Humanities desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

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 5[edit]

Does Buddhism teach no fear/ no hope?[edit]

At least indirectly, if you live in the present, hope of a future positive outcome or fear of a negative one shouldn't be your top priority. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Buddhism, but that was pretty much one of the tenets of Stoicism... AnonMoos (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as Buddhism teaches us not to be attached to any particular outcome, and hope or fear regarding outcomes is a mark of attachment, yes. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if a Buddhist saw a missile headed straight for him, his reaction might be, "Oh, that's interesting - a missile that looks like it's headed straight for me. Will it hit me? Will it miss me? Only time will tell." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he were a really good Buddhist, Bugs :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so, really good Buddhist are deemed to die at any crossroad? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of Buddhism is to obtain a positive future outcome (i.e., Nirvana). Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But do set your mind on this target? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and hope are passing illusions, no more. Sang-gye cho-dang tsog-kyi cho-nam-la Jang-chub bar-du dag-ni kyab-su-chi I take refuge in the Buddha, dharma and sangha until enlightenment is reached. That's all. SkylonS (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a song[edit]

I remember a song, not sure who sing it or the title, but it had instruments not just singing. any ideas? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is possibly the most vague and unhelpful description of a song imaginable. Can you remember any lyrics at all? Because without that, we have basically no chance of helping you. It would also be useful to know what instruments, time signatures, vocal registers, languages, and musical style(s) were involved. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking in song. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

musipedia.org lets you search by whistling into the computer. There's an app that identifies songs by listening to a few seconds of it, too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add this thread to Wikipedia:Unusual requests. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more rooms or people?[edit]

Or, how many rooms are in the world? I try to divide the world into richness levels Fermi problem style but I'm still not sure. I'd guess more people, but very dependent on if the poor great majority of humanity has fewer persons per room than I guess. (Now the definition of room itself is fuzzy but I'll at least count basements, attics, rooms on ships, rooms inside infrastructure and bathrooms (except ones the size of closets)) Either way it appears less than you could see per lifetime, flashing a few per second. Another fun over/under I can't decide is which has more volume: everything artificial on Earth or one Independence Day city ship? ([1], about 50 trillion cubic feet by my reckoning). Probably depens on how far you go with artificial Embankment dams? Reservoirs? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that the Reference desks should not be cluttered with questions like this that are merely whimsical. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st part could be useful as a measure of wealth, although square footage (or square meterage ?) per person might be a better measure than the room count, since it's less subjective. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, rooms works better. There are some rich people in cities whose houses have a lot of rooms, but don't cover much ground; while some lower class farmers in the boonies would have a lot of space, but not really as many rooms. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a major city like New York or London I presume that each person has at least one room each (a bedroom), plus other shared space in the same same house, plus a room at their work place or school that they likely have to share with others, plus a room on their way to work (inside a car, bus, train, etc), plus a bathroom they can visit, and a kitchen, etc. However, in some places the poor have to live many to one small room and do everything there. It is hard to say, but I would be surprised if there were a lot less than 7 billion rooms on Earth. Astronaut (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems wrong to me to count cars, you can't even stand up in them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Sustainable Systems says there were 4.9 million commercial buildings in the US in 2003.[2] Guesstimate ten times that for the world, and a conservative 20 rooms a building. and we've already at a billion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By doing Fermi style, the answer can varies greatly with the power of 10, so it is probably from 1 to 10 billion rooms in the world.174.20.99.196 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are murder followed by suicide so common in our country?[edit]

hot-button and functionally unanswerable topic closed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am from the United States and for instance, it's the anniversary of the Westroads Mall shooting, this week the NFL player who kills his girlfriend and kills self, workplace shootings, among others. Why? Why so much? Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this question won't turn into a debate about gun policy, social equality, genetics and what ever you got. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's yet another question based on an unproven assumption. Should probably be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it, I am tired of the sensitivity of you all on here. Keeeith (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Why" is a difficult question to answer (and in cases like this, there may not even be a known answer). However, I think it's worth noting that we have an article on murder-suicide that provides a starting point for you to read and form your own ideas about the matter. Beyond that, I concur that this is a topic more likely to spawn arguing than references. — Lomn 18:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people commit murder and then suicide ? ... because committing suicide followed by murder is so much more difficult to pull off. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Robbie A. Hawkins would've answered this easier, not the sensitive people who are on here. Just a joke. Keeeith (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Who the hell is Robbie A. Hawkins? BTW. I am not sensitive, but this question happens to be loaded. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

A joke? Yes, maybe the whole thing should be taken that way. It would make more sense. (And I didn't even mention the somewhere-centrism of the question.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie A. Hawkins is Robert A. Hawkins, who was my friend, or not my friend, but an acquaintance. But it was a joke anyway. Keeeith (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for the Hawkins thing, I was just angry that the post was closed. But innocent people were killed by him. I'm truly sorry. I apologize. Keeeith (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. But you use the word "sensitive" as if it's somehow a negative trait. Yes, we are sensitive, and we're proud of it. We're sensitive to what makes this place work well and what detracts from it. Without the "sensitives" around here, the ref desks would have gone to hell in a handbasket years ago and you'd be having to ask your questions somewhere else. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not fair, I feel like I have been poached.

Artur Carlos de Barros Basto - the name conversation[edit]

Why Artur Carlos de Barros Basto, has adepted just the surname Ben Rosh? has he had any link between him to the famous jewish spanish family "Ben arosh"? is there any information about? 95.35.152.34 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information about this, but I would observe that many Jews in Britain (and I think elsewhere) use a Hebrew name which is quite different from their everyday name, and in which "ben" introduces not a surname but a patronymic. Two possibilities that present themselves are that his father's name (not given in the article) was something which he felt could be "Hebrewed" as "Rosh", or that he chose "Rosh" (Hebrew for "head") for its associations. --ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]