Both are described as deities of war. Their links are provided. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the article you linked to, Murugan is said to have six heads. So it's fairly obvious that Murugan is the humanoid being in the centre with 6 heads shown. The peacock (which he appears to be riding) is I presume Murugan's mount/Vāhana as mentioned in the infobox where the photo is located and also the rest of the article, similarly the other two are the consorts Valli and Deivanai. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Murugan is consistently referred to as a he. Are the six heads in the center of the figure above right with rouge and lipstick meant to be of a male? Are these images (such as with a hand between Ganesh's legs) of men? I am hoping we have someone here with personal knowledge or at least links to better English sources. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology changes over time; the real question here is whether "Moro-rīganī-s" = "Murugan" (perhaps once Murukan? [1]) . (see netsam) Maybe someone on the Language desk could help? Wnt (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not whether or not Murugan is male (although I think it's clear he is intended to be in so much as such concepts apply to deities particularly Hindu ones were the concept can be fluid*), but your question of what is being depicted in the photo is clearly largely answered in the article. In particular it seems clear Murugan is not the peacock.

*In terms of him being male, beyond the use of the male pronoun, the mention of him possibly being the other son of Shiva (the other being Ganesha) is a big clue.

And I would note that regardless of the difficulty reading the article, you don't really have to read it carefully to get all this. if you are interested in the peacock, a search for the word will direct to the relevant portions of the article. And of course the infobox where the image lives is an obvious first place to look. There of course, you also learn about the consorts and a search for their names will find what our article has to offer on them. The six head thing may be a bit more difficult to think of but it's hard to find images (which you see to be doing) without seeing at least one more head and one of the other images in our article discusses the heads in the caption and it's briefly mentioned in the discussion on names which is an obvious place to look if you are interested in any possible connection with other deities not to mention is the first section. Similarly given you interest in the connection to Ganesha in the photo, a search in the article will find the discussion on being a possible son of Shiva and brother to Ganesha.

I'll freely admit I never read the article in it's entirety simply picked out the relevent portions which addressed issues which seem to confuse you which our article seems to clarify. And despite spending a big part of my early life in Malaysia will a small number of Tamil friends and classmates, I'm not that familiar with Murugan (more the rituals etc) so most of what I'm saying here came from the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a hindu but one of my friends is and she does worship Muruga specifically so I can say that 1) he is male, 2) he is not the peacock, 3) I have no idea why, but many hindus (particularly those in northern India) worship his brother and his parents but not Muruga himself, and 4) the WP articles on this stuff are generally very difficult to read. Aside from the names being similar, why do you suspect any relation here? 163.202.48.126 (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are probably just false cognates, which is something that happens with surprising frequency. It's remotely possible that the names have a common Indo-European ancestry, but I don't think the historical record is well enough established to support that. John M Baker (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously it could be coincidence. That is the whole point in the thread. We have two Indo-European war deities sharing the consonants m-r-g-n in their names. Morrigan has an assumed etymology. Can anyone suggest one for Murugan? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The etymology of Morrígan is not "assumed", it's well established by the fact that it can be analysed as mór, great, or mor, connoting terror or monstrousness, plus rígan, queen, in Old Irish. This is not a deep etymology of a word that has no obvious meaning, it's transparent. According to the WP article, the name Murugan is Tamil, which is not Indo-European, and he's known as Karttikeya in Sanskrit. So it doesn't look like there's any etymological connection, and the similarity in sound is coincidental. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be just coincidence that these two deities have similar names and are war deities. Our article on The Morrígan states that her name comes from an Old Irish compound meaning "phantom queen". This may of course have been an epithet for an earlier deity with an unrelated name. Meanwhile, Murugan is a male deity that almost certainly originated in South India. In South India, Dravidian languages are spoken. These languages have no proven relationship to Celtic or other Indo-European languages. If there is a relationship, it is a very distant one, such that etymologically related words almost certainly would not be so similar after thousands of years of divergence. Moreover, according to this site, of uncertain reliability, Murugan's name derives from a Dravidian root meaning "the destroyer". This is very different in meaning from "phantom queen". So the apparent resemblance of the two deities' names is almost certainly a coincidence. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is a coincidence. Here is a scholarly reference for some etymologies of the Tamil name Murugan. Note, OP, that the original form of the word had a K not a G. In addition, the paper discusses how the attributes of the North Indian warlike Skanda were fused with the South Indian youthful lover Murugan. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Marco Polo and IP 184, for providing sources. The PDF gives an unlikely meaning of young/fragrant, while the website suggests "destroyer" from two different Dravidian roots both found in Burrow & Emenau. It was not my intention to imply any relation between Celtic and Dravidian--I used the term Indo-European above as an areal term. There's always a logical chance that either or both names are folk etymologies and borrowed from some other source, but all I was looking for was an actual Dravidian etymology for Murugan, not just the assumption of one, since I've long known the Irish etymology. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the question of the depiction. Are the six heads in the picture above female or male? Are these images male or female or not stereotypically either as a depiction of a Hindu god? μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This thread is slightly reminiscent of somebody I saw on British TV a few years ago, manfully trying to prove a connection between Idris and Idris. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that relevant to anything here? Is there some discussion of Idris I have missed? Marco Polo seems to have found the relevant Dravidian etymology. It wasn't in Murugan. Is it in either of those Idris articles you've belinked? μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's relevant. It's another example - albeit one more obvious than yours - of the same name occurring in a Celtic language and an Indian language, while not having a common etymology or linkage. I wonder if there are any others? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate and totally irrelevant topic, make a thread for it if you like; I have expressed no interest in a list of false Indo-Celtic cognates.

I only said that it was "slightly reminiscent". Please let's be civil. Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I have been interested in is the etymology of Murugan, which MP has given, and why Murugan seems to be depicted as feminine in so many depictions. Is it a misinterpretation to see these depictions as feminine, as opposed to expressing some other quality or tradition? μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why were two people charged with murdering Christopher Lane

In this news story it was reported two of the boys were charged with murder and one with being an accessory. Chancey Allen Luna allegedly pulled the trigger, and was charged with murder. Michael Dewayne Jones allegedly drove the car and was charged with being an accessory. James Francis Edwards was charged with murder, but I haven't seen anything indicating what he did to get that charge; he presumably did not pull the trigger. Does anyone know why Edwards was charged with murder and not just being an accessory? Mitch Ames (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common purpose may be relevant here. Our article says "The simplest form of joint enterprise to murder is two or more planning to cause death and doing so. If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable regardless of who actually inflicted the fatal injury." This doesn't explain why the driver was only charged with being an accessory, but that could be the result of plea bargaining. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not plea bargaining. The driver hid the gun and cooperated with police.
Sleigh (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bentley was an extreme case (in the UK) of the application of the common purpose principle. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the two afro-americans were charged with murder and the white kid only with being accessory. And they were all together in it. What conclusion do you draw from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.250.193 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Reference Desk. We do not draw any conclusions. We are only supposed to provide references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nirad C Chaudhuri, Saul Bellow, Bertrand Russell

Did Nirad C Chaudhuri ever meet with Saul Bellow and Bertrand Russell? When and How? What were their points of talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.37.187 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If you can get a copy of A Passage to England at your library, one of the talks mentions someone meeting Russell (according to google search results). But since the book is not viewable online, you’ll have to check the actual book to confirm that the person meeting Russell was Chaudhuri. 184.147.116.153 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't meet in person, they may have corresponded - Russell kept up a voluminous correspondence. McMaster University has a great deal of his letters (~30,000 of them) and maintains this website, which has links you may find helpful. Russell and his work are also studied there as part of the archives, so you may also get a better answer to your question by emailing someone at the university. Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phobias: Fear, Dislike and/or Hatred.‏

Hi, I was looking up definitions of phobias, particularly religious ones. I'm puzzled that phobia isn't more defined i.e Islamophobia and Christianophobia. I can fear Muslims and Catholics without disliking or hating them. Would your volunteers consider redefining them similar to Theophobia (The fear of God) which hasn't the Dislike and/or Hatred definition. Maybe you could define the dislike and/or hatred the same as Antisemitism and Antihinduism? Thanks for the Great site. All the best,

James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.177.109 (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term Islamaphobia is commonly used to describe a hate or dislike, not a fear, and that is what the article covers. Islamophobia#Debate on the term and its limitations explains the arguments for and against the term. Talk:Islamophobia has lots of back and forth on the subject too - that is where you would go to discuss having Wikipedia change the definition on the site. Jessica Ryan (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An English term that goes with the same basic rules in Islamaphobia is homophobia. Literally, it means "fear of homosexuals". Actually, it means "dislike of, hatred of, discrimination against, hostility towards persons with homoerotic tendencies". If I remember correctly, I did read a Wikipedia article on the word, homophobia, and its own criticisms. One suggestion is that the word homophobia is really referring to homoerotophobia. Another suggestion is that the word homophobia is really referring to heterosexism. 164.107.103.191 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that the "fear of God" is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather, fearing God can be a good thing, as "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction," (Proverbs 1:7) Hatred of God or the gods will probably be anti-theism. 164.107.103.191 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather ironic quote, as Christian fundamentalists typically suffer from "science-phobia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, language is evolving. See etymological fallacy. Many even common words have a different meaning now than in the past. A computer used to be a person, not a piece of silicon. Amateur used to be a term of praise, not derision. A people's democracy often isn't democratic. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's well and good, but homophobia and islamophobia are loaded terms that never had an original fear meaning. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Homophobia" seems to evoke the legal outrage of "acute homosexual panic", a defense used by murderers in which they argued they were in mortal terror over the existence of gays. I would speculate "Islamophobia" simply followed this model out of fashion, at the time when it became an issue. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're using "fear" in the broadest sense, as "aversion". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest reference to "homophobia" that the OED lists is from TIME Friday, Oct. 31, 1969, "Behavior: The Homosexual: Newly Visible, Newly Understood":

Most straight Americans still regard the invert with a mixture of revulsion and apprehension, to which some authorities have given the special diagnostic name of homosexual panic. A Louis Harris poll released last week reported that 63% of the nation consider homosexuals "harmful to American life," and even the most tolerant parents nervously watch their children for real or imagined signs of homosexuality, breathing sighs of relief when their boy or girl finally begins dating the opposite sex.

Such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications. The worst of these may well be that all homosexuals are alike. In fact, recent research has uncovered a large variation among homosexual types.

It then lists the different types of homosexual, including the Blatant (like the "catty hairdresser or the lisping, limp-wristed interior decorator."), the Secret Lifer (" most are extremely skilled at camouflage"), and the the Desperate ("are likely to haunt public toilets"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop obfuscating here. A phobia (just that word on its own, and SOME of the words containing the suffix phobia) is an irrational fear of something, such as spiders, flying, open spaces and, in one weird case I've seen, electric hand dryers. Such phobias can create a state of terror in the victims. But that doesn't mean that every word with "phobia" in it is an irrational fear. It's obvious that homophobia is a dislike or perhaps a hatred of homosexual people and a willingness to discriminate against them. Note that that definition doesn't include the word irrational, because it is too judgemental. Islamophobia is a similar word. The latter two and others like them are usually based on dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phobia as "irrational fear, horror, aversion" - not really much difference between those three.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not so. However reputable the cited "Etymonline" may be, the MS Encarta Dictionary thesaurus for aversion associates it with: dislike, hatred, loathing, repugnance, distaste, hate, antipathy, abhorrence, detestation, repulsion, disgust. Note that "fear and horror" are not among them. I believe "aversion" and its synonyms are descriptive of typical "homophobia" as in homophobic attitudes > behaviors > discriminatory practices including legislation. If defining "phobia" requires a fear element: homosexuality and homosexuals pose a threat to the homophobe's restrictive (and prescriptive) world view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)'[reply]

If I'm an arachnophobe, it's pretty obvious. I am terrified of all spiders. On sight. Simple. But a homophobe isn't frightened of a homosexual person until he is told that the person is homosexual. I've seen some fascinating about-faces in my life where a respected person suddenly becomes reviled once some others discover he is homosexual. It's not like that with spiders, or flying. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other phobias work like that, too. Let's say you have a fear of heights. You could feel just fine on the top floor of a skyscraper, so long as you don't go near a window. Even though you know on an intellectual level that you're up high, it doesn't elicit the fear response until it becomes visually obvious. StuRat (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: yes, it is like you said. I'm usually indifferent regarding people who are homosexual but explicitly and visibly so, or who occasionally may have such relations but are otherwise not defining themselves as homosexuals. On the contrary, the confrontation with a socialite homosexual has on me the same repulsive effect that I do have on others when they suddenly realize that I'm not a Latin-Mediterranean but that I "think like a teuton", as one of my - friends put it one day (English is a teutonic language ). --188.7.28.40 (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia is a very unsatisfactory word, etymologically speaking - it "should" mean "irrational fear of things that are the same". But where languge is concerned, "should" doesn't come into it. A word means what it is used to mean, in this case "hatred of/prejudice against gay people". It's not up to Wikipedia to go against usage. Nicknack009 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, you people are all awesome. I've dealt with the argument over transphobia far too many times. People like to claim they're not trans-/homo-/islamo- phobic because "technically that's not what phobia means", as if it justifies their behavior. I was worried that the same nitpicking would happen here, but instead everyone here makes the point that it is how the word is used that matters. You make me smile. Jessica Ryan (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper response to such a silly argument is to call them something far ruder instead... Or just bigoted if you want to keep it relatively civil. MChesterMC (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, name-calling is not an argument nor is it effective in convincing people. When someone criticizes Islam, the best way to avoid a reasonable discussion about it is calling him/her an islamophobe. - Lindert (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with jargon like "phobia" is that it falsely makes "dislike, hatred, loathing, repugnance, distaste, hate, antipathy, abhorrence, detestation, repulsion, disgust" of homosexuality seem like a medical condition, when in truth it is the default norm shared by the overwhelming majority in the world, and is not a medical condition, or even an inconvenience, at all. 71.246.144.189 (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} - Ka renjc 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The issue I have isn't really with people's responses to being called *phobic - like you say, it doesn't make sense in a reasonable argument. It still comes up when you describe something that happened or a particular behavior/belief as *phobic, or complain about *phobia in general, and then people jump in to start nitpicking etymology in order to explain how even though they support or believe in something *phobic, they're not one of those *phobes. This happens even though you're arguing about the behavior or belief, so etymology argument is just a meaningless sidetrack. Jessica Ryan (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we should just use a word like "bigot" and stop trying to mask our language. Call hateful bigoted people hateful and bigoted, and stop trying to find less severe words to describe their disgusting hate. Bigot works just fine. --Jayron32 00:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. To me, "homophobic" is a politically-invented and misleading term. There is no such ambiguity about "bigoted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, bigot may be accurate but it's also rather imprecise. Some homophobes may express other forms of bigotry, some may be primarily homophobes. There are definitely valid reasons why someone may be interested in knowing how someone is a bigot and while in some cases a detailed explaination may be useful, in some cases a more precise term is enough. In terms of the etymology issue, I'm with HiLo48 here, ultimately a word means what it means whatever the etymology of the underlying words or word, and however people may complain. We don't stop using the word gay just because some people think it should only mean happy (historically people may have a fair comment that the use of the word can be ambigious or confusing but for modern discussions this is rarely a problem), we accept it's nonsense if someone says they're not antisemitic because they only hate Jewish people and we similarly we accept the word homophobia. Anyone who tries to argue something by disputing a commonly accepted word has already lost the argument. Not to mention the whole argument is nonsense since you could just as well say there's no reason phobia has to mean phobia and homophobia has to refer to hatred of LGB people or homosexuality or when you get down to it, any word has to mean anything (the further back you go, the more arguments you can make about it meaning something else). When a homophobe buys a oleophobic cover for their smartphone they don't complain to the seller that the cover doesn't have a psychological condition. And of course nor do many homophobes with photophobia for physical reasons, most of who probably don't complain about biologists referring to photophobia (biology) in a variety of organisms either. Well maybe except for the sort of people who decide to use automated stuff to the extent they talk about Tyson Homosexual. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]