Humanities desk
< May 31	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 2 >

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.

June 1[edit]

difference between a large zit and a carbuncle[edit]

What's the difference between a large zit and a carbuncle? They would appear to be the same in appearance CFLtoday (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the articles Carbuncle, Boil and Acne vulgaris for some useful if not necessarily appetizing insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And will this allow them to pustulate on the differences ? StuRat (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Ugh. Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double ugh. There's a sock company called Acne Studios. "Only" $32 a pair. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE. ACNE = Ambition to Create Novel Expressions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America in the war[edit]

In both world wars, America was the last major power to pick a side and fight. Was there ever a strong leaning in American opinion towards picking the Axis powers side? 12:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLtonepioio (talk • contribs)

Not really. There were groups like the German American Bund who supported Germany ... but they were never very large. Prior to the US entering both wars, the majority of Americans were split between isolationism and support for the Franco-UK alliance (or some mix of the two). Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lindbergh's public statements supportive of Nazi Germany caused him significant trouble here. His theory was that it would be better to have a Nazi Europe than a Communist Europe. That was, at the time, not a widely held view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more on American isolation during the wars, see United States non-interventionism. Matt Deres (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America is an interesting fictional take on some of these issues, positing an alternative history in which the US takes a much more pro-German stance with Lindbergh as president. --Daniel (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody famous (was it Churchill ?) said (paraphrased) "The most important fact in determining the fate of the world is that Americans speak English". The implication being that if Americans spoke German, they would relate more to the Nazis and, at the very least, remain neutral. As it happened, Nazi propaganda was rather ineffective in the US, being in German. Perhaps if Hitler had learned English, he would have been able to convince more Americans to stay out of it. Yes, I'm sure English translations were available, but most people aren't likely to read such translations unless they are already convinced. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a semi-notorious German propaganda publication aimed at U.S. English speakers, "Facts in Review" (oddly not mentioned on the George Sylvester Viereck article, though a case concerning his editorship of it went to the U.S. Supreme Court). AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Facts in Review, 2 Nr. 30 of July 22, 1940 before Germany declared war on the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It is interesting first as an official German account of the French campaign, and also as a summary of Nazi arguments against the Treaty of Versailles. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 Germans starved to death after WW1 ?[edit]

The above "Facts in Review" contains this quote:

"The blockade was finally lifted 9 months after the Armistice and 2 months after the signing of Versailles. During that period alone more that 100,000 Germans, mostly aged people, women and children died of malnutrition and starvation. They had managed to survive the war. They could not endure the war after the war."

1) Is this true ?

2) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found WW1#Health_effects, which lists a number more like 250,000. I think that might include before the Armistice, as well. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is Blockade of Germany#Blockade after armistice, or hunger blockade 1919. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in Ancient Greece[edit]

The Ancient Greeks are credited with inventing democracy, but I've been told that the Ancient Greek version of democracy was almost unrecognizable from todays concept of democracy. Is that true? Krnl386 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read Greek democracy and its spinoff links for more info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athenian democracy is a bit more detailed, but in brief: Greek democracies were direct democracies, where decisions were taken on a vote of the assembled citizens, whereas modern democracies are representative democracies, where the citizens elect representatives who form the decision-making body. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the Ancient Greeks wore matted animal hair on their feet for warmth. Wouldn't fare well in the "free market" today, but that's more to do with nylon than Philon or Cylon. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek city-state (polis) democracy was less inclusive than modern democracy (since only free male citizens played a political role) but far more participatory (since a free male citizen of a democratic polis was far more likely to play a direct role in government than the average citizen of any modern large country). AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "modern democracy" means the current American system (not necessarily in the United States), that's a corporatocracy. Yes, it's an awkward word. But it fits more comfortably. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the world's biggest museum?[edit]

What is the world's biggest museum? Novla Bolan (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the largest "by area" (floor space), or "by pieces" (number of items on exhibit)? I don't know, but our wikipedia article on The Louvre claims it to be one of the world's largest museums. P.S. if you do visit it, please don't go blindly running past centuries of amazing art without a glance, in order to see the Mona Lisa. People who do that are IMHO most disrespectful.

Actually, having googled the question brings up this. According to them, depending on your definition, Hermitage Museum in Russia, and the Smithsonian Institution in the U.S.A. vie for the title. Hermitage being the largest in one building, and Smithsonian being the largest when the entire complex of 19 museums is considered. 124.181.239.69 (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends how you define museum. The Black Country Living Museum covers 26 acres (10.5 hectares).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Village covers 240 acres. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theological significance of evolution-versus-creation[edit]

Something has puzzled me for a while: People seem to discuss the evolution versus creation debate as if it has some deep theological significance. I must be seriously missing something, because I just can't see it this way.

Imagine, for arguments' sake, that there is indeed a god or other higher power. Why would there be any theological or philosophical reason to assume that "he" would have created a "static" (non-evolving) world, as opposed to a "fluid" (evolving) one? If evolutionary theory and belief in god are seen to clash in any way, why should this be so? How does evolutionary theory in any way contradict the possibility of a higher power of some description?

I'm not arguing for or against evolutionary theory here - I'm simply asking what theological dilemmas or problems it supposedly poses for "believers".

For that matter do non-abrahamaic religions (i.e. those outside judaism, christianity and islam) view evolutionary theory as inherently clashing with their beliefs? Or is this solely an abrahamaic-religion phenomenon?

I'm happy to hear peoples' theories, but given that this is a refdesk, sourced answers, from theologians or philosophers (or their secular equivalents), would be even better.

(please lets' not get into an evolution versus creation debate here - stick to answering the question about the apparent theological significance of the debate). 124.181.239.69 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolution has a bit on it. Mingmingla (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006323.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The renaissance had a comparable conflict with geocentrism and heliocentrism:

Under geocentrism, creation has a firm and comparatively static role in existence, and our world as it is is the broader axis mundi for all existence. This was comforting to its adherents to believe that they were the divinely chosen center of the universe. Most geocentrists still believed our world is affected by the stars and planets, but they were (at most) mere intermediaries between God's will and our lives -- cosmic sheriffs, knights, and ministers instead of usurpers. Heliocentrism was a threat to this view, giving one of the gears of the universal machine primary importance and making us little more than an accident; turning the sun into a second master of the universe.

Many early heliocentrists, such as Giordano Bruno, argued that as the body is ruled by intelligence, and the universe by God, it is only natural that the earth (tied to the body, and the universe) would be ruled by the sun (tied to intelligence, and God). This was not a threat to humanity's importance, but highlighted it: the universe has the same divine structure we inherit from God. The sun was not a second God, but a first among intermediaries, comparable to kings and popes. And as we change in every season of our lives, do to does the earth change in its seasons. Some Christians would've taken this further, pointing out the solar symbolism of Christ, and how winter (the "death" of the seasons) turns to spring as the world comes "back" to the sun. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the Christian doctrine of original sin is intimately connected with the Fall of Adam, i.e. the consequences of Adam's sin coming over all his descendants is difficult to maintain without an actual person Adam who is the forefather of all people. The core issue however is simply divine revelation. It's not so much that evolution, or more specifically universal common descent, is incompatible with the existence of a creator god, but rather that it contradicts what that creator has supposedly revealed about himself. And if what has been revealed about the creator cannot be trusted, the entire theological system (though not theism itself) collapses, because all three Abrahamic religions rely on divine revelation. Without it people are just left with generalities and speculation. (Note: I don't mean to assert whether or not Judaism, Christianity and Islam are compatible with evolution, obviously various interpretations exist.) - Lindert (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A core belief in just about every religion is that people are somehow "special", and "placed above all the animals and plants". Evolution means humans are just another animal which happened to have evolved more intelligence than the rest. And humans having existed for only a tiny fraction of the age of the universe also calls into question the idea that the universe was created just for people (although I suppose God could just be very patient and willing to wait 14 billion years to get started). StuRat (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One theory is that God exists outside of time, so He's not in any rush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea argues that (among other things) Darwinism damages the Platonic notion that each "kind" of living thing has an ideal form, from which each specimen deviates to a lesser or greater degree. —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that only monotheists are hung up on the creation; the creator-gods of polytheists are not the top gods. Zeus, for example, is a grandchild of the creators. (Brahmā is honored less as the creator than as the source of sacred speech (brah).) —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments shown below by the current Dalai Lama represent Buddhist opinion, see also Religious cosmology#Buddhism and the long article on Buddhist cosmology.

What is the refutation of the appearance of a new moment of consciousness?

DALAI LAMA: Then there would be a beginning to a continuum of the consciousness.

Why could there not be one?

DALA LAMA: In general, of course, we speak of the universe as being without beginning. Between the two positions, that things arose without any particular cause at all and that consciousness has a beginningless continuity, although the latter one may not solve each and every question, it definitely has fewer logical inconsistencies than the former.

Well, the scientists take the view that consciousness arises from a material cause.

DALAI LAMA: Buddhists cannot accept this. You have to divide the cause into two: the main or substantial cause and the cooperative cause. Matter can only be a cooperative cause, never the main or substantial cause for consciousness. This is very much related to cosmology. According to the Buddhist view of evolution, there is an infinite universe. In Buddhist cosmology, any world system will go through phases. Sometimes it is destroyed, sometimes it arises, sometimes there will be gross matter, sometimes no gross matter, but really there is no beginning or end to it. And there is always subtle consciousness.

So what is a sentient being? A sentient being is an entity designated upon the basis of a body and mind, and fundamentally what is referred to by the mind here is the extremely subtle mind.

Which is continuous through all the cycles?

DALAI LAMA: That is correct.

- Gentle Bridges - Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind, Shambala, 1992. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Teleological Arguments for God's Existence. The perception that organisms and their physical structures and behaviours have purposive functions has historically served as evidence that these organisms were designed by an intelligent being. Evolutionary theory relatively successfully explains these structures and behaviours as they are understood today without a theistic account, and so any theology which depends on any such argument is considered undermined by most thinkers today. Many theologies have used such arguments. For example see the Qurʾān 31:20, "Have you not seen how that God has subjected to you whatsoever is in the heavens and earth, and He has lavished on you His blessings, outward and inward?" --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in The Creationists by Ronald L Numbers. My short summary of everything I've read and heard: it is neither a theological nor a historical necessity, and the existence of so much diversity of opinion, and the historical course of biblical fundamentalism, underscore this. IBE (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in books like Rocks of Ages and The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox by Stephen Jay Gould. Gould posits in these books that conflicts between the scientific worldview and the religious worldview are not necessarily in conflict; the conflict arises from a misunderstanding between what people ask a realm of thought to do. "How does this work" and "How should I live my life" and "What do I find beautiful" are questions that cannot be answered by all thought systems. Science does a real good job of answering the first, not so much the second or third; at least that's Gould's thesis in these books. --Jayron32 04:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

124.181.239.69 -- For some people, anything that contradicts the Bible is automatically suspect. Other people feel that connecting humans and apes is an attempt to show that people are "just animals", and to undermine ethics and morality... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the Bible contradicts the Bible, quite often. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To literalists, any apparent contradictions are usually officially labeled as "mysteries". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious symbols[edit]

Does any of you have any idea what these symbols might mean? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC and inferring from the following numbers, those are probably measurements. I'd have to do a little bit of digging to locate more specific meanings, but I know I've seen them before. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "Apothecaries' system".

—Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The world needs more apothecaries, alchemists and wizards. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Within every "druggist" there is an "apothecary" just waiting to come out Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit. The ℥ means "ounce", and the iiij means "four". Before "j" became a letter in the Latin alphabet, it was used as a terminal i in roman numerals. See J#History which explains this a bit. So ℥ij would be "two ounces", ℥iiij would be "four ounces" ℥vi would be "six ounces" --Jayron32 03:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the last circled quantity is "j lb", one pound. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saunders (1613 - 1692) has no article yet was an astrologer/physician in 17th century England. The image is from his book The Astrological Judgment & Practice of Physick 1677. It shows prescriptions (the R_x symbols)) based in the pre-scientific theory of temperaments or Humorism. Saunders also wrote books about chiromancy (palm reading). 84.209.89.214 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ss or the German ß was used for one-half. Therefore, ℥jß means 1½ ounces. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]