Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 21

< September 20	<< Aug \| Sep \| Oct >>	September 22 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

hitler and philosipher immanual kant

I'm trying to find out if Hitler read or had any expossure to Kants writings and if this had any effect on hitlers philosophy?

He wouldn't have encountered Kant at school, since he quit school at an age too early to seriously have studied him. It is doubtful that Hitler ever read any of Kant's writings - small quotes perhaps, which he probably didn't understand. I don't know what you mean by Hitler's philosophy, since, unlike Kant, nothing he ever published can be considered philosophy in the scholarly sense. Mein Kampf is very badly written and a wild mix of half-baked ideas, ideologies and polemics by a number of people, none of which were philosophers. Antisemitic Austrian politicians such as Georg von Schönerer and Karl Lueger, writers of popular science rubbish such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg, and fraud theologians writing about race such as Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. Among the direct influences on Hitler, the only one who possibly comes close to being a scholar, was orientalist and antisemitic cultural 'philosopher' Paul de Lagarde.---Sluzzelin 05:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influencing Hitler? It kant be! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)05:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we kant go down this road. --Fastfission 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kant? Surely you mean Karl May and Old Shatterhand; far more philosophical! White Guard 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Eichmann, who was one of the key figures behind the Holocaust, professed to be an admirer of Kant at his trial for crimes against humanity. This surprised the court so much that they asked him to summarize the categorial imperative and he gave a reasonably accurate definition. A good account of the matter is in Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt. I don't know whether Hitler himself shared Eichmann's opinion, which I have to consider an example of cognitive dissonance. Durova 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

laurie dhu

I no longer see Laurie Dhu on Fox News. What's become of her?

She can be seen on Geraldo at Large. WP's article on Laurie Dhue also has a link to her blog site - her last blog entry was posted on Sep 15th, so she seems to be active. ---Sluzzelin 05:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Porte-Coton

Further to my question about the 17th century toilette, in the article Groom of the Stool the French equivalent is mentioned - the porte-coton - there's a link, but it's in French. I'd love it if someone could give me more info about the porte-coton to Louis XIV, please. If someone could provide the pooor fellows name, I'd be very grateful. Thanks - Adambrowne666 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything specific online, but I remember a scene in the movie Vatel (about François Vatel) alluding to the French nobility's obsession with constipation. Because of its laxative effect, coffee was served during the King's sessions. The poor porte-coton was portrayed with a silver tablet and a cotton-wad.---Sluzzelin 06:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have links that claim he was Sir Henry Norris, but I think that's some sort of British joke. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 06:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you - what was the silver tablet for, Sluzzelin? Adambrowne666 07:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette? I cannot think of a more dignified manner of moving the wad carrying the royal material out of the King's sight.---Sluzzelin 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a silver tray (not a silver pill). Please excuse my germanisms.---Sluzzelin 10:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thank you, lovely detail - and you're quite the polymath, Sluzzelin - thanks for your answer to my question at the Language Desk. I'm still hoping for the name of any of the Porte-cotons, though - while I'm here, what does 'porte-coton' mean? 'Merde-bearer'? Adambrowne666 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton-bearer. Natgoo 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External auditing

How is it possible for a business to be audited by an independent and uninterested third party if the business being audited is, itself, an audit firm? In that case, the external auditor would have to be one of the firm's competitors, and therefore not neutral or independent. --Neon Merlin 03:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many would stoop to intentionally faking the audit results to make their competitor look bad. That, when discovered, would make them look very bad and criminally liable. StuRat 03:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the firm doing the audit would have good reason to conduct a particularly rigorous and searching audit, which in turn is an excellent incentive for the firm being audited to be squeaky clean in the conduct of its affairs. JackofOz 05:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most companies stick with the same auditors, and many auditors specialize, e.g. in media businesses, manufacturing companies, or retail, so there is not much competition between the different types. No doubt there is fierce competition between the Big Four, however. It would be interesting to know how they are audited.--Shantavira 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, Price Waterhouse Coopers are audited by Horwath Clark Whitehill, a much smaller firm [1], and KPMG are audited by Grant Thornton, who are also smaller. So there may not be as much competition there as you might imagine. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFO of the U.S.

Does the position of the treasury secretary resemble that of a chief financial officer or the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and why?--Patchouli 06:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean. I think you are asking "Which is more like the CFO - the Secretary of the Treasury or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board." Am I correct? (I can't answer it, I just want to clarify for people who can answer it) Viva La V i e Boheme!

You are correct.--Patchouli 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither position is really like a CFO. The Treasury Secretary is in charge in several departments, only some of which deal with the government's own finances. For example, he is in charge of regulating banks and printing money -- not really analogous to the job of a CFO. The chairman of the Fed's role in buying and selling bonds and changing interest rates isn't really something a CFO would do much of, either. (Corporations do issue bonds, of course, but not to affect the money supply.) Perhaps the best equivalent to a CFO in the federal government would be Rob Portman, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, or Donald Marron, acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

netherlands m.v.v

I have two questions:

1. if the company sponsors the m.v.v for an employee, can this employee under kennismigrant visa move companies in netherlands after sometime (doubt: does he / she need to come back to country of origin and apply fresh??) 2. the tax deducted: after 30% slab - will a portion of tax paid be refunded on return to origin country? I dont understand fully.

Sorry, i have problem in interpreting the words in their website.

Thanks 136.8.1.100 05:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) kicki[reply]

Execution by meat poisoning

I heard that Romans executed people by forcing them to eat nothing but meat for days. Is that true? If yes, can you tell me the details?

Not true. Any details are a fantasy. alteripse 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Roman times, as during most of our history, meat was one of the most expensive foods (not counting spices and other goods imported from far away). People forced into this diet would not have died immediately and would have had to be fed this expensive good for a (variably) long period of time, thus further increasing the costs of execution. I agree with alteripse.---Sluzzelin 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any truth to this at all, the Norwegians I worked with are doomed. On the northern tip of Norway in the middle of winter, you are pretty much cut off from the rest of the country. There's some frozen vegetables at the beginning of winter, but they don't last. It isn't long until the diet is meat, cheese, and beer for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Sometimes they have bread, but not too often. Just wrap a hunk of reindeer meat in a few slices of cheese and grade a tall mug of beer. That's a meal. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also think of the traditional Inuit diet of whale and seals, etc. but virtually never any vegetables. Rmhermen 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that they eat the raw liver of the animals because of that. Flamarande 21:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone.

Conception of Christ

I have a question regarding the conception of Christ. Was Mary impregnated by God before or after the Marriage ceremony of Joseph and Mary? Or was it during the actual ceremony itself?

The reason I'm asking is that if Mary is sinless all her life then

(1) isn't conception before marriage a sin?

(2) isn't adultery after marriage a sin?

(3) isn't impregnation by someone other than your spouse during the marriage ceremony a sin?

210.49.155.134 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had misunderstood the meaning of the word sin. A sin is an activity that is displeasing to God. If God wants to butt fuck Mary and God did butt fuck Mary then butt fucking Mary would not be a sin. So in short, no matter what God does to Mary (as long as it is pleasing to God) , it would not be a sin. Ohanian 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crudely put, but accurate, I suppose. I believe it's sex outside of marriage which is considered to be a sin, not conception. For example, I would interpret artificial insemination by a man other than a woman's husband to be a sinless form of conception, although I'm sure some would disagree. My interpretation of the Bible is that no "sex" occurred when Mary was impregnated (or, at least that's what the Bible claims). I'm pretty confidant that, if we had DNA from Jesus and all the men in the village, we would find a human father quickly enough. I assume that Mary's hymen was intact, and they took that as a sign that she was a virgin. However, pregnancy can result from nonintercourse sex, if semen enters the hole in the hymen where menstrual flow occurs. StuRat 11:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't think you'll ever hear a cardinal proposing that some of Joseph's sperm might have just happened to fly in there when they were messing around in a sack one day. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some points made by 210.49.155.134: Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost (not by God directly) before her marriage to Joseph. "She asked how that would be, since she was not yet married to Joseph and was still a virgin. The angel replied that she would conceive through the Holy Spirit." I advise you to read the article Annunciation. Flamarande 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Holy Ghost supposed to be part of the Godhead in Christian doctrine? It sounds like a weak defence: "Your Honour, the maiden was not impregnated by my client directly, but by his external Sexual Organ." Of course, the term "to impregnate" is our doing; no such thing is mentioned in the Bible. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you define "to impregnate" as "to make someone pregnant" then ,yes, God did impregnate Mary. 202.168.50.40 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person asking the question asks it as if we could supply a factual answer about what actually happened to the mother of Jesus. We cannot answer that question, because we do not have any impartial sources. We can only tell the person asking the question what the Christian scriptures report. The person asking the question has to decide whether he or she believes that the Christian scriptures report things as they actually happened. The scriptures state that Mary conceived, that is, became pregnant, but that she was a virgin, that is, had not had sex. The implication is that the Holy Ghost induced her to conceive by some means other than sex.

We do not know whether Christian scriptures report the facts as they actually happened, or whether the story of the virgin birth was a myth attributed to Jesus just as it was applied to other Near Eastern life-death-rebirth deities such as Adonis or Mithra. Marco polo 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you demanding real evidence, proof and the real truth ? Beware Marco, these are the words of the unbeliever, of the renegade, of the apostate, and of the atheist. Believe without any proof and you shall find faith. :) (this is a joke) Flamarande 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do educated people believe in this stuff?--Light current 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Being educated and being intelligent are not related. TheMadBaron 01:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure intelligent and educated people believe this stuff. People believe all sorts of things. I even know some intelligent people who believe that the universe is nothing but a random accident. DJ Clayworth 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Universe being a random accident so difficult to fathom? Too often people make the mistake of citing the eventual evolution of life as indication that the Universe has been (and had to be) created "perfectly"; the probability against that happening on its own too great to accept. Be cautioned, though, when considering these subjects and remember that the Universe came first. The Universe could have easily formed differently and we wouldn't be here... but that's not to say that some other form of life wouldn't be. We, humans, life in general; this is the effect, not the cause. DjMikeWatt 22:12 EDT, 09 December 2007

david bowie

Hi, I'm a 16 years old teenager and I'm french. I would like to know where to write to david bowie because I love him and it's my dream. thanks to help me ps: if you could write in an "aisy english".

The article on David Bowie has links to his official website and his page on myspace where you can send him a message. ---Sluzzelin 11:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer sluzzelin but the problem is I can't have informations without paying.

According to that MySpace page, it isn't his actual page so you can't send him a message that way. Skittle 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, you can email him or post a letter to Isolar Enterprises Inc., 641 5th Avenue, Suite 22Q, New York, NY 10022, USA. I can't say how accurate this is. Skittle 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This supports the address, but reminds you to beware of those who claim to have his email. Skittle 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest you check out limerence, but aisy English it is not!--Shantavira 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, thank you, thank you very much skittle. I don't know what's this adress but i think it's realy interesting to write to bowie. I'm very happy are very nice. Bye and thank you again. Eliott ps: but could you explain to me what this adress...?

If you want to write to Bowie, I suggest you write a letter to

David Bowie,

Isolar Enterprises Inc.,

641 5th Avenue,

Suite 22Q,

New York,

NY 10022,

USA.

Then he might receive it. Good luck. Skittle 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

philip bego

i need 2 know the bio-data of philip bego and 2 also know about his jelly baby195.245.109.196 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)eniojukan tolulope <Email addy removed per advice at top of page>—[reply]

soul travel

64.14.194.26 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)angeline tumang[reply]

i would like to ask is there any possibility that when i do soul travel i won't be able to go back to my body? thank you.

If you mean astral projection or out-of-body experience, no, it's perfectly safe. You go right ahead. Don't go too far at first though, and don't do anything I wouldn't do.--Shantavira 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it looks like proponents of astral travel believe it is completely safe, there is at least one member of the Church of Christ who feels otherwise. He, she, or they caution that demons can enter the body during the travel. --Allen 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While there are others of us who would question whether it can ever be dangerous for a nonexistent thing to do something it cannot do by reason of it being fictitious.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured she needed to find that out for herself ;-) Better than turning to drugs anyway.--Shantavira 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody had soul travelled, and not been able to return to their body, how would we know? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History 2

Do you know were i can find out about the NSWS, as all the sites i have tried dont seem to have it in them.

thanks

OK. Can you give us some sort of clue as to what this might stand for, in what context, and in which country?--Shantavira 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

song title

I keep hearing the song "It's a jungle out there". Who composed it? Who wrote the lyrics?? Who recorded it??? Help!!!! Paul.

Are you talking about the theme song to the Monk (TV series)? It is by Randy Newman. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Paul.

"Joshua" entry

What is the German translation of the biblical character Joshua? Thank you.

Josua, as given in [:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buch_Josua] the German version of the article "Book of Joshua". Flamarande 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Joshua and click on the Deutsch link on the "In Other Languages" box on the left. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ethnic holidays

why is it that you have black history month, hispanic day, native american day, but there is no caucasian day? does that mean that the caucasians are the minority in this country?--71.223.24.173 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that they are the majority, and so feel no need to bond together in solidarity. —D a niel (‽) 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so if the caucasians had a holiday all the other ethnic groups would not cry disrcimination?

Pretty much since the establishment of the English colonies in the 1600s, white people have been the dominant racial group in what is now the United States. Given that history of domination, the long history of mistreatment of other groups by dominant whites, and the ways in which mainstream American culture has favored white people, other groups have pushed for or claimed holidays to boost their group-esteem. Given this context, a holiday for whites would not have the same meaning. Since they are and have been the dominant racial group in the United States, a holiday devoted to this group would appear to be a celebration of that dominance rather than a celebration of worth despite another group's dominance. It is understandable that the dominated groups would protest a celebration of dominance by the dominating group. Marco polo 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you look in the bible you will see that god made everyone equal so there should not be anyone saying that they are being dominated by any other ethnic group. also the whites as you put it were not the ones who sold blacks into slavery it was the african people themselves that sold their own people. the israili people who are considered white were dominated long before anyone else. so if anyone should feel that they deserve to be celebrated its the hebrew people.

Hasn't about every ethnicity, if you go through history enough, been both victims or perpetrators at one time or another?... 惑乱分からん 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "god made everyone equal so there should not be anyone saying that they are being dominated by any other ethnic group". Although I believe you are right to say that people should not "lord it over" others about their historically-discriminated status (especially if the majority takes steps to redress the effects of their historical discrimination), do you actually believe that if someone took you and put you in prison for no reason that you should not have the right to say you were being dominated by others? Just because people are equal in God's eyes, does not mean that everything that happens will be fair. The Bible also talks about the need for crimes to be punished (if you still believe that the Bible is the authority still relevant for today).

And although your argument about Africans selling other Africans may be a legitimate argument to present to radicals who think blacks can do no evil, do you really believe that some people of a group speak for all the others? So if a government in Africa now decides to take the land of its white minority (or something worse), and some white people help them to do this, then all the white people deserve it and they should not say they are being dominated by blacks? (some would say they do deserve some forced land redistribution for historical reasons, but I am saying this to see if you keep your same logic in this situation).

And, out of curiosity, do you think that "special" days are all offensive? If so, what about U.S. Independence day in which the American flag is waved around? Do you insist on waving the United Nations flag (since that represents all peoples including Americans and not everbody in America is a U.S. citizen--some are legal visitors, etc.). What if white U.S. citizens living in African countries wanted to celebrate July 4th (as U.S. expatriates often do bond together)? Would you say that they are being selfish? What if the African country started a "black" holiday as a result? With the majority of a country holding most of the power being so defensive about itself, how would you feel? The point is that if you really want to speak about a moral point of view, extra consideration needs to be given to the minority, to the foreign guest, etc. (though not to extremes, and taking into consideration historical issues, such as white oppression in South Africa, of course). Some believers in God and the Bible believe that minorities should be given special treatment (see Baha'i, for example). 218.17.96.221 08:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Black History Month because the contributions of African-Americans were not always recognized. If it weren't for Black History Month, few kids would learn about people like Garrett Morgan or Booker T. Washington. On the other hand, no "Caucasian History Month" is needed for Thomas Edison or Johnny Appleseed to be well-known. Hopefully, we won't need times like Black History Month in the future, because the contributions of all groups will be recognized throughout the year. -- Mwalcoff 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering who the genius was who decided that February, of all months, should be Black History Month. Jeez! Why'd they have to pick the conspicuously shortest month of the year? Give it any other decent month with at least 30 days. Is it just me or does getting "February" seem like getting once again, at least symbolically, the short end of the stick? Loomis 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Chris Rock routine or something. "They give us one month of the year, and it's the short one with 28 days!" Actually, it was originally "Negro History Week", and the week chosen was the week of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass' birthdays. That's why it's February. [2] -- Mwalcoff 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of this The Onion article: White History Year Resumes. --Maxamegalon2000 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Questions (Salafism)

I was wondering what public opinion is towards Salafsim . No particular reason other than internal curiosity. Also I'm slightly confused by the comment "Salafism is derogatorily named by outsiders as Wahhabism" on the when I have met a salaf before who called himself a wahabi (I could put this down to him just not knowing his own religion but I don't think that’s likely).

Also I am travelling to Turkey soon and I was wondering if anyone knew any Turkish greetings (I will be staying in the relatively "spoiled" European tourist trap Marmaris) and if anyone knows what the religious background is in that area.Also if anyone could tell me things to avoid doing that will offend the people-aside from the obvious silly things- that a young ignorant Westerner might do. I have been looking on the internet and have only come across how the Turkish language is put together.

Please back up answers/opinions to first question with reason & detail would be appreciated.

Thank you.

When you say "public opinion" what exactly do you mean? Public opinion in Turkey? Public opinion in Vietnam? Public opinion in USA? Public opinion amoung muslims? Public opinion among catholics? 202.168.50.40 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please back up answers/opinions to first question with reason & detail"? We're all here as volunteers to help with polite genuine questions. We're not obedient little elves assigned to cater to your every need. In any case, if you'll be "staying in the relatively "spoiled" European tourist trap Marmaris", I don't see what use you'll have for any knowledge of actual Turkish culture. Loomis 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said "please", "it would be appreciated", and "thank you". I think he was very polite, although his wording might not have been so natural. Please don't bite the non-English native speakers. "Pleave give me reasons and detail" is a perfectly acceptable way to ask questions in some languages. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you're assuming that the questioner is both a male and a non-native English speaker. The English was almost flawless. I'm always sensitive to non-native English speakers. It wasn't simply "Pleave give me reasons and detail" as you say. It was actually "Please back up answers/opinions to first question with reason & detail". The only other times I've heard such language was when I was given assignments or exam questions in school. A little humility is always appreciated, and costs nothing. Loomis 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wahhabism is a horrible thing, as I do about any religious extremism which uses God to justify oppressing others, such as women. StuRat 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]