Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 4

Humanities desk
< July 3	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 4

Small Claims Court Subpoena

I'm trying to sue someone in small claims court and the guy never accepts the subpoena. The police tried his office and his home and no one at either one accepted it. The court dismissed the case after trying to serve him 5x. He will also not sign for certified mail. This is in California if it makes a difference. Is there anything I can do? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not legal advice,but in novels. a sweet looking girl says "Hey there, Aren't you Johnny Jones?" He says "Yup!" Then she hands him the subpoena and says "You're served." Or she makes it into a paper airplane and flies it so it hits him. "Served." Research what is the minimum standard for service of a subpoena in that jurisdiction. The person to-be-served should not be able to scoff at the entire legal system by refusing to receive a subpoena. Your IP address implies Virginia. Google Books has info for subpoena service Virginia at [1], but you might wish to consult an attorney. Edison (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we're quoting interesting ways of serving papers found in fiction: Search for the word Princeton in the text of [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a1/burn-after-reading-script-transcript.html].—msh210℠ 08:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP specifically said they were in California (it is just thre ISP which is in Virgina). The correct Google Books search should be subpoena service california which gets this search. If it was me, I would go back to my lawyer. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We cannot provide legal advice. You should either consult a lawyer or the clerk of the court (who will usually help people in small claims court with procedural questions like this). --Tango (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This is straight up legal advice. Contact legal aid in your local community. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

HELP!!! What is the purpose of this passage?

Hey guys! I'm a high school student living in Korea, and I just took my English exam yesterday. There was one question whose answer I couldn't quite agree with, and I was wondering if any of you are willing to back me up. The actual answer (according to my English teacher) is (C), but I'm having a hard time persuading my teacher that the answer could be (D) as well as (C), and all I need is a solid reason to convince him to see my way. So here it is.

What is the purpose of this passage?

A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time. It's called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. I really wanted to help, so I asked what I could do. They said they needed someone to deliver food to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. The car that usually made the deliveries was too big to go down those streets, but I could easily ride my bicycle down them. It was kind of hard to find their homes at first, but after a while I figured out where everybody lived. I even made a little map to help me get from place to place more quickly! If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love. You don't just take food to the elderly people. You also make them smile, since they don't get a lot of visitors. They'd invite me inside, and we'd usually talk a little before I left. It was very nice because they reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away when young. I really liked visiting them. (A) to urge (B) to order (C) to inform (D) to persuade (E) to congratulate

What I originally thought after I finished reading the passage, before looking at the multiple choices, was that there would be a choice that said to recommend. But a glance at the choices told me that there wasn't one. So I narrowed the choices down to two possible answers, (C) and (D). I was torn between the two choices, but I eventually picked (D), because it was closer to my initial guess, "to recommend". And the sentence "If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love." stood out, and helped me get rid of my wavering doubts. Plus, I thought that if this passage was written to inform, the overall tone should be more objective. But this passage is clearly subjective, and the narrator tells us his personal experience from his own point of view, and is telling us how fulfilling and These assumptions lead me to choose (D), and was quite confident that I got it right, until the answers were revealed the day after the exam.

I understand my teacher's position that the purpose could be seen as "to inform". However, I still believe that the answer (D) is not incorrect because of the reasons stated above. I am posting this on Wikipedia in high hopes that many of you agree with me, and are willing to back me up on this. All you have to do is post your opinion below mine, with a few reasons why the choice (D) is also correct. Any contributions are welcome and appreciated. Guys, I really need to get this question right, I'm begging you. Thanks. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. Whilst the purpose of the passage may be to inform the general public of what the "Lunchbox Of Love" does, the language used in the passage is quite emotive. The use of personal anecdotes with phrases such as "make them smile", "we'd usually talk a little", "reminded me of my grandparents" and "I really liked visiting" are typical of the information from charitable organisations looking to persuade people that there is more to volunteering with them than simply doing the job. That said, I also think the question is quite unfair. Answers A, C and D could all be considered the correct answer, and therefore there is no one correct answer.

It is worthwhile considering these three variations:

1. "The charity is called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves."
2. "The charity is called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. They need someone to deliver food by bicycle to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. If you're looking for a place to volunteer, we really recommend Lunchbox of Love."
3. "A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time. It's called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. I really wanted to help, so I asked what I could do. They said they needed someone to deliver food to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. The car that usually made the deliveries was too big to go down those streets, but I could easily ride my bicycle down them. It was kind of hard to find their homes at first, but after a while I figured out where everybody lived. I even made a little map to help me get from place to place more quickly! If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love. You don't just take food to the elderly people. You also make them smile, since they don't get a lot of visitors. They'd invite me inside, and we'd usually talk a little before I left. It was very nice because they reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away when young. I really liked visiting them." Actually that's exactly the same as the original.

The first informs people about the charity. The second urges people to volunteer. The third, by adding the personal story, is much more persuasive. Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a borderline case. It might be intended to persuade, but it's really a soft-sell. I'd be interested to know what the teacher's reasoning was. Maybe he thought several of them could be an answer, but that (C) was the "best" answer. Maybe the problem is the wording of the question. Instead of "What is THE purpose", it could say, "What is the MAIN purpose". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of your question:

1. to solicit answers
2. to persuade people to agree

I'm persuaded, anyway. It could certainly be (D). If it was a wikipedia article, we'd complain about the bias. 213.122.50.94 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeh I'm with you. Without the sentence that begins "If you're looking..." it's informative: with that sentence it's persuasion. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a mixed passage, but I don't think it's a concerted attempt to persuade (or to urge, which is another possibility). I do agree that "to inform" is a bit too general though. But 90% of it is them informing you about their experience, with some recommendations on the side. (Which is not quite the same thing as persuasion.) I vote with the teacher, I guess, but I also vote "this is not a very good passage to use for this purpose," because as the discussion above indicates, even native speakers are going to find areas to quibble over here, which makes it a poor multiple-choice answer (there is no unequivocally right answer). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, guys!! Anyone else who agrees with me, please sign your name below and a brief reason why. I'm kind of hoping to start a sort of a online petition....the more people the better!! Johnnyboi7 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the place to start an online petition. If you believe your exam paper as been incorrectly marked, you might be able to appeal (you certainly can with GCSE exams here in the UK). The first place to go is probably the headmaster/principal at your school. Astronaut (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry, but I'd go with 'inform' on this as well. Persuasive speech needs an overt goal, a thing you are trying to persuade people of, which this passage lacks. The problem, of course, lies with the phrase "If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend..." it is the only phrase in the passage that even remotely resembles persuasive speech - the remainder of the passage is closer to a fond reminiscence - but the phrase is a conditional that merely offers an option, not a persuasive statement (such as, say, "Volunteering at the LoL is an experience you will enjoy, so you should go down tomorrow..."). Keep in mind that it's perfectly possible to inform people about experiences you enjoy without it being an effort to persuade them to try it themselves. e.g.: I'm happy to tell you that I really like the taste of vanilla-bean ice cream, but my intention in saying that is not to persuade you to go eat some. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

and disagreements here

When I read the original paragraph, and the choices, I picked "to inform" without any hesitation (before seeing any of your text). I disagree strongly with the "persuade" answer.

The question is: "what is the purpose of the text." It means, when the author wrote down to write the text, to what end did he or she do so? Now let us look at the possibilities. The author wrote this text to urge. Well, then they must have began or ended with an exhortation. "I am writing with pain in my heart and the hope that after reading my missive you will be on my side and tell your children ... ". No: not at all. To order: "John - I'm going to have to speak to you Friday afternoon, please come to my office". No. To inform: "We are having a special on Lettuce for $0.22" or "Unfortunately, the appeal was denied. We have no further options and have to drop the case, sorry." Yes: "A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time.... I really liked visiting them." That's the beginning and end of it. It's the ending that really gives it away: it's just a story about this nice place. To persuade: "Dear Fellow Neighbor, I am writing to make you aware of the great danger inherent in trans fatty acids and to urge you to look on the labeling for this pernicious toxin, choosing healthy alternatives when you can..." No. To congratulate: "Good job on that presentation! I could tell the clients were really impressed, congratulations on getting the contract." In conclusion, to me, it's obviously informative. It's the ending that really gives it away. 85.181.48.148 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read it as primarily being about someone merely describing the joy of their experience, which is also how I initially saw it, then, yes, the "best" answer is probably "informing". But it's not THE answer. None of the four possibilities seemed to be totally on the mark. The problem is that the one posing the test question is being slippery, by asking what is THE answer rather than what is the BEST answer. But that's how things go sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage tugs at the reader's heartstrings in a blatant attempt to promote participation in the charitable effort, so I would consider its main purpose to be to promote participation, that is, to persuade the reader to offer his time. For it to merely "inform" it would need a rewrite to make it less promotional and to give it a neutral point of view. Edison (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's my view: the vast majority is descriptive; hence, the most important purpose is informative. However, this phrase ["If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love."] encourages an action, which is persuasive. It isn't wrong to interpret the entire paragraph as persuasive because of this phrase, which IMHO means there are two right answers: either ( C ), or ( C) and ( D ). DOR (HK) (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah. This is why it's important to think about test construction. A, B, and D, all pretty much mean the same thing in this context, so I would have eliminated them immediately; no instructor would design a test where the supposedly correct answer had two synonyms among the multiple choices. That almost answers it without even reading the paragraph. After that it's easy, unless you're cynical and also consider "self congratulation" to be a subset of "congratulation". APL (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice

In Pride and Prejudice I came upon an odd statement "[Lydia's] letters of Kitty . . . were much too full of lines under the words to be made public." What does this mean. I first interpreted this to mean that the letters contained lewd content, but at the culture of the time I thought it was highly unlikely. Also how much were 1000 pounds back then, in today's pounds, euros, and USD. Thanks. --Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.163.6 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Correspondence, particularly from loved ones, in that period and in that environment, were often read aloud to other family members, or the letters handed around, or the contents divulged by the recipient. In this context, Lydia was underlining the parts of her letters that she didn't wish to have shared with anyone else . . . for Kitty's eyes only. I don't know how common the practice was, but by Austen's treatment of it I assume it would have been fairly well-recognised. It's revealed later on that Kitty was already aware of Lydia's plans to elope, while the rest of the family were clueless, so we can presume information like this formed part of the underlined sections of her letters. That's the only logical conclusion I can reach from the paragraph (I read the whole paragraph for further context). Maedin\^talk 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? I would guess that "lines under the words" is more likely to refer to "reading between the lines", where the writer implies things without stating them overtly. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure, :) However, it seems unlikely to me that Austen would use such figurative language, and not in that style; not necessarily that she wouldn't, but having read the preceding and following paragraphs, it wouldn't suit the passage. Let's not forget that neither Kitty nor Lydia were particularly bright (Lydia definitely not), and to convey messages "between the lines" isn't really expected of them. A few chapters later, in Chapter 4 of Volume Three, we get "To Kitty, however, it does not seem so wholly unexpected." and two pages later, "Poor Kitty has anger for having concealed [Lydia and Wickham's] attachment; but as it was a matter of confidence one cannot wonder." Keeping in mind that Kitty and Lydia could only have communicated by letter, and that it's a little difficult to reveal who your lover is "between the lines" without the whole family also finding out, I think Austen is referring to outright admissions from Lydia, being underlined to highlight their secrecy. I don't offer it as fact, but as a likelihood, and I could easily be wrong. That she's referring to "reading between the lines" isn't implausible, either. Maedin\^talk 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The above would require that there was a convention that underlined words were private and not to be repeated to others - I've never heard of anything like that. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's possible. Neither have I. But that doesn't mean it didn't. Another aspect that I think reinforces my position is how "too full of" has been used. This implies to me that, had there only been a few sentences underlined, then Kitty would have inked out, after reading, the bits which weren't for sharing. Instead the letters were so full of underlines, that she had to keep the whole of the letters private, for practical reasons. It wouldn't be quite so easy to quantify had Lydia just been writing between the lines. And again . . . Lydia was impetuous, dim, silly, ridiculous, obvious, coarse. Lydia did not engage in subtleties. I feel pretty sure that Austen never meant for us to think that Lydia laboured over letters, trying to say secretive things in roundabout ways; I can much better see her revealing all to her closest sister, and then dashing lines under everything she wouldn't want her mum to read. I don't know if you've read the whole paragraph, but the context helps a little. If you don't have the book, it's available on the web, Chapter XIX of Volume II. Maedin\^talk 19:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

After lots of googling I couldn't find anything on an underlining practice. But I did find a book called Bits of ivory; narrative techniques in Jane Austen's fiction that concurs; see here and just search for Kitty, all mentions are relevant. Maedin\^talk 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not simple to convert historical money into modern money. There are various sites which attempt it one way or another: [2] but the difficulty is with the market basket: what is currently expensive was not necessarily expensive in the past, and what is currently cheap was not necessarily cheap, and many things were not available at all. Here's a page titled "the cost of living in Jane Austen's England" [3], which says £1000 is at least enough cash to keep a family of five and five servants very comfortable for a year. I'm not sure servants and phaetons feature on today's consumer price indexes. 81.131.38.168 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Further up that webpage it says that £250 per year is enough to keep a "gentleman", wife, three children and maid. So £250 then would be worth at least £25000 now, perhaps £50000. The maid's wages would be much less in real terms than what she would get now. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But she could buy a lot more oysters... for instance. 213.122.23.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC).

what's with all the penis on chatroullete?

can someone explain that to me? Does, like 25% of the population secretly want to show strangers their erect or semi-erect penis, but public decency laws prevent them, so on chatroulette they finally can? It seems, from chatroulette, that the number has to be way, way, up there. Or maybe pervy exhibitionists just swarmed on that service? (all, what, 170,000 of them worldwide?)

I'd like to know the answer, please. 85.181.48.148 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Chatroulette it was one in 8 at the last count. eg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286848/Chatroulette-considers-penis-filter-clean-website.html

It's definately happening. Give 'em an inch... Did you want the psychological analysis too? I'm not qualified to do that.77.86.10.42 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be nothing more than a manifestation of Gabriel's Theory ([4]). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

yes I want the psychological or sociological analysis. If you go to any other public part of th world where you are expected to chat face to face, no one shows you their hard cock instead. Is it a gay thing, where the cocks meet up and jointly masturbat or what? Who are all these people and whatdo they get out of going on vhatroulette and sitting their with their hard cocks out? Should I just try it myself, and see what happens (or what I get out of it)? I would prefer one of you tried it instead and reported here, (or you can link to someon else, like me, not inthw know who has tried it for his edification and blogged he result6. I'm really curious!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.48.148 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently if you get too many complaints, you can be blocked for awhile. Kind of like what happens in wikipedia, and for somewhat similar reasons. Hard telling if it's a "gay thing" or not. One clue would be to find out what percent of those complaints amount to "Where's the rest of it?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the proper question is what population of people who regularly use chatroulette prefer this activity; it is not the "general population".

In any case, it's just technologically-enabled exhibitionism of the classic sort. Chatroulette obviously appeals to the exhibitionist subset, for fairly obvious reasons (anonymous, safe). See the article for description of psychological studies, etc. Nothing new to showing genitals (and it is not a "gay" thing specifically at all), but the technology has made it easier to do without negative consequences. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It need not be a "gay thing". It could be a "male bonding" thing. Kind of like comparing the engines on your pickup trucks, or the gauges of the items in your gunracks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are females on Chatroulette, too. I don't know why one would assume that the "cocks out" activity is mostly homosexual or male bonding when there is an equally (more?) valid heterosexual explanation. Guys are quite convinced that their erections will attract females and so sit around stimulating themselves, waiting for females to turn up. In hopes that they will cam with them, maybe display their goods, too, or at the very least expecting the ladies to hang around long enough to admire, have a good look, see it in action, etc. I'm sure there is a strong element of simple exhibitionism, but it doesn't normally expect interaction or exhibitionism in return. Maedin\^talk 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually our exhibitionism article makes it clear that most "flashers" actually would like interaction if they could get it. I definitely think this behavior is classic exhibitionism but with the bar much, much lower than it had been. It's quite a different thing if being a "flasher" means you broadcast yourself (without your face) from the privacy of your home, rather than having to be that guy who runs around naked under a trenchcoat. I think what something like chatroulette probably shows is that many more guys are exhibitionists than one might normally assume, once you throw out the consequences. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, there's really nothing sexual about this - it's more of a pecking order behavior (no pun intended). Male primates of certain species have similar behaviors, where they display their genitals to each other in lieu of actually combat for dominance. Basically it's a personal challenge to others: forcing people to look at your genitals either (a) makes them uncomfortable and embarrassed (a sign of weakness) or (b) makes them interested or excited (a sign of subservience). No question that the people who do it get a rise out of it, but it's more of a dominance issue than a sexual one (i.e. more at Alfred Adler than at Sigmund Freud). --Ludwigs2 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I have no real specific idea what the motivation is, but the same phenomenon is seen on Wikimedia Commons, where commons:Template:Nopenis was created in response to frequent uploads of low-quality cellphone-camera snaps. AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Lights

Is there still a right to Ancient Lights in the UK? The article is not very clear. Thanks. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - see this and this. The article could be clarified - I'll look at it but have no expertise in the matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

However, reading the article in the first link, it says: "'Ancient lights' signs, or other signs and stone plaques... generally only amount to an assertion of a claim to light, with no legal effect as such. They may, however, in some cases, be important in historical terms and are, of course, a warning to the possible assertion of light, and if dates, etc are on the stone plaques they may establish the age of certain features." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackshirt wearing policepersons, UK

Am I correct in thinking that the UK police used to wear dark navy-blue uniforms, and now wear black instead? This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/birmingham/10499030.stm suggests they've started to wear black shirts as well.

Why have the police chosen black clothing, with its associations with fascism and Darth Vader? Are they trying to make the public afraid of them (and hence dislike them also)? Wouldnt it make their jobs easier if they reverted to the navy-blue uniform with white shirt and tie, so that the public respected them instead? 92.15.12.165 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The police as a whole haven't chosen black shirts, one or two constabularies have. As to why - the answers are in that article. Blue shirts were the norm until the 1980s for number 1 dress and the Met led the change to white shirts, although not all forces followed and some still wear light blue shirts (some in West-midlands wear yellow and PSNI wear green). For working dress, not all forces wear shirts - some wear black t-shirts, polo shirts or the zip up black shirts as mentioned in the article and as seen worn by bicycle and tactical police in some areas. As to whether a change in uniform would increase perceived respect - I would imagine that a multi-million pound change of uniform for all constabularies wouldn't be welcomed too much by the taxpayer. Nanonic (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Police oficers and PCSOs in Hertfordshire regularly wear black zip-neck shirts. Sadly, the days of the shiny-buttoned tunic have gone the way of the duty-band and the cape with the lions' heads. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What follows is pure OR, so take it as such. Uniform color has a lot to do with the perceived relationship between the officer and the citizen. Blue (along with tan) is a service color - it tends to imply that the officer is a civil servant doing a low-class but necessary job (that's why meter-maids and beat cops almost always have blue uniforms). Black is an authority color: you'll notice that 'elite' force uniforms (such as SWAT teams in the US), as well as riot control uniforms, are almost always black, sometimes even obscuring their faces with black masks. This is fairly cross-cultural: note that WWII SS uniforms were black whereas German regular army uniforms were navy blue. There has been a gradual and unfortunate shift in the US and Europe away from the 'civil servant' model of police to an 'authority figure' model of police, so you can expect to see shifts in uniform designed to make officers appear more authoritative and intimidating, which will mean a lot more black uniforms. c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the traditional "midnight blue" traditionally used for British police uniforms was very nearly black to the naked eye, so maybe not worth getting too worked-up about. Comparing the UK police to the SS in any way is overstating the argument to my mind. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: the regular German army wore Field_grey or Feldgrau, not navy blue. The Prussian and German armies wore a colour close to navy blue in the 18th and 19th centuries, however. Also, our article on SS uniforms of World War II (1939 - 1945) says that black was mostly used only in ceremonies, and eventually by 1942 not used at all, replaced by field grey. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The blind are unreasonable?

I came across this quote by Percy Bysshe Shelley. See the bolded section.

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has, filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?

The only part of this I don't understand is If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?. What does this mean? --mboverload@ 22:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He must mean metaphorical blindness, which we still use today to describe unreasonable people. Blind faith, "how could you be so blind" by not recognizing something obvious, that sort of thing. It's used that way a lot in the Bible, Jeremiah 5:21 is probably the earliest use. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bible uses this metaphor for unbelievers a lot, but a quick search of a concordance didn't reveal any instance of God being angry at the "blind". Rather the authors tend to take a patronising attitude towards them. "Let them be," as it says in the bit about the blind leading the blind. So that part of Shelley's otherwise satisfying rant doesn't seem to work very well. 213.122.24.47 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Shelley is not actually talking about God in this passage, but rather backhandedly berating religious zealots (you know, the kind of people who rant about how we should fear god, worry about our salvation, spend hours a day in fervid prayer, etc.). Zealots like that often angrily berate others for being blind to God's will - Shelley is saying "Why are you angry with people who don't experience God the way you do, when it was God himself who made them such that they do not experience Him?" the whole passage is basically Matthew 7:5 - "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." --Ludwigs2 07:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I read it as saying: How could God hate unbelievers, since he gave them the capacity to be unbelieving? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)