Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 31

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.

July 31

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on Christian Existentialism, Phenomenology and Kierkegaard?

What is the Roman Catholic Church's position on Christian Existentialism, Phenomenology and Kierkegaard? Have any of those doctrines been condemned? Is it considered compatible with orthodoxy? Have there been any influences of those schools on orthodox theology? Are there any Catholic thinkers in good standing who have been influenced by those schools or publically praised any of them? --Gary123 (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you already know that orthodox simply means "right belief." Orthodox catholicism may mean something different to the pope than it does to you. In fact, take a look at this story, for example. In the only several steps in hierarchy between the pope and a bishop, orthodoxy can be radically redefined.

In direct answer to your question, I don't know. I'm rather curious myself.Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion, and this slightly less charitable one, might help somewhat. I don't think there is an official position on it as such, and I don't know that the Roman (Latin Rite) Catholic Church differs in its beliefs from the rest of the Catholic Church in a way that would affect this. There are some philosophical differences between the Latin Rite and various Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, but I don't think they're especially relevant to Existentialism. (to Schyler: they use 'small o' orthodoxy, meaning orthodox Catholic belief, not Orthodox belief) 86.164.73.187 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomism is the orthodox philosophy of the Catholic Church. It holds the possibility of objective knowledge of the real world and of moral truths, and of individual happiness. It rejects skepticism and Kantianism and hence the skeptical and subjectivist bases for existentialism. You can read Aquinas' Treatise on Happiness and Cardinal Mercier's 2 Vol. Manual of Scholastic Philosophy at googlebooks which provides the Catholic stand on such issues without directly addressing existentialism which was a word that had not come into use at the Time ~1900 of Mercier's writing. Cardinal Ratzinger might also be worth reading. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Thomism is hugely, hugely important to the Church, especially the Latin Rite (the Eastern Rites tend to place less importance and emphasis on it, because they come from a more Eastern Orthodox background). St Thomas's writings are considered shining examples of theology and philosophy, they are fully in line with the Church's beliefs, and very influential on Catholic theology and philosophy. However, the Church doesn't actually claim  to 'pick' a philosophical school. I guess I'm saying that Thomism is indeed orthodox Catholic philosophy, but not the orthodox Catholic philosophy. I'm pretty sure that most Existentialism will be outside orthodox Catholic beliefs. I recommend a read of Fides et Ratio:

The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth

49. The Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others.(54) The underlying reason for this reluctance is that, even when it engages theology, philosophy must remain faithful to its own principles and methods. Otherwise there would be no guarantee that it would remain oriented to truth and that it was moving towards truth by way of a process governed by reason. A philosophy which did not proceed in the light of reason according to its own principles and methods would serve little purpose. At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth. A philosophy conscious of this as its “constitutive status” cannot but respect the demands and the data of revealed truth.

53. The Magisterium's pronouncements have been concerned less with individual philosophical theses than with the need for rational and hence ultimately philosophical knowledge for the understanding of faith. 

212.183.128.5 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, since the Church accepted sola fidei it seems to have been all down hill. But Thomism explains the traditional centrality of that philosophy. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wut? Am I missing a joke? The Church doesn't accept sola fide unless you redefine sola fide to match what the Church teaches. Thomism is indeed hugely important, as I said, and very influential, but (as explained in fides at ratio) for philosophy to function as philosophy it needs to operate under its own rules, and thus cannot be an 'official' Church philosophy. Equally, the Church teaches what it teaches based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture interpreted by the Magisterium: a philosophy can inform that, and work with that, but an 'official philosophy' would imply it as the source of divine knowledge, which would be more of a Lutheran position (I think it's Lutherans who have Reason as one of their sources of Truth? Or was that Methodists? It may be Methodists, given some of the quotes from Luther on Reason as the enemy of Faith). 86.161.210.242 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Add): It must have been Methodists I heard it from, because I see it's an Anglican thing with Reason taking the place of the Magisterium. 86.161.210.242 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

invention of rhyme

who invented rhyme, in poetry?  when did it appear?  where?  Ancient Greek poetry didn't rhyme, did it? 78.131.30.76 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhyme#History tells us about the earliest surviving example of rhyme. But it's a good guess that they didn't invent it. APL (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :It doesn't rhyme in English, but it may very well rhyme in Greek. Rhyme#History dates the oldest rhyme to 10th century BC in China. It also notes that ancient Greeks did rhyme in at least some of their poetry. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that one person, or even one culture, would have "invented" and then introduced to the whole world. Rhyme seems like one of those things that would have developed hundreds of times in many cultures... --Jayron32 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And of course considering the nature of rhyming it would have most likely been invented in prehistoric societies that relied on the oral tradition, possibly as a mnemonic technique for story tellers. So it is not possible to say who invented it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. (OP here). I thought it was some guy named Rhymus or something, given the odd spelling of the word. The name sounds Greek, but I know Homer's poetry didn't rhyme, so I thought it was some guy in the Golden Age of Greece. 89.135.188.193 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Ancient Greek and Latin poetry depended on meter, not rhyme, and this was true long after Homer. Old English poetry depended on meter and alliteration. Rhyme became prominent in mediaeval Latin Carmina Burana and the Romance languages and can be seen in Chaucer but not Beowulf or Caedmon's Hymn. No one invented rhyme, however. It is wordplay as old as spoken language. See also Rhyme#Etymology μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My English teacher - an Oxford graduate - told us that rhyme, metre et al, were invented to allow ancient bards to remember large tracts of narrative. Epic poems often existed for centuries in verbal form only, an Oral tradition, passed from one person to another and learned by rote. It makes sense; I can recite several rather long poems word perfectly (not all of them rhyme), but would struggle to quote more than a couple of sentances of somebody else's prose. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a brief page on Oral poetry. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that at all, certain forms are easier to remember than others after all. However I suspect that it wasn't "invented" then as such, no one sat down and did a study on human memory, figured out that this was a superior method and implemented it wide-scale. A more likely case is that the people responsible for the oral tradition did it themselves, over the years, as they forgot some words and replaced them in easier-to-remember form. Not to mention certain things just sound good, and we find that these things are true across languages. I don't think one culture ever introduced another to rhetorical forms, they are more or less universal. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting, on the "universal" note, that according to Temple Grandin, some whale songs also rhyme, and have other rhetorical tricks to them (like meter).[1] --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Invented to" is false; it amounts to literary creationism. That rhyme and meter make verse more easily memorable doesn't mean they were consciously designed that way. Word play such as alliteration is simply natural. Preliterate kids do it. It is much more likely that, as with popular anonymously authored and Christmas carols and nursery rhymes, those that were pleasant and easy to remember stuck, while others were forgotten.

Also, keep in mind that rhyme is more striking in languages like English, French and German which often use bare stems rather than inflected forms. For instance, the -and rhymes of Ozymandias are rhymes of bare stems, while an inflected language like Latin could cheaply rhymes all sorts of inflected endings (say, nouns in -orum or verbs in -erunt) without any effort. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no "could" about it. If you look at Latin rhyming poetry like the Dies Irae, it does take shameless advantage of inflected endings, e.g. in verse 6 where the rhyme comes from the 3rd person singular future ending -ebit or verse 13 where the rhyme comes from the 2nd person singular perfect ending -isti. Pais (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(Yes. Note, as I said in my first comment on this thread, mediaeval Latin poetry (Dies Irae is dated to 1200) does use rhyme, the classical metric traditions having died out. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC))

gold coins

How much would the 200 gold coins Caesar paid each solder after winning the war against the Gauls be worth today? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Aureus, the standard gold coin at the time was roughly 8 grams, give or take. According to [2] gold is selling at $52 or so per gram. So each coin was worth $416 dollars, 200 of which would be worth $83,200; a tidy sum. Of course, judging on pure cost alone doesn't take into account purchasing power. Some sources cite a dinarius (at 25 to the aureus) to be roughly 1 day's wage for the average laborer. So an aureus was then worth 25 days wage, 200 of which would be 5000 days wage for an average laborer, or 6 years of income, which would make it somewhat more valuable in terms of wage equivalence than the gold content. --Jayron32 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? 5000 days is a lot more than 6 years. Using a modern work-year of 240 days it's over 20 years; even assuming no holidays at all it's 14 years. --ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. My math is stoopid. --Jayron32 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course if you had 200 of the actual gold coins from the time of Caesar, they would be worth a lot more than their weight in gold, simply because they would be very collectible antiques. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jans Janzoon Von Haarlem

I'm not very good at computers but have a lot more information to contribute to my pirate ancestor, Jans alias Murat Reis, and one of his sons, Anthony von Salee, from whom I am descended. Some are citations from old history books and court records. How do I do this? <contact information removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.233.183 (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope you read this again, as is noted in the instructions at the top of the page, no one will contact you and your contact information has been removed. Help:Contents/Getting started is basically the instruction manual for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Your first article is a decent walkthrough for creating an article. If you have good old book sources, it sounds like this could be the start of a really cool article. Good luck, and if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. You can ask again here, or you can drop a note on my user talk page (User talk:Jayron32) if you need help. --Jayron32 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A good principle behind Wikipedia is to be bold! The edits you make should always be taken in good faith, so no need to worry; if they are not perfect (which they won't be), someone else will revise them.
The two articles about the pirates named Murat Reis seem to be fairly complete, though. Wikipedia would welcome any further helpful and well-sourced information. You can click the button at the top of the page that says "edit." Like I said, don't be too worried about making mistakes. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 03:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks like your ancester was Jan Janszoon, so if you have additional information or sources you can add them to that article. If you are concerned about how to add them correctly, you can use the talk page at Talk:Jan Janszoon and leave the information there for someone else to help incorporate into the article. --Jayron32 03:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could the US Government turn to corporate sponsorship to pay down the debt?

As seen in Simpsons episode Make Room for Lisa, a cellular company named OmniTouch sponsors the Smithsonian in order to cut operating costs as a result of the government running out of money. The year that episode was made, I was in middle school so I thought that the idea of companies sponsoring the government was funny and ridiculous.

Now that I'm in college and get a disability income, I find it a nifty initiative considering that my current way of life could be in jeopardy if the US debt impasse doesn't solve very soon.

Therefore, wouldn't the government make this kind of sponsorship a "Plan B" for when their impasse doesn't solve? Some may resent the following, but I wouldn't mind seeing extra advertisements on federal buildings, vehicles, even landmarks (like a tall ad for a Samsung air purifier on one side of the Washington Monument) if it means that we'll keep being paid, and that no part of our livelihoods will fall like dominoes. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Already a very well established practice, called "taxes." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so you're clear, you know that J. P. Morgan bailed out the gov't in the past, right? The danger with corporate sponsorship lies in shady deals and favoritism from the gov't to companies that sponsored the gov't. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the stalwart plot points of Cyberpunk fiction is the extra-territorial status of corporations and their superiority to governments. I would think if it's that common in literature enough people would be leery of creating a corporate state that there would be heavy opposition. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read a news article that stated Apple has about 3% more cash and securities than the Federal government so yes, cash ladened businesses like Microsoft, Google, Hathaway and Apple could by themselves come to the rescue of the government under which they have been allowed to make so much profit without batting an eye. Will they? Probably not. --DeeperQA (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that would buy Apple a lot of good will. Proud new sponsors of iPAT, enhanced intrusion from The Department of Homeland Security.... μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that the amount of money corporations could contribute in advertising campaigns of this type is pretty small compared to the deficit. According to page 171 of this 4.1MB PDF file, which is the government's 2012 budget, revenues are expected to be about $2.6 trillion, and outlays are going to be about $3.7 trillion, for a deficit of about $1.1 trillion. Apple's cash on hand, which it has taken a decade to amass, is around $76 billion. If Apple "sponsored" the US government by blowing all its cash on hand, the government would burn through that cash in around 25 days. Much better than I expected, actually. Of course, Apple's shareholders would never allow this; the advertising would be unlikely to bring in $76+ billion of new profit to Apple. A second problem is of course that sponsorship introduces an automatic conflict of interest that is even more obvious than today's automatic conflict of interest — everyone at the USDA would know that if they talk smack about drinking too much maple syrup for breakfast, Mrs. Butterworth's might not renew their lucrative sponsorship contract for the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial. As I mentioned over at the Entertainment Desk thread yesterday, we could of course turn to an Americathon. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The estimated total spend by all US companies on advertising in all media (online, TV, outdoor, direct mail) for 2011 is about $240bn-$300bn (US dollars).[3][4] This isn't going to make much of a dent in the $1 trillion yearly deficit, still less the national debt. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A 24-30% dent to be exact... Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Historical question) Alcohol aboard Royal or US Navy ships

From various sources I gather that in Nelson's time the Royal Navy (and US Navy, and probably most others) issues all sailors with rather significant rations of strong alcohol, e.g. rum. In fact, they seem to have been so large that in the modern day people who drink so much every day would probably be treated for alcoholism. According to our article on grog, the US Navy stopped the practice in 1862. I would imagine that would have caused quite a bit of upheaval among the common sailors who would have been effectively addicted to it at this point. So I am curious if there are any sources discussing this event. (By the way, it seems that Royal Navy has drawn down the amounts more gradually over more than 100 years, so I don't imagine it being as much of an issue. We do have an interesting article on Black Tot Day). --99.113.32.198 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

1) Historically, alcohol in drinks was a good way to ensure that they didn't contain large quantities of microbes that would cause disease. Modern water-treatment methods eliminated this need.

2) I would think the timing of consumption of alcohol would be critical, and that ship's captains would want control of that. For example, having a drunken crew right before a battle could get everybody killed, while getting drunk while off duty and far from any potential combat was less of an issue.

3) Allowing occasional drinking was probably good for morale.

4) Withholding alcohol might make an effective punishment. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, you know such a lot about everything, StuRat. Regarding point 2) - during WW1 spirits were freely available in quantity in the trenches, a ration was specifically given to soldiers before they attacked over no-mans-land, and from first person accounts I've read officers at least were commonly drunk or very drunk. During WW2 heavy drinking was also encouraged as it was thought to make people more aggressive. So one can assume that at and previous to that time the navy did not have the dainty scruples that you speculate about. 2.101.8.165 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "dainty scruples", but rather physical changes from intoxication, like increased reaction time and decreased judgement, either of which can be disastrous in combat. Perhaps they were unaware of these effects back then, though. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the motivations for and against it. I am simply curious how the transition went. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The House of Commons debate on the abolition of the rum ration in 1970 in the UK is reported in Hansard here. All good stuff, including Hon. Members shouting "Shiver me timbers!" It contains several references to the opposition to the abolition of the ration among serving sailors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

About "shiver me timbers": I've heard that expression before and I have no idea what it might mean. I guess that "timbers" refers to a ship's masts but I cannot imagine why anyone would want to shiver them. Any ideas?--Zoppp (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See "Shiver my timbers". Apparently, "In heavy seas, ships would be lifted up and pounded down so hard as to "shiver" the timbers, startling the sailors. Such an exclamation was meant to convey a feeling of fear and awe...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times has a searchable article archive back to 1851. You can look at articles mentioning the US Navy around Sept. 1 1862 when the ration was stopped. [5] I could not see any mention. Perhaps it was not considered newsworthy. If you have a similar date for the UK Navy you can check the archive of the Times 174.88.10.35 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As linked above, the rum ration was abolished on 31 July 1970 known as Black Tot Day - linked above. More information here. The tot had to be consumed in the presence of an officer so that it couldn't be hoarded. It was watered down and then watered down again for junior ratings. A single measure of rum wouldn't have made anyone actually drunk, especially if you drank the same amount every day. At abolition, the daily amount of beer that sailors were allowed to purchase was increased by one can (from 2 to 3) in compensation. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a sad day for those whose personal motto was "Rum, sodomy and the lash!". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The lash was banned in 1881; I'm not sure sodomy at sea is lawful even now. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about these things being lawful? If it feels good ... you know the rest.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a small bit of the whale-sized book Moby-Dick where it indicates a physical relationship between Ishmael and has pal, Queequeg or some such, aboardship? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

GK Question

What word was contributed to the English language by the Seventeen magazine?? It has something to do with Marketing , I am not sure if it is direct marketing , Mail order or target marketing ; Not able to get correct reference;

will appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Question from this quiz. If you win, will you share the money with us? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is "teenager", which etymonline cites to only 1941. Seventeen magazine could have been instrumental in the dissemination of the word. --Jayron32 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I will share. More than the prize I am keen to know; it can not be teenager since the seventeen magazine was first published in 1944 and also it is not a marketing term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think teenager is a marketing term, you perhaps need a better introduction to the concept of "marketing"... --Jayron32 21:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)