Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 20

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.

December 20

Polish-Soviet War 1939

Why didn't the allies declare war on the USSR when the red army invaded Poland? --Fatdudewhosproud 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fatdudewhosproud (talk • contribs) 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

It was largely a question of political and strategic realities. To go to war with Germany was one thing; to go to war with Germany and the Soviet Union quite another. By the time Stalin invaded eastern Poland on 17 September 1939, the British and French guarantee of Poland's territorial integrity was no longer valid, providing, I suppose, an excuse for inaction, if any such excuse were ever needed. It might have been very awkward for the western allies if Hitler and Stalin had acted at the same time; but the Russians justified their invasion by claiming that the Polish state had ceased to be a viable political entity, and that their action was intended to 'protect' Ukranians and Belarusians living in eastern Poland. On this whole question have a read over the page on the Soviet Invasion of Poland Clio the Muse 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have been a pointless exercise, a hollow gesture. There wasn't much they could have done. There was no way to send troops (even if they had any to spare) to defend Poland. Clarityfiend 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some do consider it a betrayal on the part of the allies. Not being able to send troops is one thing but turning your back and appeasement is another. For Your Freedom and Ours is an interesting account from that perspective. Vespine 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The British expressed their views by being strongly pro-Finnish in the Soviet-Finnish war which soon folllowed... AnonMoos 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What fallacy is this?

I was reading something and came across this line: "there is never any excess in virtue, inasmuch as it is no longer a virtue if it is in excess."

This really does not feel right but I can't put my finger on how, specifically, it is wrong. Is it just equivocation? (Where in one sense it's referring to some deed or another that is often defined as "virtuous," which can be done in excess, and in another sense it's referring to the concept of virtue, which inherently precludes excess). I'm running in circles here! --Clngre 01:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like sophistry to me! Clio the Muse 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, this seems to just be a very complicated way of expressing a the simple idea that "there's no such thing as having too much of a virtue because having too much of something makes it no longer a virtue" (so like being too honest makes the honesty no longer a good/desired thing). Why did you think it was a fallacy to begin with? --`/aksha 01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Those who say, there is never any excess in virtue, forasmuch as it is not virtue when it once becomes excess, only play upon words..."[1]—Michel de Montaigne. EricR 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It just seems so fitting-and ironic-that Montaigne, a Frenchman, penned this observation, when we consider that it was France that proved there was indeed excess in virtue Clio the Muse 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a fallacy to me, it just seems out of date. I think that sentiment would have been much more understandable in a more religious era, when overdoing a virtue would have been looked upon as prideful or self-righteous. For instance, in our world we might look at refusing sweets as a virtue, and refusing more sweets would make someone more virtuous. But in a more religious context, not overdoing sweets would be a virtue, but refusing your mother's sweets would be sanctimonious and dishonourable. Anchoress 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Whenever an antique quotation strikes you as silly, it's best to consider what the societal fabric was like at the time. Most quotes simply don't work well in the 21st century, but it is not the fault of their authors.

Also, Montaigne was the fellow who opined 'What do I know?' -- which endears him to me even if he did write a few suspect quips.Vranak 03:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I think of it, it fits with some Eastern philosophies too; I've heard from a Buddhist meditation teacher and a Yoga teacher that even if you're a vegetarian, you should always eat what's put in front of you when you're a guest at someone's house, because refusing hospitality generates more karma than eating meat does. Anchoress 02:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

aksha, I'm not really sure if it is a fallacy or not, it just really "feels" wrong, it feels like, as Montaigne said (that's where I read it), a play on words that isn't very logical but asserts something through some kind of semantic backdoor. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right.
The assertion is that 'virtue cannot be done in excess,' is it not? In one sense (there are things that we call virtuous that can be done in excess (giving to charity is virtuous, but one can give too much and starve themselves)) it seems very possible that "virtue could be done in excess," but in another sense (by definition something being virtuous, if it indeed is virtuous, means it couldn't be "in excess") it isn't possible. It seems to me like just an apparent, but not real, contradiction in theory and practice. In theory (the definition of virtue) it can't be, but in practice (acts of virtue) it can be. Both ideas are true in themselves, but with that sentence the speaker seems to also be kind of negating the first sense with the second, which doesn't seem right.
I really don't know and am just confused, there are too many layers to this.--Clngre 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or could you just say that that first sense I proposed actually isn't true because the idea of virtue rightly applied to the act of charity already means that its done in the right proportions, and that it wouldn't be virtue in the first place, even if it was "giving to charity," if it was excessive? That would make sense, it seems. So the problem has been that I was acting like anything that anyone calls virtue is actually virtue, which isn't true, it could be misnamed. Right? --Clngre 02:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But, then again, do we or need we really arbitrate if something is rightly or wrong used to know that it is used and refers to something? I could refer to a cat with the word "pig" but, on one level, I'd be right to refer to a pig as being a furry animal with paws and whiskers, would I not? Similarly, if simply "giving to charity" is what people call virtue, then, right or wrong, that's kind of what the word "virtue" comes to refer to and that can be done in excess, so "virtue" can be done in excess? Wait.... what?

By this logic, though, anything can be said to be anything. We must hold ourselves to a common definition, right? That's the only practical and reasonable thing to do.

I'm doing this to myself, aren't I? This is all actually very simple and clear and I'm just digging myself a fine hole, am I not? I should probably sleep on this. --Clngre 02:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eureka! I've got it now! It's simply circular logic!--Clngre 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine that the writer was just trying to say that virtue/virtuous behaviour includes a level of restraint eg temperance or moderation.87.102.4.227 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I have correctly translated this into standard claims, it should look like,

No Virtues are Virtues in excess.

Therefore, All Virtues in excess are not Virtues.

Unless I am missing a claim, I don't think this would be a syllogism as it stands. I could rewrite the argument as such,

No Virtue is a Virtue in excess

Virtue A is a Virtue in excess.

Therefore, Virtue A is not a Virute.

This is argueing a contradiction of definition, which appears to be most closely related to the statement quoted, and is logically valid. We could also construct a truth table. Virtue A is a Virtue if and only if Virtue A is not in excess.

P = Virute A is a virute

Q = Virute A is in excess

P -> ~Q

P | Q | ~Q | P -> ~Q

T | T | F | T

T | F | T | T

F | T | F | T

F | F | T | T

This like the previous would be true. Again, I may have misconstructed the above arguments, but it would seem that from these two perspectives, the statement is logically sound if the middle term is added, namely the "Virute A is" statement. Disregarding the eloquent language, it may in fact be valid. Without the middle term it is technically not an argument in the structure of a syllogism. I think that the truth table is more closely related to the statement, and that it was not originally intended to be a syllogism by it's author. I like the way the statement is written from an aesthetic point of view, and while I welcome anyone who can correct my logic here, I secretly hope that it is in fact logically valid. ~~Dmarney

ARGENTINA OPINION ON NORTH KOREA

What is Argentina's opinion on the current weapon problem in North korea? have they done anything about it? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

This might be a good start.--Clngre 02:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks! anyone else?

Since Argentina is not itself threatened by North Korea's weapons, it has little to gain by getting too deeply involved in this dispute. Marco polo 14:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Staten Island

Why is Staten Island in New York, when a glance at the map makes it look like it should be part of New Jersey? I found the original grant of New Jersey, which included "all that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the westward of Long Island, and Manhitas Island and bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river... ." That would seem to include Staten Island, wouldn't it? -- Mwalcoff 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At the time of the release mentioned in the indenture (which itself is dated 24 June 1664), Staaten Eylant was part of the New Netherland colony of the Dutch Republic. Although Charles II had resolved (as of March of 1664) to annex New Netherland, hostilities had not yet started. At the Treaty of Breda, when the New Netherland colony was ceded to England, most of it (including Staten Island) went to the the new Province of New York, and the rest to New Jersey. Why it was not granted then to New Jersey I don't know, but one can speculate that a possible argument may have been the existing close ties between the Dutch settlements Nieuw Dorp on Staten Island, Nieuw Amsterdam on Manhattan, and Breukelen on Long Island. Furthermore, James, Duke of York, the proprietor of the New York colony, was a powerful person and may have argued that his earlier release of course did not include property that was not his to give away.

Tenor clarinet?

I'm a clarinet player and ashamed I don't know this =/. The standard B-flat clarinet is considered a soprano clarinet, you have an E-flat alto clarinet, and a bass clarinet. Are there any types of clarinets that can be considered a tenor clarinet? Thanks! -Kevin 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a Basset horn, which sounds down to the F a major sixth below the lowest note of the B-flat standard clarinet. (Richard Strauss used it in Elektra and Die Frau ohne Schatten). Other than that I can't think of anything in that range. Antandrus (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that the members of the family are misnamed, at least if we are strict about keeping bass and alto an octave apart, and tenor and soprano an octave apart. The members of the family are:

1. E-flat clarinet (high) (length 19 inches) (really should be "sopranino" member of the family)
2. B-flat clarinet (standard) (length 26.25 inches) (really should be "soprano" member of the family)
3. E-flat alto clarinet (length 38 inches) (really should be "alto" member of the family)
4. B-flat bass clarinet (length 55 inches) (really should be "tenor" member of the family)
5. E-flat contralto clarinet (length 76 inches) (really should be "bass" member of the family)Antandrus (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was amazingly fast. Thanks a bunch!-Kevin 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

mozart wrote his 'clarinet' concerto for the bassett horn - and it sounds amazing when played on it instead of modern clarinet. i recommend eric hoeprich's recording(s?). he's incredible! Coolsnak3 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aniara

Does any one know where I can get a recording of the opera Aniara by Karl-Birger Blomdahl? Thanks! S.dedalus 07:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SwedishMusicShop.com. Anchoress 08:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re. "Goodbye, Mr. Chips"

Hi, I am a Chinese, I am reading this book.

I can't figure out the sentence below:

Brookfield was playing Barnhurst, and one of the Barnhurst boys......

Please kindly tell me, what is Barnhurst, what kind of game it is. I tried to find it on internet but in vain.

Thank you in advance for your kindness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.60.242.186 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Brookfield was one school team playing the other team, Barnhurst school. So Barnhurst is a school rather than a game. They were probably enjoying a game of rugby union, or maybe cricket --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

In my opinion, it could be any sport, or maybe a team not attatched to a school.martianlostinspace 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it might be intentionally vague, if the author felt that specifying a particular sport would make the story "less universal". StuRat 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the whole sentence is: "Brookfield was playing Barnhurst, and one of the Barnhurst boys, a chubby little fellow, made a brilliant century."[2] I think we can say cricket. Rmhermen 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is cricket, old boy. And I cannot imagine a story less 'universal', and more English, than Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Clio the Muse 00:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One small additional point to help with your future reading. A word like 'Barnhurst', beginning with an upper case letter in mid-sentence, indicates a proper noun, used only for names, place-names and the like. A game, like rugby or cricket, would always be in the lower case, unless, of course, it is placed at the beginning of a sentence. Clio the Muse 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

However, some people, particularly in Britain, treat the names of games as proper names. Instead of bridge, they play Bridge. And commercial games normally have names that are trademarked and therefore capitalized. So the reading that Barnhurst is a game is actually quite possible, although wrong. --Anonymous, December 21, 2006, 08:44 (UTC).

That is indeed a consideration. I was forgetting Monopoly and the like! In the context of the point in question, though, the reference to 'the Barhurst boys' would indicate that a place is meant. Clio the Muse 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Badminton always capitalized? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Hello, I have recently added some refereces to the article on Robert A. Pape. A message occurs: this article or section does not cite its references or sources. How do I make it right?

The message is there becuase of sections like this "Since 1999, he has taught at the University of Chicago, where he is now tenured.[citation needed] " - It means that someone thinks the fact that he is at the university of chicago needs a reference to prove it.

So it needs a link at this point in the text (maybe to university of chicago teaching staff) as a reference. If you think it is asking for citations for things that are common knowledge you should bring it up on the article talk page. When all instances of have gone you can remove the template labelled 'unreferenced' at the top of the page.

You might find Wikipedia:Citing sources useful as well as Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes which shows you how to do it (look at the code using 'edit this page')87.102.4.227 11:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Film identification

Moved to WP:RD/P - 131.211.210.10 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Russian philosophers

Are there any (relatively well known) russian philosophers? Are there any russian philosophers whose works are not well known outside russia?? (excluding Albert Chernenko)87.102.4.227 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the first part - was looking in Lists of philosophers#Lists of philosophers by ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, or region: which doesn't have a link.87.102.4.227 15:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There were quite a few political philosophers, like Lenin and Trotsky, dealing with things like the rights of man, until Stalin took control and made the Soviet Union into a brutal dictatorship. StuRat 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone who made quite an impact in the 80's (after his death in 1975) and is still read a lot in cultural studies is Mikhail Bakhtin, I can personally recommend "Rabelais and His World: carnival and grotesque". Whether you classify him as a cultural commentator or a philosopher is a whole (uninteresting?) debate. Keria 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for that - unfortunately I haven't read Gargantua and Pantagruel yet, so this will have to wait. He seems more of a 'critic/analyst' than the type of philosopher I was looking for. Thanks anyway.87.102.4.227 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The page on Russian philosophy has a fairly comprehensive list, though I admit most are probably little known outside Russia, and others, most notably Fydor Dostoyevsky and Lev Tolstoy, are better known for other intellectual pursuits. I think the best known, those with an national and an international reputation, would have to include Alexander Herzen and Mikhail Bakunin. Less well-known in the west, though he lived for many years outside Russia, is Ivan Ilyin, whose remains were returned to his native land last year for re-interment, along with the White general, Anton Denikin. Incidentally, on a point of information, the Soviet Union was a brutal dictatorship well before the days of Stalin, who only made a bad situation considerably worse. Stalin himself, it might be said, has every right to be included in the pantheon of Russian political philosophy, as his works, including Problems of Leninism and Dialectical and Historical Materialism, had a far greater impact than those of Leon Trotsky. Lenin's impact was in the field of political rather than pure philosophy. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, his only book to tackle the subject head on, so to speak, is derivitive and polemical, not among the most persuasive of his works. Clio the Muse 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you all, though you all seem to mention writers rather than real thinkers..! Thanks anyway.87.102.7.27 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm sticking up for Lenin or Trotsky, but Stalin certainly took the idea of "brutal dictatorship" to levels unseen by his predecessors. Loomis 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Dostoyevsky counts as a "real thinker", by any reasonable standard. Anyone who writes a book that Nietzsche says was "written in blood" earns a whole heap of philosohpy cred, no? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Chinese American Communist Party 2006?

Are there any current (as of 2006) American Communist Parties that approve of the current regime in the People's Republic of China? All the Maoist parties I know of have denounced Deng Xiaoping's free market reforms and no longer consider China a communist nation. Are there any communist parties that approve of Deng Xiaoping Theory? The closest I;ve been able to find is the CPUSA. If anyone knows of any currently pro-Chinese parties outside the USA I'd be intrested in thoose as well. --Gary1234 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Which Azumanga Episode Am I Thinking Of?

In the anime series Azumanga Daioh, which episode features Chiyo's Dad speaking in English to a confused Osaka? (Please note that this is a serious question; I've been through my collection and I can't seem to remember which episode it is. Thanks!) --Ppk01 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, no need to answer. Found it myself: Episode 24, Part 4 "Study Session". --Ppk01 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)