Humanities desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 22

Douglas Bader

I am trying to find the burial place of Sir Douglas Bader. He may not, in fact, be buried but may have been cremated.

If so any details would be appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petermoore60 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to this page "Douglas Bader British RAF fighter ace Ashes given to family " Gradvmedusa 05:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stopping snap violence and road rage

What is the likelihood that treating personal economy discrimination at the Federal level in kind with racial, sexual, or religious discrimination would help reduce the problem of snap violence possibly including road rage? (For an example of personal economy discrimination simply replace race, gender or religion with personal economy in a situation involving discrimination, i.e., "...we are not even going to drive through that Black neighborhood." versus "...we are not even going to drive through that poor neighborhood. Degrading comments spoken by rich people so they can be overheard by poor people, etc.) Clem 03:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: 1) the correlation between "snap violence" and comments that reflect invidious discrimination; and 2) the ability of the Federal government to recognize and regulate discrimination based on economic status.

The first point seems dubious at best, since you would first have to substantiate such a correlation exists, (not to mention define what constitutes "rich" vs "poor" and a host of other issues).

The second point seems even less than dubious, since being "poor" fails the test of suspect classification, and (numerically) "rich" people are actually in the "minority." Moreover, even if "poor" were a protected minority, "degrading comments" by random people on the street (although unkind and ill-considered) are generally protected free speech. There are exceptions, but generally not within the scope of your proposal.

The best way to avoid snap violence is to try to see things from the other guy's point of view, give people the benefit of the doubt, and pretend everyone else on the road is your own grandmother. dr.ef.tymac 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Suspect classification, and in particular immutability (although many are not Christian and for that reason do not define poverty in the same light), Jesus said: "The poor (those who are at risk of going hungry, not having shelter or cloths. no or very limited income, etc. versus someone with sufficient income for food, housing and clothing etc.) will always be with you" Matthew 26:11. Thus a level of poverty so defined would satisfy all of the remaining qualifications whereas relative poverty would not. (Those with sufficient income for food, housing and clothing etc. compared to those with income of say one million dollars in turn treated as poor by those with income of twenty million and likewise on up the scale). As for the rich being a minority that is simply, not true for the poor who are referenced by Jesus Christ; although very true for those who can afford to joy ride in space. Clem 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to correlation of snap violence with personal economic situation we have two very recent examples of killers whose personal economy was either threatened or used as a basis for discrimination as the reason for their acts which can only be classed as snap violence, although the execution in both cases was somewhat planned. Clem 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal economy discrimination -- are you refering to classism? Vranak

With limited exceptions. Clem 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adultery

i would like to know if in ancient times when a man cheated on his wife it was shamefull/reprimendable and if so was it as bad as when a women cheated on a men —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.21 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nope. It was not. this might have what you're looking for.

More specifically:

Old Testament:

New Testament:

Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that.

and so on. In almost all ancient societies, women were less than men.--Kirby♥time 06:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, that is the "Skeptic's" bible, where they make little effort to find any context to the scriptures they lament/condemn/poke fun at. I've seen little attempt to go to the original Hebrew or Greek either. The Skeptics bible is awfully bad at interpreting the Bible without context. Although there are some very odd verses in the Bible which certainly deserve some criticism or reflection, they aren't nearly as numerous as the Skeptics bible would make it out to be.

BTW, Paul (New Testament) said if one a man has lusted after a woman, that man had committed adultery with her with her.

Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Another interesting verse out of Deuteronomy 22: 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So it's not quite like Kirby may have implied.

I'm not going to defend the whole Bible here; I know it's easy to see in some contexts where the laws applied seem outlandish or outright vile and disgusting. It is hard to know if you are interpreting the bible correctly or properly. But the case against the Bible is not as strong as that site would make it out to be, either. If there's any one significant problem with the Bible, its that it is written in a natural language, so any interpretation of it without any guidance would be flawed.

Root⁴(one) 23:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that they seem outlandish and whatnot, it is that they are outlandish. Stoning someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is an outlandish law, period. There is no context that could possibly justify such a thing. Saying that the pain of childbirth is the result of Eve's sin is sexism, there is no "context" that rationalizes it. Marginalizing the Christian oppression of women is not only wrong and shameful, but also inappropriate for this reference desk.--Kirby♥time 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is pretty much what i tought ,what i find very surprising tough is that since it used to be something to control women and we dont (or at least try not to) do that anymore , instead of giving equality to woman by saying these thing just arent that important we decided to just apply them to men as well and lower the penality to shame instead of death just to save the bible

In response to Kirby, the Anglo-saxons were one old society (maybe not quite ancient) who had quite an enlightened view (comparatively) when it came to women. And to the poster above, I don't think the concept of adultery was invented purely to oppress women137.138.46.155 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxons, along with the Achaemenians and other ancient societies, were the exception to the rule. I said most. But the bottom line is, compare how many times the crime of adultery is used against women, with how many times it is used against men. How come only the women in the Bible are sexual deviants? Well, except for Sodom. But still, that says something. It is always women who are called "harlots", "whores", etc. in the Bible. Those terms hardly have male equivalents, even in today's language. Abaham sleeps with his maidservant Hagar, and God approves. King David has hundreds of concubines, and nobody criticizes him. But the moment a woman even thinks about sex, they are immediately whores. From the first book of the Bible (blaming Eve) to the last book (whore of Babylon), the "good book" is degrading towards women, period. And it doesn't matter how much whitewashing you do; the Bible is always there for people to read.--Kirby♥time 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the gender ratio in Internet ponography it makes since that women would be more harshly treated. Clem 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider voluntarily appearing in Pornographic pictures in return for money to be harsh treatment of course. I think it might likely be a case of supply and demand.137.138.46.155 13:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titus' birth date - which calendar?

Titus was born on 30 December in the year 39. I'm trying to determine for certain if this is the date under the Julian calendar in use at the time, not a date corrected for the Gregorian calendar we currently use. I'm thinking that it may be a pointless question since the Julian calendar was adopted in 36 BC-- only 75 years earlier- that there would have been only about 13 hours of difference between the two calendars at that time- meaning that Titus was born on December 30th regardless of what calendar is being used. Is my reasoning sound? DeepSkyFrontier 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that ancient dates are given in Old style, or using the Julian calendar in use at the time. I'm hoping that someone can confirm this. However, the date under the Julian calendar would be the same as under the Gregorian calendar in the year 39, because the calendars differ by only three days every 400 years (a leap day omitted in years that are a multiple of 100 but not of 400). The regular 4-year interval of leap years did not begin until A.D. 4 (per Julian calendar), so there would have been no divergence in A.D. 39. Marco polo 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct that the proleptic (retrospective) Gregorian calendar would agree with the Julian calendar in the 1st century AD. The offset applied in 1582 when the Gregorian calendar began was 10 days, not 12, so the century when the two calendars agree is actually the 3rd century AD (or more precisely, from March 1, 200 AD, through February 28, 300). (Why? Because the idea was to reset the seasons to what they were at supposed to have been at the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. But that's in the 4th century, so what happened? Well, in doing the calculations, Aloysius Lilius had a length for the tropical year (the solar year) that was 30 minutes off. He knew when the seasons were in his own time, so he assumed that the calendar in 325 AD was actually one day off, rather than that he had the wrong length of the year. So he called for a 10-day shift instead of 9.) Anyway, this means that if December 30 in the 1st century was a proleptic Gregorian date, then the Julian calendar date would have been January 1 (Kal. Ian.). But as explained in the other responses, in this sort of context the Julian calendar is used, so it's December 30 Julian (or III Kal. Ian.) --Anonyous, April 22, Gregorian, 2007, 20:41 (UTC).

I am truly sorry to inform that: "(Titus) was born on 30 December A.D. 41, the memorable year of Gaius's (Galigula) assassination, in a small, dingy, slum bedroom close to the Septizonium." My source is the The twelve Caesars of Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves, revised by Michael Grant, published by Penguin ISBN 0-141-39034-4. I suggest you go back and find out where it was told that he was born in A.D. 39 and then find out the reason for this discrepancy (two years). Who knows? Perhaps the penguin book is wrong and your source is right. The '30 December' seems to be correct. Normaly such info as the "day/month" is not 'improved' by modern scholars. Charlemagne was crowned on the 25 of December, but if we use the Julian-Gregorian calendar that date would be incorrect. It would be height of folly to improve these dates. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is the year. Suetonius (as all the early roman historians) did not use the AD system. Is it very likely that he used the 'year of a consul', or perhaps even the Ab urbe condita. To backtrack today the "correct A.D. year" is very difficult as both of the Roman systems were not 100% accurate (the article Ab urbe condita tells that there were even two 'Ab urbe condita systems' and shows that there some discrepancies). Despite what the article List of early imperial Roman consuls suggests, the 1 January was not always the beginning of the 'consular year' and the Julian calendar was far from perfect. "Our" new calculations might be wrong (or not). Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that ancient dates, indeed any dates earlier than 15 October 1582, are given in Old style. That is because the Gregorian Calendar was only instituted on 15 October 1582, and was not retrospective. It contained a 10-day discontinuity, which has now increased to 13 days for those rare cases where the Julian calendar is still being used. Using the proleptic Gregorian calendar, dates prior to 15 October 1582 are sometimes converted to what their Gregorian equivalents would have been had the Gregorian been in place then - but this normally happens only in scientific or astronomical contexts. The proleptic Gregorian calendar is never used for the dating of ordinary historical events such as births and deaths in ancient times. JackofOz 13:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The institution of the Julian Gregorian calendar was not universal, and some contries adopted it quicker than others. The day/month are normally not 'improved', agreed. However you seem to be forgeting that Suetonius wasn't using the AD system at all, therefore your entire reasoning (about the Old style) is sadly mistaken. Sorry Flamarande 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Flamarande, who wrote "The institution of the Julian Gregorian calendar was not universal":

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Julian Gregorian calendar". The Julian is one calendar, the Gregorian is another. JackofOz 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy the Gregorian is a improvement of the older Julian calendar and you will find that it is many, many times called the Julian-Gregorian (or Julian Gregorian) calendar. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Flamarande. I must say I'd never come across this before. I knew the Julian was the father of the Gregorian, but referring to the latter by both names seems to invite confusion and ambiguity. JackofOz 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the anon who wrote "Charlemagne was crowned on the 25 of December, but if we use the Julian/Gregorian calendar that date would be incorrect.":

The Julian calendar was in use in "France" during Charlemagne's time. So 25 December is the date under that calendar, and it's the date we continue to use in reference to his coronation. Had the Gregorian been in use back then, the date would indeed have been different. But it wasn't, so it's not. JackofOz 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point, I presented that particular case to show that we should be careful in 'backtracking' the "correct dates". Sorry if my english wasn't clear enough. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Flamarande. I didn't know it was your post. See my above post re ambiguity. :) JackofOz 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, everybody, that Titus' mother appears to have had a particularly demanding labour, which began, according to the Wikipedia page, in 39 AD and continued for two years! As as been pointed out above, the generally accepted date of his birth, based on Seutonius, is December 41 AD. Is there any dispute about this, and if so, where did the earlier date come from? Clio the Muse 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, further to the above, I've dug out some more information. According to this site [1], and others, the correct date is indeed 39 AD. Seutonius initially gives the date as 41 AD, the year of the assassination of of Caligula, but later contradicts himself in the course of his narrative (Section XI). Dio Cassius and Philocalus both give the date as 39 AD. Now, before anyone jumps in here, I know that Roman historians did not use the AD dating. I do for the sake of convenience! Clio the Muse 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do we all. Flamarande 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To each and every one of you, please accept my sincerest gratitude for your diligence. I also especially wish to thank Anonymous for explanation of the proleptic Gregorain calendar. This is exactly what I needed to know. Whoever you are, I honor you. If I am to understand correctly: the date given (30 December) is most certainly a Julian calendar date. Thus, the one-day correction in the first century AD would place the proleptic Gregorian date on 29 December. Thank you, Flamarande, for bringing up the controversy about the year. To Clio the Muse- who I've encountered before- you truly deserve the name you chose for you are an inspiration. Thank you for providing clarity on the question Flamarande brought up. DeepSkyFrontier 04:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Aquitania 1917

Can anybody help me to find the crew list of the RMS Aquitania on her 1917 voyage(s) from UK to Halifax, Nova Scotia? Any help would be much appreciated! Skumbag - 酢薫バッグ 13:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American shade

Sorry, I've forgotten what I was going to ask. If anyone has any ideas, please tell me. If not, how can I try to remember? Sorry. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.224.42 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shade as in a ghostly apparition, or the usual shadow meaning? Vranak

or as in a shade of a particular colour :) HS7 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were looking for the definition of "umbrageous", which means "shaded". You're welcome. Herostratus 22:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a question about Neil Gaiman's American Gods, which has a character named Shade? If so, the answer is "no," it's probably not. Utgard Loki 14:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "shade" is Aramaic for demon. But I doubt there are any American demons that speak Aramaic. --Dweller 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that this might not actually be a real question :] HS7 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musicology: Moderna Laika

Does anyone know where can I find the musicological characteristic of Greek moderna laika genre? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.216.139.62 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If someone is forced/blackmailed into commiting a crime

What is the legal term for that, and will they receive a lighter or no sentence because they were forced/blackmailed into doing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.5 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Take a look at Duress. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 16:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Patty Hearst. Clarityfiend 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is "duress", and whether it will be a valid defence to a criminal charge depends on the law of the particular country (or in the U.S., of the particular state). However, even if a claim of duress does not lead to an acquittal, it might be considered a mitigating factor when determining sentence. In Canada, the defence is set out in section 17 of the Criminal Code but some parts of that section were struck down as unconstitutional in R. v. Ruzic. --Mathew5000 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nubia

What sports did ancient nubian people play?

All science a philosophy?

Ok, so we base out mathematics on axioms, things we accept without proof. If we accept something without proof, it is a philosophy. So wouldn't that make all of math a philosophy? That would be alright, it is just that we use math as the language of science. So wouldn't that make all our science equations written in math just a philosophy? Just our interpretation of the universe? I suppose this would supported by the fact that quantum mechanics has many different interpretations, and you can even take classes on the philosophy of quantum mechanics [2]. Isn't this kind of a big deal that all of our science may not be leading us to the reality, but only one interpretation of it? Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The element that you not taken into account is that scientists validate their mathematical models against reality by performing experiments - see falsifiability. Gandalf61 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists validate or reject hypotheses through observation of available empirical evidence, such evidence does not necessarily coincide with "reality". The very act of assuming there is a "reality" to test is a hypothesis in itself. Falsifiability doesn't really solve that problem, it's just a part of what makes mathematics self-consistent. Yes, math coincides with philosophy, if you don't believe that, just ask yourself why one plus one equals two.

Yes, Imaninjapirate, you raise good questions, and you are not alone. Math is a tool, and so far people seem to be convinced it's a good one. It may not be the ultimate answer to everything. Anyway you might get better answers on the Science Desk. (See e.g., effectiveness of math and Operationalization and theory of everything and CTMU for examples of people who have asked similar questions). dr.ef.tymac 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...those articles and the discussion of 1 + 1 are very interesting. I think it comes down to the question of what reality is. Maybe what we experience from our senses and interpret from our consciousness as "numbers" and "math" is accurate to what the cosmos really is. It could also just be that math is formed from our consciousness's constant search for patterns in what we experience from our senses. But like it says in the The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences page, our brain being able to string together all of the complexities of math would be quite a miracle. If some alien intelligence that has some radically different form of consciousness would also developed mathematics, that would definitely tell us that math and numbers are inherent to the cosmos. But until then we can only speculate. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree with the characterization of philosophy. "If we accept something without proof, it is a philosophy." Well no, such a thing would be a belief but not a philosophy. Philosophy is all about proving one's statements, perhaps not empirically, but atleast logically. C mon 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of different discussions about what the relationship of science to philosophy is. One that gets something of a bad name today but isn't such a poor formulation is logical positivism, i.e. science ought to be the combination of Machian positivism (a demand for blunt empiricism) coupled with and extended by rigorous formal logic. --24.147.86.187 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Science" really isn't either a philosophy nor not one, because it doesn't have much of a strict meaning. Scientific method is a method and is not to be confused with "the belief in the priority of science" or "the beliefs that shape scientific practice" or "the beliefs employed in scientific discourse." After all, some of the skepticism of David Hume is still unanswered. There is implicit metaphysics and implicit epistemology in "science" as a belief structure (one example: inductive reasoning is not iron clad; one other: many concepts such as "energy" have no empirical basis and yet are accepted as necessary for the functioning of the language systems surrounding scientific reasoning; another: the language employed by the observer determines the observations to a significant (total?) degree). In other words, what people call "science" is a collection of philosophies coupled with an agreed-upon method for discerning the truth of propositions. The method seems to work pretty well. The philosophies may not. Utgard Loki 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that big-S Science is more of a religion than a philosophy. Vranak

(Copied from the science desk) I think the questioner misses the key point about mathematics. It doesn't claim that the axioms are true - it merely states that if you accept the axioms then these other things follow from that acceptance. To take an absolutely classic example of this - all of Euclid's geometry (stuff like "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees") is based on a set of axioms - one of which is that parallel lines never meet. Everything he said is true in an place where parallel lines never meet. However, if you draw two "parallel" lines on the surface of a sphere and do all of your geometry on that surface - then parallel lines eventually cross - and Euclid's axioms are untrue - and as a consequence, all of the things that follow from those axioms are open to doubt. Indeed - if you draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere, it's angles don't add up to 180 degrees. This doesn't mean that Euclid was wrong - it means that he's only correct in situations where his axioms are true. Where they aren't true - all bets are off. Mathematics doesn't claim to produce truths about the world - it merely produces conclusions that are dependent on some set of axioms. Indeed, one may pick a set of axioms that are absolutely NOT true in the real universe and mathematics can go to work and produce conclusions about how things would hypothetically be if they where. This is totally different from philosophy. Now, science is a different matter. In science (not mathematics) - you can test the universe using experiments - and use those to specify axioms that are "true" (or at least true to within the limits of your experimental error). Again, this is totally different from philosophy. SteveBaker 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeotia's Ethnicity

Is this map telling me that most of Boeotia, Eastern Attica and southern Euboea is inhabited by Albanians? Am I reading it right? Was this true then (1911)? Is it true now? Many thanks! 207.35.41.4 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entire Balkans and Asia Minor were a complete ethnic mix at that time. Large parts of Greece were subject to Albanian and Vlach colonization since 14th century. The reason was the civil war and subsequent collapse of the Byzantine state which was unable to stop the migration as well as depopulation of large parts of Greece. I do not have sources for the current state, but I suspect that those of Albanians that were Muslims were forcibly resettled to Turkey after the population "exchange" in early 1920s. The rest was subject to assimilation pressure and there is few Albanian speakers there. The historical Albanian settlers were called Arvanites. Their numbers (or numbers of their descendants) could be only guessed.

Greece is interesting also because large parts of its population today are Hellenized Slavonic peoples. Almost entire Greece was occupied by the Slavs between 7th and 9th century with Byzantines holding but few port cities like Thesallonica. Even Peloponesus was Slavic. The original Greek inhabittants were either killed or fled to the cities. It was after the Byzantine Empire reconquered these areas, a slow but steady Hellenization of Slavs as well as Greek repupulation started. However even in 15th century there were Slavic tribes/communities in the Peloponesus (like Jeziertsy) that maintained their authonomy. Yarovit 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Yarovit, for your response! 207.35.41.4 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sung-Cho-Hui

Lets say Sung-Cho-Hui didn`t commit suicide.Lets say he surrendered himself to police or was captured what would have happened to him then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.67.76 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is reference desk, not what-if forum.Yarovit 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a similar situation happens, then he might have served 32 life sentences. I seem to recall a mass killer serving one life sentence for each person he killed, and he ended up with more than a dozen consecutive life sentences. I might be wrong though. However, that does not mean that he would have had the same ruling. He might have also gotten a death sentence. Saying any more than that would probably be crystalballing. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An insanity defense would be the best way to go, though I doubt if he'd get off. StuRat 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pursuit of happiness

I heard an interview on NPR regarding the pursuit of happiness and was hoping someone else remembers - it was in the last two years. The interviewed person traced the phrase from its origins as meaning (roughly) the ability to work in one's chosen field (property + happiness). He want on to say that in Europe at the time, a favorite way to destroy someone was to prevent them from doing so, and that this meaning was very much recognized and intended when written into the Declaration of Independance.

Does anyone here have a link to the interview or know who the author is? (also asked question at Talk:Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) PatriotSurvivor 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PatriotSurvivor. It's not quite clear to me exactly what you are looking for. You must know from reading the page you have linked that the phrase in question was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who based it upon a similar sentiment expressed in the work of the English political philosopher John Locke. Locke was a close associate of the Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the founder of what became known as the Whig Party, which later contributed to the overthrow of James II, the last Catholic king of England, in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government in defence of this Revolution, and as a counter to the absolutist theories of Thomas Hobbes. Englishmen of the day were just as keen on natural justice and the defence of property as the later framers of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, and just as opposed to political absolutism of any kind. The upheavals of 1688 was followed soon after by the passing by Parliament of the Bill of Rights, incorporating some of these beliefs. France, in contrast did indeed operate a system of political absolutism up to the Revolution of 1789, where people had few rights in law; but I do not believe this example was foremost in the minds of Jefferson and others. I'm afraid I have no knowledge, though, of the particular interview you are referring to. Clio the Muse 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Pursuit of Happiness Talk of the Nation, July 3, 2003?—eric 07:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, eric! I'm listening to the discussion as I clean out my rooms here at Cambridge, which is most definitely not the pursuit of happiness-where am I going wrong? It must be the oppressive, absolutist system I live under. Thanks for the diversion! Clio the Muse 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author your looking for is probably Darrin HcMahon, i've access to a couple of his journal articles on the subject, but not Hapiness: a History.—eric 07:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eric. That may be the author. I've reserved his book. But it isn't the interview I was thinking about, nor is this. I distinctly remember a discussion about abuse of power in old europe in the form of preventing people from working in their chosen fields in order to ruin them, and that pursuit of happiness had this (at least partially) in mind when written into the DOI. PatriotSurvivor 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]