Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18[edit]

Mystery Location[edit]

Please let me know where this is. thanks! Reticuli88 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhofen Castle on Lake Thun in Switzerland.--Cam (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cam. I am an American. If I wanted to visit this place, would I have to learn a lot of Swiss(?) or could I get by with my English? Does anyone recommend anything? Reticuli88 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhofen am Thunersee is in the Canton of Bern, a part of Switzerland which uses both German and French, so if you have either of those languages you should manage fine. Oberhofen itself is mainly German-speaking. Many English-speaking people visit Switzerland and manage without much knowledge of any of the languages of the country (there isn't a Swiss language - German, French, Italian and Romansch are the principal tongues). DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certain that you can get by with English there. Especially with people under ~45, English will be a near-universal skill for the people at least on a utilitarian level. Of course, if you speak local languages you will be able to more fully participate in local events and experience more of the culture, but for simple sight-seeing don't expect any trouble. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I speak both English and German, but rarely needed to use my German when I visited Switzerland. Most of the tourist sites that I visited had both English and German printed materials. Often if there was a guided-tour, the tour was only in German, but you could get an English pamphlet that more or less (sometimes a lot less) told you what the tour guide was saying. Hotels and car rental agencies pretty much always had English speaking staff. The only time my wife and I ran into trouble was in a small French speaking village on Lake Biel, where everyone in the cafe wanted to talk to us, but no one spoke either German or English. I really enjoyed Switzerland and highly recommend going to visit. If you are interested in other castles, check out the List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland, though there are a lot of red links. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opposite of a pyrrhic victory?[edit]

Are there any Generals who were the opposite of Pyrrhus IE lost major battles or multiple minor battles, but lost their way to victory? Lost battles but won the war? --Gary123 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who lost to Pyrrhus, I guess - Publius Decius Mus. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a Music Defeat? Haha. Wrad (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France in both World Wars. East of Borschov (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pyrrhic victory article has several more examples - so perhaps the opposing leaders in those battles will also work here. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The militias in the battle of mogadishu seems like another example. --Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Polish historians often use the term "moral victory" to describe a lost battle where those defeated have shown to be militarily weaker, but morally superior (yes, it's just nationalist propaganda). Anyway, that could be called the opposite of Pyrrhic victory. And then, there's also what Polish sports journalists call "the victorious draw" – that is, when Poland kicked England out from World Cup eliminations in a 1:1 match in 1973. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like those fun, low intensity conflicts where the goal of one side is to just draw the war out so long the other side decides to go home because the whole thing seems pointless. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae might qualify. Matt Deres (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single neat phrase, but it does remind me of a section from Hagakure --

Narutomi Hyogo said, "What is called winning is defeating one's allies. Defeating one's allies is defeating oneself, and defeating oneself is vigorously overcoming one's own body. It is as though a man were in the midst of ten thousand allies but not a one were following him. If one hasn't previously mastered his mind and body, he will not defeat the enemy."

Of course what we can see here is that there is no enemy, except perhaps self-delusion. Vranak (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. The guy trying to run me through with a sword, he's my enemy. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's how you treat with your enemy that's important. Running him through might seem convenient, but surpassing one's fear through diplomacy tends to make things easier in the long run. Vranak (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's one of the multitude of leaders in history who have fought wars only through greed. I would like to see you negotiate with darius of persia.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greed is just a pejorative term for pro-active go-getting. Nothing wrong with it. And as such I would find no quarrel with Darius, nor he with me. Vranak (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Rulers of many places throughout history, including Europe at its bloodiest, could be better described as warlords or thugs than "diplomats". You would find no quarrel with Darius unless he wanted something you had, in which case he would take it if you couldn't defend it. That is the mentality of most of mankind's leaders throughout most of history. TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Are you? Vranak (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm not the one that's quoting things that don't seem to have any bearing on the question asked and saying that in war "there is no enemy". TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you live for wars and insist on fighting them, you'll certainly find someone to call your enemy, no argument there. However it's not exactly the pinnacle of enlightenment and temperance, such an approach. Vranak (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said here seems to relate to the question at all. TastyCakes (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think I'm just grouchy today. Sorry to snap at you, you wouldn't have to go far to find me going way off topic on one of these discussions. TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy named George Washington. Also the Russian generals who fought Napoleon in the French Invasion of Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shows clearly that there is no victor in war, or perhaps they who were forced into war to defend: "This was their finest hour!" MacOfJesus (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary123, is "hollow victory" the phrase you're looking for? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gary is looking for someone who lost a battle, but in the end won the conflict. While possible, it's very unlikely to happen from a single battle. Probably the closest would be a war of attrition, where the "victors" didn't really win any major battles, but exhausted their (more successful) opponents to the point where the opponent withdrew from the war. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the ~~Hertz~~ Alamo ! StuRat (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, war of attrition may be a term for situations where both sides suffer terrible losses, but it seems to leave others out. I'm thinking specifically of Vietnam, which I would call a rope-a-dope victory for them. TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity had mentioned Washington, and he came to mind here also. He had loss after loss, but still managed to win the war, albeit with a little help from the French and other countries who wanted to help stick it to England. Things went so badly in the battles in New York City that one writer, discussing the future site of the Empire State Building, said "George Washington schlepped here!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Overland Campaign from the American Civil War might qualify. Every major battle is described as either "inconclusive" or a "Confederate victory", yet by the end of the campaign, Grant had pinned Lee down at Petersburg and greatly weakened his army. --Carnildo (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of confusion of what is meant by the opposite of a Pyrrhic victory.

1. a Pyrrhic Victory is a victory brought about at so much expence, in loss, that it negated the effect of the victory.

2. The opposite would be, therefore, loosing the war but gaining, by this, a profound advantage.

MacOfJesus (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Vidal has answered "George Washington." 63.17.49.5 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Road Maps of the US[edit]

Where can I find historic road/trail maps of the US prior to 1850? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old almanacs, probably at the library. I don't know where they'd be online, although since they're out of copyright, I'm sure some exist. Is there a specific trail map you're looking for (I wonder the extent of actual roads prior to the 1900s / car) Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm generally looking to see what the major connections between US cities on the East Coast were during the late 18th and early 19th century. For example, what was the main land based trail between New York City and Philadelphia? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some decent historical maps just by searching Google Images with terms like "historic map new jersey". For example, here is a map of the area around New York and Philadelphia from 1749. You can see that the main route at that time between New York and Philadelphia was to travel by (sail) ferry from Lower Manhattan to the port of Elizabeth. The exact route that a traveler would have taken through Elizabeth is difficult to determine looking at a modern street map. I'm guessing that the landing would have been near the foot of present-day Elizabeth Avenue, and that the route from there would have headed up Elizabeth Ave. to the main route coming south from Newark, or Broad St. Having crossed the Elizabeth River on the Broad St. bridge, the route would have headed south to what is now Route 1. I'm guessing there was a no-longer existent road from the Broad St. bridge to Washington Ave./Edgar Rd. which merges with what is now Route 1 south of downtown Elizabeth. (I think that Route 1 north of this point is a modern road built to bypass downtown Elizabeth.) From there, looking at the map, I would surmise the following route using modern street names and route numbers: Route 1 to Rahway, then Route 514 (Woodbridge Rd., Rahway Ave.) to Woodbridge, then Route 514 (Main St., Woodbridge Ave.) to Highland Park, then Route 27 through New Brunswick (possibly crossing the Raritan on a ferry) and Kingston to Princeton, then Route 206 to the edge of Trenton, then Lawrence Rd. to Brunswick Ave., then Broad St. to Ferry St. At the foot of Ferry St., a traveler would have taken a ferry across the Delaware, then continued on East and West Philadephia Ave. to Bristol Rd. (all of which was then probably called Bristol Rd., which would haver run in a straight line where its route is now deflected by the railroad) to Main St. in Tullytown to Radcliffe St. to Market St. or Mill St. to Old Route 13, to Route 13 (with a ferry probably crossing Neshaminy Creek), continuing on Route 13, then continuing into what is now the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia on Frankford Ave., which probably merged with Front St., which continued to the waterfront of Philadelphia. Parts of this are speculative (though based on many years of studying maps and exploring old routes) but it all fits the historic map that I've linked. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit before the period that TheFutureAwaits is interested in, but in Chapter 2 of his autobiography Benjamin Franklin describes his journey from New York to Philadelphia in 1723. He went by boat to Amboy, walked across New Jersey to Burlington, and then took another boat down the Delaware River to Philadelphia. Deor (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you look at the map that I linked, you can see that there is an alternate route from Perth Amboy to Burlington. Marco polo (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the period that you are interested in, the main routes between the main towns along the east coast of the United States were no longer "trails" but were instead a loosely connected network of dirt roads and ferry links suitable for wagons or stagecoach travel at times of year when mud was not a problem. Because land travel was dirty and difficult (very difficult when it was muddy), travelers during your period often preferred sea routes. Even though sea routes involved greater distances, they were easier and often quicker because sailing ships could often travel faster than horses or people traveling on foot. So a merchant traveling from New York to Philadelphia would be likely to board a ship in New York, then sail south around Cape May and up the Delaware estuary to Philadelphia. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps from American Memory might be a good place to start.—eric 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another good resource. Marco polo (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page in particular. Marco polo (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best online source for early U.S. maps is Davidrumsey.com. Rumsey has digitized hundreds of maps from his ridiculous collection. There are some early road maps (similar in style to today's AAA strip maps) there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God[edit]

What is the argument for the existence of god that goes something like, regardless of whether he exists I can perceive the possibility of a God. This God is perfect, and since in order to be perfect he must exist (corollary: non existence is an imperfection) therefore god exists. I think that Dawkins deals with it briefly in his book, but I don't have it to hand. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.113 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ontological argument. Algebraist 13:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it's called reification. It argues existence on the basis of personal imagination. Not terribly compelling logic, suffice to say. Vranak (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as per Vimescarrot's concern

In my imagination, the Cubs will be the World Champions this year, but that won't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just implies that the Cubs are not perfect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are the Yankees, yet they won last year. The answer to the OP's question is that what he's imagining is his own "reality construct" of God. So that particular God "exists", but only to the OP. Get enough folks imagining the same thing, and you can start a religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Religions have been founded on the basis of one single passage in the Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is all this helpful to the OP? Vimescarrot (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the OP's question appears flawed. Just because you imagine God, doesn't have anything to do with whether God exists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument. The argument is as follows: By definition God (capital letter justified here ;-) is a perfect being. Existence is a necessary precondition for perfection (because a non-existing thing lacks the property of being, and if it lacks something, it cannot be perfect). Thus God has to exist - because otherwise He (male pronoun also justified, this argument is usually used by the GodIsAWhiteBeardedMale fraction) would not be perfect, which contradicts the definition. q.e.d. Note that I'm only describing this, not endorsing it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP: excellent, Ontological Argument is what I asked for, but the reification article is far more useful for the purposes I had in mind. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.207 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

majority government Canada[edit]

What is the maximum number for a political party to win a majority government in the federal level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 308 members of the House of Commons of Canada, so 308 would be the maximum number of MPs for a majority government. The minimum number would be half that plus one, which is 155. Gabbe (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet Project[edit]

For my literature class the teacher is having us do a project and romeo and juliet, (were currently reading it) and..... i hav absoulutely no ideas for it and its a third of our grade!!! any ideas? and btw it cant be too complicated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of project? What level/grade? You could stage the play, or write an essay on the setting (renaissance Verona), or on the history of the piece, or on the current use of the theme in tourism, or compare it to other love stories over time. You could research typical food and bring it for "taste and tell", even... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could compare it to the Franco Zeffirelli movie, or to any of the other movies, for that matter. Do a paper on the period dress or on some of the various costumes used in some performances, or, if you can sew or draw, design costumes for some of the roles. Rewrite the balcony scene or the death scene in modern English and then recite your version. Research all the art that has been based on the themes of the story. Bielle (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Bielle's comparison idea, you could make a video showing the balcony scene from the 1936 film and contrast it with the balcony scene in Romeo + Juliet (or possibly West Side Story, if it's close) and have the class take a vote on which they prefer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trouble with Shakespeare is that he was a gigantic hack. Yes I have sources on that -- including Leo Tolstoy, and Beksinski. So try to figure something out that doesn't have you pointing this out, or you will get people's backs' up. It's hard I know. Just try to pick on something you found silly or annoying or interesting and insightful and talk about it. The teacher just wants you to express some ideas in a sensible and sane fashion, in the end. So do that. The topic is hardly important, but it should be something that interests (or bothers) you. We can't tell you what that might be, but it would help if you read at least some of the play. Vranak (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could talk about how R&J are idiot teenagers who don't really know anything about love and that the major theme of the play is the foolishness of youth. But, er, it's hard to see that if you are also a teenager... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which illustrates my point nicely. Romeo and Juliet are nothing but sockpuppets for Shakespeare and his world-weary point of view. It's a pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressing play, at its core. The primary message seems to be 'love conquers nothing'. Which is true, of course. It's also bleak as hell. Vranak (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- the author who wrote, IN LESS THAN A DECADE, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Henry V, Antony and Cleopatra ... was a "hack." If even ONE of those plays had been written in ancient Greece and survived, it would still be read and studied today (yes, I'm aware of the fatal anachronisms; but that's not the point). Vranek, your ignorance is showing. WOW. Breathtaking. And "sock puppets"? REALLY? Do you know ANYTHING about the characters or about Shakespeare? 63.17.49.5 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercutio had the best lines. Zoonoses (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WEll its ninth grade, and it has to be under 30 minutes , the whole "presentation process" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could talk about real life events that have been compared to Romeo and Juliet (like Boško and Admira or Rossana and Ettore). Or how about this idea: The dominant underlying theme is "forbidden love", right? So many modern adaptations will make a new twist on the old story by simply replacing the youths in Verona with contemporary "forbidden couplings", like Puerto Ricans and "true" Americans. But does the story require the forbidden love to be sexual in nature? What if there was a deep sense of (strictly platonic) adoration between two couples that were "forbidden" to even like each other? Like Glenn Beck and Al Franken (or something more loopy and far-out, like Sam Harris and Jesus)? Would it be interesting? Would it still be the same story? What would be different? Gabbe (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how serious you want to be, you could 1) do an examination on the "romance" of suicide in literature (ie. people who think it's the ultimate expression of love) versus the reality (suicide tears families apart, causes major psychological problems for friends & loved ones of the deceased, etc.); or 2) do a less serious send-up of the story as an inspiration for the kind of "forbidden love" found in Twilight novels and other teen-angst stories. Sources for the latter are going to be less scholarly but, played well, could be fun for your peer audience. The teacher might

Facepalm though. *

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe convert the balcony scene or other scenes into texting. An example is at [http://claudia.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/2004/11/romeo_and_julie_1.html}: "(Where4 art thou? Outside yr window.)" Edison (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you could do a piece on the tradition, apparently alive and well, of school performers assuming, incorrectly, that Juliet is asking where Romeo is, in her "Wherefore art thou Romeo?". In fact, she's asking why is he from the Montague family, a family with which her family, the Capulets, were feuding. 'Wherefore' means 'why', not 'where'. And there's no comma before 'Romeo'. So, the sense of it is "Romeo, Romeo, why art thou Romeo". Sorry to break this distinguished and honoured tradition, but somone's gotta step up. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep it light, then why not refer to song in modern times? I am thinking of "Dire Straits" song:

Juliet.

"When you gonna realise it's just that the time is wrong,

"Juliet, ....

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Vonnegut[edit]

In this link, what does the star mean? Reticuli88 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Vonnegut's classic Breakfast of Champions, he sprinkled many drawings throughout the book which he appears to have drawn with a felt-tip pen. Toward the beginning he writes, and this is from memory so it won't be exact, "To illustrate the maturity of my drawings, here is a picture of an asshole:", and then he draws that star. So, the star is, in fact, an asshole. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahahahaha! Hysterical! Love it! Thanks! Reticuli88 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I recommend the book, highly. Do not watch the 1999 film under any circumstances, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should read the book before buying this awesome shirt, right? Reticuli88 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably think carefully before appearing in public with an asshole on your tit. The young woman in the ad can get away with it; dunno about you. Second the recommendation for the book. PhGustaf (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vapid book -- but it's not quite Catch-22 calibre, if I recall correctly. Vranak (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It's not necessarily one of his better works, but it's amusing. I should point out that the fine print in that ad says something about what the star is, but in a way that kind of assumes you already know what its significance is. There was another book where he used stars. I think it was Galapagos. If a character was about to die, he would put a star after its name just beforehand. He said it was supposed to be a warning, to soften the blow, but it really had the opposite effect, which I imagine he would have known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters from many other Vonnegut books (as well as Vonnegut himself) make appearances in BoC, so it may have more appeal those who've read his other works. I made the mistake of reading it first, and it turned me off Vonnegut for several years until I happened to read an earlier work of his and became hooked. I've always considered BoC to be an inside joke between Vonnegut and his fans.124.157.249.26 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Slaughterhouse Five could have been a better one to start with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken and recall correctly, it's particularly an asterisk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also sometimes known as a Nathan Hale. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I only regret that I have but one asterisk for my country." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're willing to lay your asterisk on the line for it? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic diseases in medieval times and such[edit]

What did people do with themselves if they had allergies, coeliac disease, dyslexia, asthma or other kinds of not-immediately-life-threatening chronic diseases in times when the disease nor their treatments hadn't been identified yet? Despite what they thought it was; I can imagine they tried lots of horrible/silly/useless things to fix it, but would any have been able to alleviate it? Or is the simple answer 'suffer'? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. Dyslexia was probably just seen as illiteracy. It's possible that not enough people could read for it to be a problem! I'm not sure about the others, but they did know all about asthma, and there were different treatments for it in different time periods and places. Maimonides actually wrote a medical treatise about it, which you can read about here. Basically it was considered an imbalance of humours, like any other disease, so they would fiddle around with your diet and lifestyle until something worked (which is also often true of modern medicine, really). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his book Bad Medicine David Wootton says that it wasn't until fairly recently that medical treatments actually started helping people, and that prior to the 19th century physicians were with few exceptions just making their patients worse off. If you accept his argument then I think "[trying] lots of horrible/silly/useless things" is a pretty apt description for the whole of medical "science" in the Middle Ages. Gabbe (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the time. Certainly the doctors of antiquity and the renaissance were great. Sure there were a lot of really outlandish theories then, but they could treat most wounds and injuries, and many diseases. I would rather break my leg in ancient greece than medieval europe. Of course, medicine in the muslim world was quite good during the middle ages.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly the doctors of antiquity and the renaissance were great." According to whom? Gabbe (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it depends on the time and place. Muslim doctors consider medieval European doctors to be basically lunatic quacks, and with good reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were all sorts of "treatments" in medieval Europe for chronic diseases. Mercury for syphillis, for example, is a well-known one, since it is featured in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, if I recall. There are lots of other sorts of things. Most of them are what we would now categorize as "highly ineffective and potentially detrimental in their own right." A few of them are not so bad/actually helpful. It's important to note that the modern medical system—where you actively search for new cures and then do fairly rigorous testing to see if they actually work or not—is something that only emerged out of the late-19th century or so. Before then you have a hodgepodge of passed-down knowledge mixed with theories-of-the-day, much of it considered to be quite incorrect by any kind of modern standards. (And in 300 years, they'll find our tooling around with pharmacological chemicals to be rather primitive too, I imagine.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be mistaken about any reference to mercury as a treatment for syphilis in Chaucer. To the best of my knowledge, there are no confirmed references to syphilis prior to 1492 - leaving it an open question whether it originated in the Americas. Syphilis got its modern name from a work by Nahum Tate, as recently as the late 17th century. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a point of dispute by scholars, apparently. If you put "Chaucer syphillis" into Google Books you get a number of (dull) disputes over what the illness depicted was... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of silly to suggest that medieval European doctors didn't know what they were doing (and that medieval Muslim ones always did). So somehow ancient medicine and renaissance medicine were great, and it all fell apart during the Middle Ages? What kind of medicine do you think they were using the whole time? Everyone, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, were all using the ancient stuff, through the medium of Galen mostly. You wouldn't necessarily be any better off breaking your leg in Paris than you would have been in Cairo. Sometimes a Muslim doctor might have given you a treatment that would have killed you, and would have been inferior to a treatmeant a European doctor would have given you. Sometimes the Muslim treatment would have been better. One was not automatically worse or better than the other. We cannot continue to have this discussion if everyone assumes Middle Ages = bad. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generalising, certainly there were very knowledgable medieval doctors, but mostly you'd be better off in antiquity or later on. It's been argued that the Romans had the best medicine until the 19th century.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's been argued that the Romans had the best medicine until the 19th century." By whom? Gabbe (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we can't say one was automatically worse or better then the other, or you were guaranteed a better treatment in one place then the other, we can talk about averages. For example it is probably the case that on average you would likely have been better off in Cairo then in Paris when it came to medical treatment in the middle ages. Your individual case would depend on many factors (including semi-random ones), probably including how well connected and wealthy you were (although I'm guessing being better and being more wasn't always a good thing) and it's possible/likely that with certain diseases and conditions you would be better off in Paris then in Cairo. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have neglected to link to Medieval medicine (and Islamic medicine and Byzantine medicine), which may be helpful to read. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the hygiene hypothesis, being exposed to dirt in formative years makes one much less likely to obtain autoimmune disorders, asthma, and allergies. In addition, literacy was so low that dyslexia (which is not technically a disease) wouldn't be so detrimental to functioning in everyday life as it is now. So these things are, in a way, modern problems. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of rote memorization that occurred in medieval education, a dyslexic person might be able to pass by unnoticed...although I guess it depends on what they needed to memorize. Or on the other hand they might be considered too dumb to learn, and shuffled off somewhere like a monastery where memorization and repetition of prayers was more important than reading and writing. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People in past ages who had chronic diseases might see a witch doctor, or "healer" who rattled a gourd, or cut their flesh, or gave them a charm, or prayed for them, or prescribed some penance, or acted to remove a curse someone had placed on them, or sacrificed an animal to a god, or gave they herbal tea, and told them that the act kept the pain from getting worse, and that they should come back every week with more money. Things have not changed that much in the present time, with people going for treatments every week of no proven relevance to their chronic conditions, in the superstitious belief that the acupuncture, or the herbal supplements, or the megavitamins, or the diets free of some supposed allergen or irritant, or the "spinal adjustments," or the massages are staving off some intermittent problem or are preventing some chronic problem from getting worse. Edison (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady BlahDeBlah. You might try "history of ___ treatment" as your search term:

*Allergies: this claims that although allergies are mentioned in ancient texts (it refers to a King Menses of Egypt being killed by a wasp sting and Britannicus having a severe reaction to horses), they weren't really a medical issue until John Bostock studied hay fever in 1819. It seems avoidance was the main strategy.

*Coeliac disease: here's an interesting history from the University of Chicago. It says Aretaeus of Cappadocia (first century) recognized the condition but the correct dietary treatment wasn't figured out until the 20th century. See also this.

*Dyslexia: History of developmental dyslexia starts at 1881 :). See also [1] (pdf).

*Asthma: the 1550 BC Egyptian Ebers Papyrus mentions an asthma treatment: inhaling the steam from heated herbs. This asthma history from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America also mentions (unsourced and undated,sorry) a similar historical treatment method in China: inhale steam or smoke from herbs containing ephedrine. It also refers to Moses Maimonides as mentioned above; he apparently prescribed a dry climate, losing weight, getting enough sleep, reducing alcohol intake and sexual activity, getting out of the polluted city, and chicken soup.

Finally, answers here have mentioned European and Islamic medical traditions, but you might also look at Traditional Chinese medicine and Āyurveda and the historical texts linked from those articles. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence would appear to be, that they died long before thay got to that point. Hence, it would be a good thing to ask for the life-expectancy table at that time. The term for death of such was; "consumption". MacOfJesus (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII of England's wife[edit]

He killed two of his wife Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, all who were only commoners or member of English nobility. Would Henry have dared to kill his other more connected wives Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! How could he dare kill the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor? He couldn't even have their marriage annulled. Having a foreign princess executed would've been a major mistake for Henry VIII, especially in the case of Catherine of Aragon. She was aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, of the King of Portugal, of the King of Hungary and Bohemia, of the Queen of France, etc. Having her executed is no where near to having an Anne Boleyn executed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember that he could do this with a word as Henry II did: "Who will rid me of this turbulant priest?", but as was already said he would have the whole world on his back if he did. Henry II did repent at the grave of Saint Thomas a Beckett. Henry VIII had to provide for her befitting for a queen, so well connected. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16th century England wasn't the medieval Byzantine Empire where Catherine would have most likely been poisoned or (and this is a more likely scenario) Catherine herself would have given orders for Anne Boleyn's nose to be cut off or her eyes put out. Henry, although he did rule as an absolute monarch, would not have dared execute Catherine as she was the aunt of the emperor. However, I don't think he would have had any qualms about executing Anne of Cleves had she not acquiesed in his demands for an annulment. The Duchy of Cleves was in no position to make war against England, whereas Charles V would have probably attacked England, had Catherine been executed or murdered. As it was, had Charles not been kept busy engaging the Turks, there is little doubt that he'd have launched an invasion to restore his aunt to the throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about Anne of Cleves?--85.226.45.162 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about her? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't need to kill Anne of Cleves, by then he could just have divorced her, which he did. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't make a fuss, unlike Catherine, who refused to agree that her marriage to Henry was invalid. Despite Anne happily agreeing to the annulment, Henry found a scapegoat in Thomas Cromwell who was beheaded.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God and free will[edit]

My question is does the bible or any other religious scripture give any detail as to why God would do something as stupid as giving humanity free will. After all God is all knowing so he knows that with free will we're capable of causing vast destruction to all of his creations the planets animals ourselves. Surely as an omnibenevolent god as well it would be better to have just you know kept us under his control and limit the things that we could do to ensure stability? If the bible doesn't provide any answer, does anyone have any thoughts? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're presuming that the Bible says God gave us free will. I'm not sure that it does. Seems to me that free will isn't something that can be given. It has to be present from the beginning. Free will is the ability to choose one's own desires and thoughts. Free agency is the ability to act on those desires and thoughts. Under these definitions, does free agency more closely fit what you are getting at? Wrad (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it says so in the Bible but it is Christian (or possibly just Catholic) doctrine that God wants to be loved, and if humans did not have free will they would not be able to choose to love him. (Now I'm sure you will ask why God wants to be loved.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the only things that 'get destroyed' are those that warrant destruction. It's better to have destruction than to have limitless stagnation and gruesomeness. Death and decay is the friend and provider for all things nice and pleasant. You just want to be sure that you're on the side of correctness, and not some horrible little creature getting pecked at by vultures. Vranak (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking as a student of Scripture, the text that springs to mind which hilights this thought in a head-to-head conversation with man is: Genesis Ch. 18, particularly verses 16-33. Also in the judgement statement of God on Adam and Eve and the devil at the beginning of Genesis. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christians are determinists (typically, they believe in predestination) and think free will doesn't exist. Some believe in free will and not determinism. Some are compatibilists (they believe that free will and determinism are both true), who typically assert that the idea of a sentient being without free will makes absolutely no sense.

I can't think of any place that the Bible addresses this issue directly (there are a lot of assertions of God's omniscience, though, and some people say that the existence of omniscience requires determinism), but see Free will in theology#In Christian thought for lots and lots of doctrinal discussion. Paul (Stansifer) 00:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at Plantinga's response to the problem of evil. While his whole argument is not fully accepted, he starts with the assumption that a world in which there are creatures who freely choose to do good things is a more valuable world than one in which the occupants have no free will, and thus don't freely choose to do good. This runs into the compatibilist's line as mentioned above, whereby it may be possible to imagine a world in which people both have free will but in which they never perform evil acts, but it seems that the basic assumption that Plantinga is offering is at least a possible explanation. - Bilby (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above: Plantinga's argument rests on the assumption that if I did something solely because I was forced to, through no choice of my own, then I would not be responsible for the good or evil nature of that action. Thus if I donated $1000 to charity, but didn't choose to do so - I was forced to donate that money - then you might say that I did a good thing, but not that I was a good person. Similarly, if I was forced to kill someone, and nothing I could do could prevent the death from happening by my hand, you might say that I committed an evil act, but that I wasn't necessarily an evil person. Thus the argument is that God wants good people, not merely people who committed good deeds through no choice of their own. The basic questions for philosophers of religion are whether or not that outcome - people who choose to do good things - is worth the suffering caused by people who don't; whether or not it is possible to have the first without the second (compatibilism); and could God have limited the extent of the evil while still permitting people to freely choose good acts? - Bilby (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rule out the possibility that all this stuff is made up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lean that way, but then I'm more of a compatibilist or determinist anyway, so justifying free will is less of a concern. I've always figured that this becomes easier if you just give up on having an omnipotent, omniscient God in the first place - then you don't need to explain away evil, or justify free will. However, there seem to be a lot of people who disagree with me. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best evidence we have is that we choose to do what we do, barring issues such as mental illness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only think that because you were fated to think that. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but it's only hypothesis, like the postulated "ether". There could, in fact, be such a thing as the ether. But we've never detected it, so the best evidence we have is that it doesn't exist. The only "evidence" for determinism is necessarily anecdotal, so it's insufficient to demonstrate that it's for real. The best evidence we have is that we choose what we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And logically speaking, if it's pre-destined, then the future has already happened, and we're just flowing along a time line. However, there's no evidence to support that, either. As scientists, we can only rely upon what we can observe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a science question and this doesn't help answer the question at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying religious concepts are not logical, I can't argue with you there. As regards the original question, "free will" as an expression doesn't appear in the Bible, but it's plainly evident that God gave man free will, or Adam and Eve not only would not have disobeyed, they wouldn't be able to disobey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the LDS Church, agency (LDS Church) is taught as an essential part of the plan of salvation; see 2 Nephi:5-16 for a specific portion of LDS scripture that explains this point. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

God did give us free will, since if He created us, He would leave nothing out. This is to show us He could allow us to choose Him, rather than follow Him unthinkingly, which gives Him no glory. The fact that God knows in advance all of what will occur and the choices we make, since He has to, to be all knowing, does not mean we have no choice in what we do - even though it is pre determined in the sense that God knows it in advance. One could argue therefore that if it is predetermined, what choice do I have, or no matter what I do, such and such will happen, because it is always going to happen. Yes, but this does not mean we do not have a choice. Say a con man sets up a mark in such a way he knows, by his research, what this person will do, and knows the con will succeed - this does not mean the mark cannot decide what to do. Although here it is the con artist who is engineering a few things to occur - but then so does God - but ultimately, He still leaves the CHOICE to us. The Russian. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that he teaches us to use freedom properly. [2] -- Wavelength (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_11.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, and that chapter of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005141.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]