Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 26

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 26

Death of Asclepius

How was it possible for Asclepius to die, since he was a god? I was always under the impression that the gods in Greek mythology (unlike at least one god in Norse mythology) were immortal; was he not really a god, or was I incorrect? Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

His mother Coronis was mortal, so he was only a half-god, like Heracles or other heroes. Also, Zeus killed him, which would probably work even for a god (did Zeus ever kill another god? I can't remember). Adam Bishop (talk)

He offed his old man, so apparently Greek gods were not off-limits to insurance salesmen. Anyone who watched the original Star Trek would know this. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

countries that are not labelled as Socialist, but pretty much are... can anyone help me find examples?

I am trying to explain to some of my younger family members that the way the label "socialist" is being used by our (US) media is a misleading buzzword. They are being taught that socialistic programs like health care will lead to loss of freedom to the point of near slavery for goodness sake. They are learning that it is totalitarian dictatorship. Can anyone help me by giving me examples of countries today, that even if they are not labelled as Socialistic, still have a largely socialistic society? And citizens are not slaves?? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannelli55 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist is used by different people in wildly different ways. If a country with universal health care is socialist, as it seems you and your family think, then that covers "nearly all industrialized countries except the United States". Algebraist 02:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Darn those socialists, forcing everyone to be able to afford to see a doctor. Health care compared#Cross-country comparisons is an interesting chart - see if you can spot the outlier! FiggyBee (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Insofar as socialism implies "Government provides services that people could pay for themselves, but that is instead provided for by the government using taxes" then every western democracy, the U.S. included features some level of socialism. After all, consider Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, U.S. Mail, etc. etc. So basically, any country, the U.S. included, could be labeled "socialist". It's a largely meaningless word that, depending on who is using it, can be used as a compliment or a perjorative. List of sovereign states would probably be enough. --Jayron32 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your family members are confusing socialism with a welfare state. "Socialism" means state ownership of the means of production. The only really socialist country left is North Korea and maybe Cuba. On the other hand, every modern country, including the United States, has some degree of a welfare state, and, as mentioned before, every wealthy country save the United States has universal health care, including Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, etc. None of those countries are Stalinist dictatorships, as far as I know. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's another very distinctive opinion on what socialism means - and it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that, for instance, a fascist or feudal state which owns the means of production is therefore socialist. The classic Marxist view is that socialism means workers' control of the means of production, probably but not neccesarily involving control of the state. Under such a definition, North Korea is about as far from socialist as you could get. Warofdreams talk 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So according to the logic of what the OP's younger family members are being taught, because universal health care leads to totalitarian dictatorship and slavery, and every other wealthy industrialised western country except the USA has universal health care, then every other wealthy industrialised western country except the USA is a totalitarian dictatorship that enslaves its own citizens. I wonder what would happen if the OP made that argument to their younger members? Of course, then there's the drawback of a possibility of them accepting it as true without criticism or doubt. JIP | Talk 05:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood what is wrong with social services to begin with. Why is it the Americans oppose subsidized services so much, at least according to the news we here outside the US? Canadians, and surely Europeans, often wonder why the "greatest nation on Earth" seems to care so little about its residents. Aaronite (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom, Germany, and France are three examples of countries often called "socialist". None of those three countries is a totalitarian dictatorship. The problem is that "socialism" is a word that has been badly abused over the years, until now it is nearly meaningless. "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist", and of course the USSR called itself a socialist state, too. I concur with both Mwalcoff and Warofdreams above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on this and respond to the OP, France has a Parti Socialiste, which is in fact more of a centre-left party (and one of the two main political parties in France). François Mitterrand, a Socialist Party candidate, has been elected twice as President (in power 1981-1995), and the Socialist Pary also has been the governing party between 1995 and 2002. When Mitterrand was first elected in 1981, some thought he was going to enact collectivist policies, but this has never been the case. --Alþykkr (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions . . . would you include an economy that has very good and very cheap medical care, subsidized by government and freely available to all? How about the same for education? Congratulations! You've selected Hong Kong, one of the least socialist places on earth, as a candidate for being labelled socialist! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The link between calling oneself socialist and providing health care is not that established. We in India, call ourselves "socialist" explicitly in our constitution, but have a very bad health care system--Sodabottle (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

about: article titled "Hidden within Technology's Empire, a Republic of Letter "

Would someone can be kindly to tell me when and where the above titled article by Saul Bellow was published. And if possible, please tell me the core idea about the article.

There is also a sentence in the article: " God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 of the righteous." ,what does it imply? thanks. 赵霞 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 赵霞 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 19, God plans to destroy Sodom and Gamorrah for being completely sinful towns. However, since Abraham's nephew Lot, who was himself righteous, lived there, angels were sent down to tell him to basically GTFO so he and his family would be spared. God cut a deal with Abraham, such that if Abraham could find 10 righteous (i.e. good) people living in Sodom, he would spare the entire city. Abraham could not, so Lot packed up his family, and bugged out. Except that Lot's wife looked back on the burning heap that was Sodom, and was turned into a pillar of salt for it. That's the basic story. --Jayron32 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question about the article's first publication: According to this, it was first published in The New York Times on October 11, 1999. I have to admit, though, that I haven't been able to find any evidence of it by searching the NYT archives for "Bellow" in a time range that includes that date. Deor (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I found many copies online. Try this or this or this. Zoonoses (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dahmer's grandmother and father

Hi, I'd like to know if they are still today. They are known because he was with him in many interviews, and his grandma lived with him during some killings. --190.178.177.225 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer's the relevent link, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for presentation on teamwork

In a few days, I'm going to have a 20-minute job interview, for which the interviewer requested all the interviewees a 2-3 minute presentation on what teamwork means to you. I'm totally stuck on how I'm going to do this. I was told that there is no right or wrong answer so I'm encouraged to be as creative and respectful as possible. I was also told that my presentation can be a short poem/song, statement, or story, and if I want, I may bring an artifact such as a picture, photo, or any other appropriate object that could assist me in sharing my idea of what teamwork means to me. Some ideas as to how to rock this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of some specific past instances where you were on a team that had a successful project? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The classic argument for teamwork is that each member can use their greatest assets while relying on the skills of others to cover for their deficiencies, and simultaneously learn from each other to patch up those weaknesses. StuRat (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Teamwork gives me the opportunity to do all the work and have others take credit for it, a privilege normally only granted to my boss." :-) StuRat (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to reflect on some of the models of team dynamics and use that as a framework for your own response. That allows you to give the presentaiton structure and pin your own experiences on something reasonably understood. Meredith Belbin authoried a fair amount on team roles, Kurt Lewin talks about leadership style and John Adair has the Task/ Team/ Individual model.

ALR (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is pedophilia so reviled?

Not a troll question, so please try to keep this on topic. I mean, wanting to have sex with small children is certainly a deviant behavior, but there are lots of sexually deviant behaviors that are pretty tolerated. And certainly I can understand why actually having sex with a minor is illegal, but I don't understand why "merely" fantasizing about it or advocating for it has such a stigma attached; it's not like we have a ton of control over our sexual urges. The reason I ask was because of this thread at ANI: evidentially, Wikipedia has a policy of blocking known pedophiles on sight, even if they are editing within the usual guidelines. This attests to how powerful the aversion to pedophilia is: we tolerate editors with all sorts of politically incorrect views, deviant personalities, and even those who have been convicted of actually doing something illegal. What is it about pedophilia advocacy in particular (as opposed to, say, Holocaust Denial) that gets people so riled up? Buddy431 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because children need to be protected against those deviants who wish to use them and subsequently harm them for their own base gratification. Children are defenseless members of our society, and the onus is on us as adults to keep the pedophiles as far away from them as possible. There is no culture on this planet which advocates pedophilia nor has there ever been in the history of mankind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That very much depends on the definition of pedophilia. In ancient Greece, "the cradle of Western civilisation", there even was a recognised structure for homosexual relationships between mature men and boys. See Pederasty in ancient Greece. And girls were usually considered to be of marriageable age at 14 through the middle ages and to at least the enlightenment. So at least the range of accepted (and perceived as useful) behaviour was a lot larger than it is now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact it was done does not make it any less exploitive. Modern law in general holds that minors are incompetent to make adult decisions. By it's very nature, pedophilia is always exploitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that anti-pedophile hatred is any worse than the historic hatred of other "sexual perversions". Just last century in the US, those engaging in inter-racial sex were lynched in the Southern US and homosexuals were given shock treatments to "cure" them. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And masochists were punished by refusing to beat them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jeanne Boleyn, just recently there was a news story about a 12 y.o. girl divorcing her 80 y.o. husband. These marriages are allowed at least in some places still. Dismas|^(talk) 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A big difference to other "deviant behaviors" is that most of those are "Safe, sane and consensual". Children are not judged capable of giving informed consent. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My great-grandmother was 13 when she married her 23 year old cousin. Girls normally married in their teens before the 20th century. I believe we're confusing two separate issues: consensual under-age sex and pedophilia which involves small, pre-adolescent children.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that the percentage of the population that thinks marrying at 13 is a good idea, has dropped significantly since the 19th century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Her mother was also about the same as her when she married. I think girls matured very quickly in those days. At 12, they could run and manage a house, cook, tend lifestock, and by then were old enough to bear children and thus keep the family line going (which was the reason behind all the medieval nobles marrying as kids), so if a decent man wanted to wed their daughter, the parents accepted him. Remember all those westerns where they showed very young girls with a sizeable family and schoolteachers no older than 14? The teenager as we know it today is a 20th century invention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Girls actually matured more slowly then, at least physically. The age of onset of menstruation has been dropping steadily. The main reason is dietary, as today's high fat diet seems to bring it on sooner. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyday life was much different then. We are used to being relatively safe and secure, with medical attention available if needed. Making kids "grow up fast", working and having them marry and produce lots of kids themselves, had as much to do with survival as anything. There was a reasonable expectation that disease would kill some of the kids before they reached adulthood. And if someone became physically or mentally disabled, they became basically a burden on the rest of the group. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Infant mortality remained very high until about 80 years ago, therefore if parents wished to continue their line, it behooved them to marry off their children as early as possible. The other night on Italian TV, there was a Sicilian lady in her 60s who said she was forced to marry at 12!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That situation made young marriage necessary, and hence it was socially acceptable. Nowadays it is neither necessary nor socially acceptable, at least in the English-speaking world. I would imagine it might still be necessary and/or acceptable, in other societies, especially maybe in third-world countries where, again, survival is at the top of the list of needs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the point is that we do, or should, have control over our sexual urges, Buddy? Labelling and shunning everyone who finds children sexually attractive because they might attack children is a little like labelling and shunning every heterosexual adult male because they might attack women, in my opinion. I also don't think that our current social attitude towards paedophiles (that they're monsters who should be locked up, killed, destroyed) is very helpful; it means that young people who do find they have sexual feelings towards children can't talk to anyone about it for fear of being judged. If you treat people as monsters, they will become monsters. Two more points; One, there's an element of the witch hunt in "pedo panic" - if you don't loudly denounce them, perhaps you are one. Two, it's a nice way of ignoring the fact that most children who are sexually abused are not abused by a roving monster, teacher or priest, but by a family member (who probably doesn't self-identify, and probably wouldn't be psychiatrically diagnosed, as a paedophile). FiggyBee (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You've touched on the core reason that pedophilia is so exploitive: It's a power situation. Be it a relative or a neighbor or a priest, the adult is in a power position over the child. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet we must realise that children often tell lies to attract attention, and are encouraged by their parents to elaborate, often themselves putting words into their mouths. So when a priest, neighbour, relative, teacher is accused of molesting a child, we must tread very carefully, evaluate the evidence without becoming a roaring mob out for blood. Many innocent lives have been destroyed by the lies of children.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

While I hear what you're saying, Jeanne, the fact remains that innocent lives have been destroyed by the actions of those who are supposed to support and protect them. And that is indefensible in any "society". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why we have a strong moral duty to keep pedophiles as far away as possible from children. I personally know two cases of child molestation. One was real, the other a vicious lie. One girl I knew told me she was fondled by a neighbour for years, and she never told anybody; on the other hand, I knew a man who committed suicide after being wrongfully accused of molesting a 7 year-old girl, who later retracted her accustion and admitted her parents put her up to it. By the time she told the truth, the man's head had already been severed by the express train on the track where he'd laid his head after being subjected to abuse and threats from his neighbours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That tragic case is a different type of exploitation of kids. Was anything done to the parents? That kind of thing parallels the infamous Salem, Mass. witch hunting, and more recently the infamous case of the California day care center that was wrongly accused. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was done to the parents. It was a great tragedy as I knew the guy very well and was a lovely human being. So sad, and yes it does parallel the Salem witch huntings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a wrongful death suit or something could have been filed. But you never know. I recall a story from my hometown of a school principal who was accused of molestation, and he committed suicide before he could be brought to trial, but it was pretty clear that he was guilty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the basic idea is that the sorts of adults who would liaison with children are morally corrupt, and that they'll damage the sensitive souls of vulnerable children in the course of their predations. Vranak (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer: Culture and Society. They set the rules of Morality not nature. Nature is Amoral. Society tends not to let people hide behind "i can't control how I feel" because they can control how they act - whether that is acting out a fantasy (in their head) or acting out the fantasy in real-life. Neither are accepted by my culture/society (save for small factions who are shunned), but i'm not going to pretend that that's always been the case (historically) or will always be the case. It's currently a huge taboo (maybe even the biggest in my culture) and I can't personally see that changing. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good summary. The whole point of civilization is to try and corral our "natural" tendencies for the good of the group, and sexualizing kids is considered to be bad for the group. You're dead-on with controlling how one feels vs. controlling one's actions. What we hear from churches, for example, is that being homosexual is not the problem so much as is acting on it. What someone is feeling, especially if it's at odds with society, is between that person and God, so to speak. But when they act on, then it becomes between them and society. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Without going into too much wild speculation, here's a list of reasons I'd think as answers to the original question (not taking sides as to whether they're right, wrong etc.) : 1. There seems to be, in Western culture at least, a general assumption that children are innocent beings. This may stem from a Christian view of children combined with recent (i.e. second half of the 20th century) changes in perceptions about children. Thus, it seems unacceptable to expose children to things that are considered "unclean", including sex, but also violence (Eros and Thanatos as Sigmund Freud put it - the life drive and the death drive). Freud also thought children were not "innocent" but in fact, polymorphic perverts, which given his description of this ("seeking sexual gratification outside of normally accepted bounds") is interesting. But you'll note that again, this view doesn't seem to apply only to sex - one could for instance ask why children forced to serve in wars (i.e. military use of children) is generally considered as scandalous, but grown-ups forced to serve in wars is much less criticized. 2. In connection to the above argument, there could be one towards the negative influence such experiences (whether war/violence or sexual relations with an adult) could have on the mental development of a child, and on his own ability to function as a social being in the future. 3. There is the idea that children are helpless, thus, getting them in a sexual relationship either by force or by influence/convincing constitutes an abuse of a position of control/power (by the adult) on a weaker person (the child). This is probably the reason that has the most to do with the legal condemnation of pedophilia. In many jurisdictions, cases of pedophilia carry an even higher sentence if committed by someone in a position granting authority on the child (i.e. parent, teacher, etc.). Expanding on that argument, pedophilia could be seen as a treason, or a breach of confidence, by adults, who are (in this view) supposed to protect the children and help rear them, not use their "superior" position to take any kind of advantage (sexual or otherwise) off them. 4. I am not knowledgeable in the history of pedophilia, but I strongly suspect that, as stated above, this taboo gained strength in recent years, as conceptions on children evolved (towards more protective behaviour, regarding all kinds of things perceived as exploitive or "unchildlike" - child labour, etc. etc.). Also, conceptions on other previous taboos evolved too (homosexuality for instance), so perhaps there is some kind of "taboo balancing" going on here - a society defines itself by its norms and notably by what it refuses outright (its taboos); since previous taboos are no longer used, others are bound to arise or be strengthened. 5. From the biological/evolutionary perspective, I'd guess there might be an argument that it is considered unnatural (consciously or not) to try and have sex with a person despite this person not being old enough to actually reproduce with. --Alþykkr (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Child molestation, and the combating of it, are not new. Back in the 50s there were pamphlets warning kids not to accept rides from strangers. Those items omitted what horrible things might happen to an abducted child, but their very nature was sufficiently spooky to instill some caution. A lot of things were in the closet then, and there's a lot more public consciousness about the whole problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This horrific crime: Wineville Chicken Coop Murders haunted parents in California for decades; yet it was hushed up until Clint Eastwood made a film based on it (Changeling).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This might get complicated if cultural relativism is brought into the mix as it was during Socratic circles (a kind of group discussion) on morality in my English classes. ;-) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I don't see how any taboo can be discussed without bringing cultural relativism in. According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the only universal taboo is incest, and even that is not true. For instance, did you know that sexual relationships between a (consenting) brother and sister are legal in France, but can and have even recently been punished with jail in Germany ? This despite the fact that arguably, France and Germany are culturally quite close. Each society, each time period reacts differently regarding a given behaviour. This does not make arguments against pedophilia any weaker or stronger, they just have to be considered within a frame of reference, just as physical phenomenons are.--Alþykkr (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural relativism isn't really as large an issue here as one might think. parents (as a universal) have a deep seated desire to protect their children so that the children reach adulthood. at its basic level, this is genetic: genes only survive if the child reaches breeding age (12-14 in humans, at minimum), and given the intricacy of human culture, the age for 'successful' breeding (in which a child can enter into a safe, productive life for the welfare of itself and its own offspring) is constantly advancing. in the modern world, having children before the age of 20 practically guarantees second-class citizen status, though in earlier eras - for numerous reasons - children could effectively marry and begin adult life earlier. threats to the welfare of the child (and in particular sexual assault, which can damage the child's ability to produce offspring or engage in healthy relationships) are despised on a deep emotional level in every culture, and are only circumvented in highly structured ways - for instance, the traditional practice in some middle eastern and indian cultures to 'promise' a female child to an adult with sufficient status in the community (or another child from a family with status); such practices guarantee that the girl will be attached to a family that can provide for her needs. pedophiles (by their nature) separate the child from the adult supervision of the family and interfere with the child's welfare without providing any guarantee for the child's future security or safety - there is nothing more likely to inflame anger in any adult human than that. The only place cultural relativism plays a part in in the age of effective adulthood: technological cultures tend to feel that a child is not ready for successful relationships before the child has mastered a broad range of skills that will ensure it can compete and advance itself in a technological world; agricultural societies tend to hold that a child is ready for successful relationships when it has mastered the more basic skill-set that allows for commercial production. --Ludwigs2 05:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian language

How did the Hungarian language managed to survive the Indo-European invasion? I mean, Hungary is not a remote place at all - unlike Siberia or, to some degree, Finland. --Belchman (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• According to Hungarian language#History, it wasn't spoken in what is now Hungary until the end of the ninth century. At the time of the Indo-Aryan migration, it had only recently diverged from the other Ugric languages and, while the location where it was spoken appears to be disputed, this would have been to the east, probably near the Urals, and away from or on the margins of the spread of the Indo-European languages. Warofdreams talk 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)It didn't have to. The Magyars are the invasion and only settled in what is today Hungary during the 9th century. See Hungarian prehistory and History of Hungary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only native language still spoken in Europe that pre-dates the arrival of Indo-European is Basque -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true for Western Europe, but the Uralic languages may well have evolved in what is now European Russia, and are still spoken in parts of Europe, and the South Caucasian languages (and quite possibly the Northeast and Northwest Caucasian languages) appear to have developed pretty much where they are still spoken, and that area is sometimes considered European. Warofdreams talk 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical debate

My professor and I have been arguing about the nature of consciousness and God. He believes that subjective things (beauty, love, meaning, etc) and consciousness cannot exist without a higher power that transcends both body and mind. Whereas, I feel that these things can exist (I'm no Materialist) without any higher power. I'm not looking for any answer (that'd be like asking how many angels can dance on the point of a needle), but rather I'm asking to be pointed to any philosophies that agree with my point of view. My professor suggested Naturalism (philosophy), but I didn't really get all of it.

I guess I'll just have to keep lmaoing thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 13:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Plato springs to mind. Theory of forms or some such. Absolutely impenetrable, dense logic, but have a look anyway. Vranak (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it your professor is a philosophy teacher? Why don't you throw some scientific logic his way. Love, at it's primal level, is just a form of insurance that the next generation will survive. Animals that follow the K-type survival aspect focus all of their energy on very few offspring, while R-type have excessive amounts. Because the former has put so much energy into making their offspring, they must nurture the children to insure their own "fitness" (spread of genetic material) is increased. The latter do not stick around. If we are not talking about children, primal love is the attraction that potential mates have for each other. This may sound dry or emotionless, but this is how nature is. You have to remember that man is an animal and is subject to the same drives as such. How it expanded from its primal to poetic form I am not sure of. There are probably some psychology majors on here that might be able to explain this.

I think this debate hinges on whether the teacher is willing to look at this from a non-religious perspective. I would go on, but I must leave at the moment. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"How it expanded from its primal to poetic form I am not sure of".... This is where the soul comes into it, whether one is religious or not. How else do we explain the difference between man and beast? The creators and the devourers? The builders and the destroyers?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a prime example of why I said that a person has to be able to look at this from a non-religious perspective. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said belief in a soul has to involve religion?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jeanne. I have a soul but am not religious. I don't really buy the whole love is a means of survival, either. My love for another is more than just instinct. I just don't see why my having a soul must mean there is an afterlife or higher power.  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the "soul", as such; it's the Big Brain. It's the power of detailed reasoning and problem-solving. The power of language. That's what has enabled us to survive and simultaneously to plot to kill each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But what is it that sparks the creative genius such as Da Vinci, Mozart, Michelangelo if not the soul?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Big Brain has many and varied capabilities and talents, and we're only just beginning to understand a little bit about how the brain works. No small part of it is "visualizing". The old joke is that Michelangelo carved David by chipping away "everything that didn't look like David." Edison said invention is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. A composer might have an idea, a tune in his head, and he has to write it down and work it over, countless times, until it seems good enough. That's all part of the "craft". Computer programmers can visualize the end result and then write the code to get there. It's hard to explain a given talent to someone who lacks it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is really a Kantian argument, so you should look at some of the people who argue against Kant (you might start with some of the phenomonologists, existentialists, and related schools). the problem (boiled down) is that aesthetic values are not inherent in the object being observed - there's no way (for example) to invent a mechanical tool (an aesthometer, for a word) that uniformly measures aesthetic value. The question then becomes - where does aesthetic value lie? philosophically, you either have to deny that there is such a thing as aesthetic value (which leads you down the road toward nihilism), place aesthetic value outside physical reality (which leads you towards religious ideation or towards philosophical abstractions like Plato's ideals or Hegel's geist), or place aesthetic value as an emergent property of some sort (which will drop you square in the middle of any number of post-modernist, post-structuralist, or critical-theoretical theories). rough roads to follow, all... --Ludwigs2 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some who believe our brain creates our own reality; namely, that nothing exists outside of our thoughts. Physical reality is merely an illusion conjured up by ourselves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the latter is Solipsism. Basically. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the philosophy on Solipsism, then one can conclude that infants, animals, and sociopaths are all solipsists to varying degrees.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OP, start by examining this odd concept of “a higher power that transcends both body and mind.” Who first came up with such a notion? Could it have predated culture or civilization? I would argue not, on the premises that it is only in a surplus (wealthy) society that some workers are able to be released from productive (hunting, gathering) work long enough to develop things like social organization, religion and philosophy.

Once you’ve agreed upon a reasonable point at which this mythical higher power first occurs, then discuss why it was not possible for beauty, love, meaning, etc to exist one moment before that exact point in time, but it was possible one moment after.

Try not to laugh at the good professor’s expression when you spring this one on him. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I never thought about it like this before. Good point : ]  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 16:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

actually, the Marxist approach won't get you any traction here. if the prof knows anything about religion, he knows that you can find references to 'higher powers' of some sort well back into the earliest written documents and oral traditions (the Bahgavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, early tribal mythos like Genesis). There's good anthropological evidence to think that even hunter/gatherer societies had rudimentary religions (at least, it's fairly clear they had totems and fetishes).

and really, all I'd need to do to shoot down this argument is to point out that the worship of higher powers is different from the existence of higher powers. If a higher power exists, it will exist whether or not people have sufficient leisure to worship it - it wouldn't just 'first occur' when people have the time to notice it. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then how can one argue for or against it? You're right, Ludwig, that whether or not people believe in it does not concern whether or not it actually exists. How frustrating xD ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If a higher power/supreme being does exist, then it behooves us mortals to pay it due homage, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a decidable issue. the best you can do with a topic like this (which is what most philosophers - secular and religious - end up doing) is to apply a reductio ad absurdem type argument: determine what qualities a divine-ness would need to have in order to be the source of aesthetic values, and then extrapolate from it using logic to see if the result still looks like the divinity originally presumed. But people have been doing things like that for thousands of years and still haven't excluded the possibility of a divinity, so.... --Ludwigs2 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

why do words change? why is there lexical change?

I'm just really curious why words in a language (such as English) change over time. Is this the result of man's contact with other people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a VERY complex question that cannot be answered sucsinctly. You'd need to, at minimum, take an introductory course/read an overview text on the basic principles of linguistics first. Sometimes, languages assimilate to each other, where there is an invasion of one people into another area. For example, when the Norman French invaded and took over England, the language known as the Anglo-Saxon language evolved into the English Language. Sometimes, the conquerers impose changes on the conquered, but other times the invaders assume language from their subjects, for example the Norman French people's themselves lost most of their native Scandanavian language in a very short order, likewise the Scandavian Rus people adopted the local Slavic language and gave their name to Russia. Sometimes, languages change over time for no explainable reason, they just sort of evolve randomly, as in the Great Vowel Shift in English, or the development of regional accents in various parts of the English-speaking world. --Jayron32 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear from the article, how historians know that "the great vowel shift" occurred. The paragraph trying to explain it is loaded with fact tags, and really doesn't answer the question anyway. We have audio recordings from the early 1900s which can tell us some differences, e.g. the word "record", which was once pronounced to rhyme with "cord", but now (in America, at least) rhymes with "curd". But there are no recordings from 500 years ago. So how do they know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Some persons who lived through the Great Vowel Shift wrote about it, such as how in his youth he pronounced "mice" as "mees." Edison (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Language change. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Books has some interesting discussions of linguistic change in English. See [1]. The look at Shakespeare rhyming "nature" and "creature" and hypothesize what sound the "a" and "ea" had. In the present day U.S., there is supposed to be an ongoindg shift in which "hog" (previously pronounced "hawg" is coming to be pronounced like "hahg." Edison (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As well as Internal reconstruction and comparative method. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even inside an isolated culture, we should expect language to change. Consider the word "set", which tends to posses over a hundred dictionary definitions. No one specifically teaches their children all the definitions and shades of meaning of every word (partially because the task is impossible), so the surprising thing is that language drifts as slowly as it does. Language Log has a discussion of change in the definition of "redact", to pick one arbitrary example. Paul (Stansifer) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(and, of course, Language Log has a discussion about the multitude of definitions that every simple-seeming word can has. Paul (Stansifer) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

I like to think of language as being a reasonable model for the theory of evolution, in that language becomes localized just as plants and animals do over time. The Romans imposed Latin on areas they conquered, and it evolved locally into several distinct languages. I like to say that if Rome had television 2,000 years ago, maybe the whole world would be speaking Latin by now. As it is, English (a partial descendant of Latin) is becoming more and more the global language - thanks in no small part to the spread of English media. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of paralleling language evolution with biological evolution is that the latter results in organisms that are suited to their environment while the former does not (changes are often random). It is also unlikely that television would have spread Latin any more since television does very little to affect people's language. It is more likely that English has spread due to the widespread British Empire. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, it's interesting that you chose 'redact' as an example. That's a word I had never in my life heard before I came to WP. I still don't use it, because it's ugly and there are other words that perform the same role. But others have surely picked up on it and use it with abandon, and it has to some extent replaced other words. That's come about through people copying others (I can't imagine more than one person could have dreamt it up ab initio). That's the main way language changes: it starts with one person, and others copy them, and so on - for all sorts of reasons (peer, local jargon, cultural, etc). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, Wittgenstein would say that people are a lot less concerned with language itself, and a lot more concerned with the ability of language to get things done. for a silly example, no one in a community really cares whether the word is pronounced 'Poe-Tay-Toe' or 'Poe-Tah-Toe' so long as they don't get hash-browned turnips with breakfast. However some small random shift might occur, it can rapidly become entrenched in a given community because people will naturally want to be using the same sounds to mean the same thing (even if its not quite the same sounds the last generation was using). --Ludwigs2 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jack - I don't think there are words that exactly cover redact. Censor, for example, has a connotation of removing sexually explicit topics, while redact has connotations of protecting privacy or other legally sensitive areas. Unless there's another synonym you're thinking of... Matt Deres (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The typical example is "email address redacted". What's wrong with "email address removed"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the EO definition,[2] I'm not so sure "redact" is being used correctly here. I wonder if it's supposed to be an antonym for "enact"?[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct or not, that's just how it happens. To answer Jack's question: The reason in this case seems to be that it is less blunt and sounds more official, which adds legitimacy to the removal, and makes it sound more polite. — Sebastian 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to me it doesn't. My completely OR hunch is that this word is not in general currency outside of online forums, and those who do not participate much or at all in such forums would be unlikely to encounter it. So the first time they ever do, it has quite a blunt impact, because it's redolent of edicts and renderings and excisions and executions. That's certainly how I first perceived it, and it has obviously strongly coloured my attitude to it. I don't see it as either more or less polite than "remove". As for legitimacy, I can't think of another example where doing something requires a different word when done for an official reason than when done for an unspecified reason. That sounds like jargon for its own sake, to me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's word change in action, Jack. As & when enough people consider that its new, and to you, mistaken use is the orthodox, then so shall it be. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "email address removed", it's just that it's slightly less exact. Removed is pretty neutral - if we were talking about material removed due to an edit conflict we could say just the same thing, for example. However, when we remove a person's email address it's a redaction because it's semi-official (our guidelines say you shouldn't post an email address) and it also serves to protect a person's privacy (due to spam crawlers). In other contexts (like The Smoking Gun website, which is where I first encountered the word), the material is very definitely not literally "removed" - it's blacked out with a magic marker. :) Matt Deres (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

English has dramatically changed over time. The words in the language are multiplying. Text messages use a handful of abbreviated or shortened words. How about in other languages? Is there also change in their words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Semantic change is common to all languages, and lexical borrowing occurs with linguistic contact. New words may also be coined when new phenomena come about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

English varies not—thou art speaking the identic Tongue as thy Forefathers a Milliard years ago. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there so much Euroskeptism?

Ok everyone I've ever asked has agreed free trade and travel in Europe is a good thing. Why is there so much euroskeptism? What powers does the EU have that people believe it shouldn't have?

On a related note why does the EU do stuff like restrict banana sizes?--92.251.155.38 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've begun to answer your own question. Some people feel that the EU adopts too many unnecessary regulations, such as restrictions on the shapes or sizes of bananas. Probably a more profound reason for euroscepticism is the concern that EU institutions are not very democratic and that EU bureaucrats are insulated from democratic control. As such, some feel that the EU represents a weakening of democracy in their countries. Finally, people in some countries, particularly the UK, feel that the EU threatens national sovereignty. This is not exclusively a British concern, but public opinion in other EU countries tends to be more accepting of an erosion of national sovereignty for the sake of common EU goals. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Many here in Italy believe it's a form of Communism in a different guise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that many in Italy know very little of Communism and even less about the EU. Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an official Communist party in Italy, but they receive little support in the South (where I reside). Italians know about the EU whenever they open their wallets and see that the Euro doesn't buy as much as the lira did. The wages didn't increase but prices doubled. For example with lira a nice pair of shoes cost 100,000 Lira (roughly 50 Euro); now the same pair (although probably not made in Italy anymore) costs over 100 Euro (more than 200,000 Lira). Thank you Brussels, thank you Europe!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The rise of prices is not the fault of the Euro but the direct responsability of the seller, re-seller, and the supplier (who raised their prices). AFAIK the Italian lira had a huge amount of inflation and I wouldn't miss it at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the suppliers taking advantage of the switch from lira to the Euro. The positive thing about the former is it had more purchasing power in Italy than the latter; however, against foreign currencies, it was practically worthless. I went to Ireland in 2001 and my lira bought me very few Irish punts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard a lot about the erosion of sovereignety but what difference does it make where decisions are made so long as they are the right decisions? It's not like the EU can force anything on the UK.--92.251.155.38 (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

By what criteria are they the "right" decisions? Especially if the citizens have little or no say in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The right decisions are ones people want done. If the EU was fully democratic (Which isn't isn't really) what does sovereignity in some small areas matter? Basebugs you live in a country that is far more centralized than the EU ever will be.--92.251.163.37 (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is a lot of stuff that's state-based rather than federal. The line between state and federal may seem blurry, but it's there. "What the people want done." How much input does the EU accept from "the people"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

None.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere, the ghosts of Napoleon, Hitler, etc. must be smiling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and the Duke of Wellington and Lord Montgomery are turning in their graves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come off it! The EU is neither a network of French client states nor a thousand-year German Reich. And the European Parliament is directly elected. If you want to talk about the lack of input of "the people" a source acknowledging this and highlighting the powers of other, non-elected, branches of the EU would be a better argument than the raising of those ghosts. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, ARTF, I've no intention of conducting a seance to invoke the spirits of those doughty departed soldiers, Wellington and Montgomery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Speaking from a middle-aged UK perspective, most people here have no problem with the free trade aspects which, including the harmonisation of sales taxes and the eventual elimination of the need for customs duties, were the main selling points of the European Economic Community that the UK (including myself) voted to join in a nationwide referendum held in 1975. Nor did/do we have any quarrel with the EEC's unstated but generally understood aim: to prevent future conflicts between France and Germany by tieing their respective manufacturing-heavy and agricultural-heavy economies into symbiosis.

However, the subsequently created European Union and its uncontrollably burgeoning bureaucracy and quasi-national characteristics have been introduced piecemeal by politicians without any referenda or other explicit consent of the (UK) general populace. Since both political parties with any chance of forming a UK government have broadly supported these - and indeed in 1975 had deliberately obfusticated their plans for them - there has been no way of introducing significant opposition to them into the UK Parliament.

General resentment at these impositions is coupled with specific resentments at various Europe-wide measures that cut across traditional cultural practices (such as weighing foodstuffs in imperial rather than metric units). Added to the apparent remoteness of the European Parliament and other EU institutions (which are generally under-reported by the UK Press, particularly in their positive aspects), these factors make the EU often appear to be an unnecessary and expensive imposition of foreign hegemony, of the kind that the UK has historically resisted.

Re 92's remark: over as diverse a geographical, economic and cultural range as the current and future EU, one solution is not necessarily most appropriate everywhere, and as a compromise may not be optimal anywhere. And as far as I am aware, the EU most certainly can force things on the UK - the right of single-member veto is being steadily withdrawn from more and more areas of legislation and policy. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at our article European Union law, you will see that it takes precedence over national laws. That is, the EU can force things on members such as the UK by overruling members' laws. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the rules about a member country deciding they don't want to be in the EU anymore? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Withdrawal from the European Union. Gabbe (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our article Euroscepticism? — Sebastian 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you believe in free trade does not mean you have to support the EU. In fact if you do believe in free trade then there are arguments against the EU from a free trade position: the CAP is one of the most illiberal policies in Europe. Free trade means the absence of import taxes for protective purposes, it does not mean creating a vast bureaucracy for political union, a process of turning many states into one country, i.e. a Zollverein, which is the opposite of free trade.--Britannicus (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO there are more arguments in favour of the EU from a free trade position. Remember that the vast majority of "protective import taxes" between the UE members have been removed. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And what powers does the EU have that people believe it shouldn't? Is it simply the current conduct and format of the EU or are they just against any sort of European government?

Also, why does the BNP expect Ireland to ceed to most of its sovereignity to a sort of federal UK parliament, yet oppose any sort of proposal to create a sort of federal EU? Sorry I'm stil none the wiser from above.--92.251.163.37 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear 92.251, dont worry you are not the only one. Most people defends what they percieve as being their own best interest. The interest of the people in the BNP is for the British centralised government to control as much as possible. Giving away control to the EU diminishes their own control, just like giving away control to a local authority in Northern Ireland. It is selfish in a way or it can be considered self-protective, but it should be expected from most people to think in that manner. --Lgriot (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I posted a reference to Gold-plating last night (UK time), about the 2nd or 3rd response. I don't see it above. What happened to it? Can't see it in the Edit summary. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons, from the fairly prosaic nationalist perspective to a more sophisticated objection based on the effect of relative prosperity on the overall effect. Much of it is driven y a lack of understanding of the relative responsibilities of the EU and the constituent nations. It becomes easy to blame Europe for failings of the national government. There is also some difficulty caused by the need to reconcile common and civil legal systems in implementation, and of course the approach to the constituent nations to implementation.

One of the main issues in the UK is our implementation of the directives, tending towards a very literal approach to the directives and embedding a number of principles of English law. some implementations tend to be a lot more laissez faire in their approach. There is also some fairly strong, and probably legitimate, criticism of the Britih Government for not addressing restrictive practices elsewhere, really just a question of the directives not being enforced uniformly through the union. The British right can be both prohibitionist and protectionist at times, particularly when faced with protectionism elsewhere.

There are issues around relative competitiveness, and the implementation of common economic policies, and the common currency exacerbated that, as illustrated by the example from Italy above. In agreeing to participate in the Euro the Italian Government committed themselves to fair competition, and given the relative inefficiency in the Italian industrial base that led to increased relocation of industry and increased costs, hence hitting the consumer in the pocket.

EU governance does need some serious reform, it's unwieldy and with so many constituent countries decision making is both protracted and inefficient, too many vested interests with the Common Agricultural Policy being a good example. The CAP is bad for the EU and bad for most of the constituent countries, but France and spain are net beneficiaries and are resistant to the kind of change needed.

ALR (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear, end the CAP as swiftly as possible and let the forces of the free market regulate the prices of agricultural products. Flamarande (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How did some Native Americans migrate to the Bahamas?

How did some Native Americans migrate to the Bahamas? It took an Ice Age to get them in the Americas. What did it take to get them to the Bahamas? Was it advancement in technology? Meaning, did they go by boat? How did they migrate there? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyr134 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Paleo-Indians article mentions several times that they used boats while migrating, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This article looks at contact between Florida and the Bahamas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Humans can build boats without much trouble, but how did animals that are too big to travel on floating debris get to islands, like orangutans? --198.103.172.9 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sea levels have varied widely over time - what are islands now were, in many if not most cases, parts of the nearest continent at one or more stages in their geological history. See Sundaland for one example, relevant to orang-utans. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Language Variations

And also I noticed that there is variety even in the same language. I realized not all Americans have the same American English. There are regional or cultural differences in their own language/dialect. Why do people have language variations, too? (This is actually like a follow-up question I posed about language change.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.161.139 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See our Accent (linguistics) article, and its sub-articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Localization. "Soda" vs. "Pop", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One reason for the differences in American English is that different parts of the United States were settled during the 17th and 18th centuries by people from different parts of the British Isles. For example, eastern New England and the Tidewater areas along the Chesapeake Bay and the coastal Carolinas and Georgia were settled mainly by people from East Anglia and southeastern England whose speech had already become non-rhotic by the mid-18th century (if not earlier). By contrast, the Middle Atlantic colonies and the interior (foothills and Appalachians) were mainly settled by people from the west of England and Scotch-Irish from northern Ireland who retained rhotic accents. Over time, vowel shifts took place in some regions but did not necessarily spread to others. So, there never was a uniform American English, and this group of speech varieties has continued to change unevenly over time. Marco polo (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This gets into the issue of the boundary between a language and a dialect. If you have a speech community where speakers of one half of the region undergo one small change in their speech while the other does not, it doesn't affect mutual intelligibility. But when these small changes compound, you get greater and greater differences. Although contact mitigates these differences, circumstances can arise where the speech communities consider themselves separate; there is no objective criterion for what this cutoff point is but even without such a point, there is still dialectal variation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 06:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Every person has their own idiolect. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a standard American accent. There are also distinctive accents such as the Bostonian and New York; then let's not forget that Californians speak completely different from people of Detroit. Their slang is also unique, derived in part from surfer jargon with Mexican and Oklahoman influences.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all true, yet a person from any part of the USA would almost never be mistaken for English, or vice-versa. Great Britain, the "home" of the language, has an astonishingly wide variation in English accents, as was very entertainingly demonstrated in Pygmalion and My Fair Lady, so it's not at all surprising that other anglophone countries also exhibit wide variation. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason that there are so many different accents in the UK is that 1,200 years ago, the country was divided into numerous seperate kingdoms. Eastern England was inhabited by Angles, southern England by Saxons. There are also influences of other languages; the Yorkshire and Cumbria dialects have many Norse words in it. Add Welsh (language), Cornish language, Gaelic and Lallans; the result is some very distinctive variations. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Prof Higgins claimed to be able to tell which London street someone grew up in, from the way they talk. That may be somewhat hyperbolic, but the variation is still far wider than just the broad groupings you mention, Alan. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to keep it simple. There are certainly still minor differences in accents from different parts of London (although even Londoners might struggle to detect them), and that may well have been much more distinctive when people would spend their whole life in the same street that their forebears had lived in. Today there is a greater difference between generations in London; pensioners talk the sort of Cockney that you might hear in an Ealing comedy, whereas most teenagers speak MLE. Nationally, regional accents, especially rural ones, are seriously waning. In my uncle's small Cornish town, you are far more likely to hear a Southern Received Pronunciation accent than a local one. People are infinitely more mobile now and have TV and radio to listen to. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even siblings can speak differently from one another.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous discussion, it's very unlikely that TV and radio have anything to do with the current leveling of dialects. You'd think it would, but it's my understanding that this has been shown to not be the case. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected - this article gives a summary and some links[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Knight, Death, and the Devil question

Ritter, Tod, und Teufel, aka Der Reuther

I just have a question about the painting of albrecht dürer ritter, tod und teufel (der Reuther)Knight, Death and the Devil (the Retuher). my question is why does it say (The Reuther)??? thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.186.130 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Knight, Death, and the Devil suggests that Dürer referred to the work as "Reuter", meaning simply "Rider". The filename of our image - File:Duerer - Ritter, Tod und Teufel (Der Reuther).jpg - includes Dürer's informal name in parenthesis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)