Humanities desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| Aug \| Sep >>	September 1 >

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.

August 31[edit]

religious fanaticism in ancient times[edit]

I was reading Religious fanaticism and I wondered why it didn't mention religions which flourished in ancient times, like ancient greek religion, norse religion or Zoroastrianism. Was there fanaticism in those contexts?--Nickanc (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ancient religious were non-exclusive, either acknowledging the existence of other gods with different geographic, political, or thematic spheres of influence (see Henotheism), identifying foreign gods with their own gods, or, in educated circles, considering all gods as different aspects of the same supreme god. This does not very much lend itself to fanaticism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With polytheistic religions, individuals could be very dedicated (even fanatical) in their devotion to a particular god... what was missing was the exclusivity inherent in monotheistic religions. (The fact that I might be fanatically dedicated to Apollo, for example, did not make you "wrong" for being fanatically dedicated to Hera, since it was accepted that both gods existed.) Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than that they existed: it was accepted that both existed and were worthy of worship and dedication. Monolatrism (unfortunately a poor article, devoted largely to advancing a single POV about ancient Israel) says that multiple gods exist, but we should only pay attention to one of them; it would be more likely to produce religious fanaticism than would henotheism, which is what your Apollo devoté practises. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if/when members of non-exclusive religions were fanatic, it's usually treated as political (Roman persecution of other religions, Confucian persecution of foreign religions around the 10th century) or economical (Viking raids of monasteries) instead of religious (even when religious language was used to justify those persecutions). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that we tend to understate this. For example, one of the main charges against Socrates, for which he was sentenced to death, was impiety -- "not believing in the gods of the state". The ancient Hebrews were notoriously intolerant, and Herodotus describes the Egyptians in his time as the most religious people in the world, living lives that were entirely dominated by religion.Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the Ten Commandments entry about having no gods before God implies the existence of other gods. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it does not imply the existence, but rather the supposition of other gods, and regard for them. Other verses outright denies the existence of other gods, saying that they are manifest in no other form than dead stone and wood. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickanc -- Before the rise of "cosmopolitan empires", most religions were localistic and/or ethnic, closely tied to the details of the way of life of one particular tribal group, or the inhabitants of a small region or city-state. Under those circumstances, most people really didn't care one way or the other about the outlandish religious customs of outlandish foreigners. As empires grew and people belonging to formerly autonomous small groups interacted with people from other groups more and more, there was a process of roughly equating gods in different pantheons (see Interpretatio Graeca and Interpretatio Latina), and many of the old rituals lost their meanings as the ways of life of peoples incorporated into the large empires changed. You could say that it was a good thing that there were relatively few claims to have an exclusive monopoly on truth, and often effective tolerance for other religious systems, but in fact many people felt a tremendous void as old religions offered no real spiritual or moral guidance for living in the new social circumstances, so that many people in the Hellenistic world and the early Roman empire turned to innovative quasi-oriental "mystery religions" or the castrating cult of Cybele etc., and there was also a huge rise in belief in fatalism and astrology (in fact, for a large number of people, astrology pretty much replaced religion). This was the situation in which universalistic "religions of personal salvation" arose, with appeal to the mixed populations of the internally-diverse empires. Christianity and Buddhism are the paradigm examples, but of course there have been many other early competitors and later offshoots. The good thing about religions of personal salvation was that they were not tied to any particularistic local or ethnic identity, they offered guidance relevant to the personal struggles of individual believers in the circumstances in which they found themselves as subjects of a cosmopolitan empire, and they had a solid core of universalistic morality (as opposed to the myths of unedifying petty squabbles among the Greek gods, or Zeus boinking every nymph in sight in animal form, etc.). The bad thing about religions of personal salvation was that they lent themselves much more easily to fanaticism than the old particularistic religions.
P.S. You're quite wrong about Zoroastrianism -- the history of the Sassanid Empire involved a very high degree of religious turbulence as traditional "orthodox" Zoroastrianism and some of its variants and offshoots (such as Zurvanism, Mazdakism, and Manichaeism) went in and out of favor... AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to entirely disagree with you, AnonMoos, but the claim that "many people felt a tremendous void as old religions offered no real spiritual or moral guidance for living in the new social circumstances" is a rather outdated viewpoint in modern scholarship about Roman-era religion, at least when put in those extreme terms. Ramsay MacMullen and Robin Lane Fox attacked that assumption in the 1980s, arguing that conventional religion was very much alive. There are still scholars who argue that the mystery cults filled a spiritual need that civic cults did not, but from what I gather, they believe the mysteries mainly served as more of a supplement to conventional religion than a replacement for it. (Here I am basing my statements primarily on Romanising Oriental Gods by Jaime Alvar (2008), supplemented by lots of other books I have been reading related to the Greco-Roman cult of Isis. On that same basis, regarding the original question, I mostly agree with the replies already made here, especially Ian.thomson's.) A. Parrot (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot -- of course such generalizing statements don't apply with equal force to all members of a complex society. Most of the old civic religious rituals remained in place, and a few new ones were invented (such as acknowledging the genius of the emperor), and some people didn't feel much need for anything else. But it seems pretty clear that many people felt that official religion didn't provide much moral guidance for the problems of their lives. The Iliad was a fine work of literature, and exemplified the aristocratic warrior code of a long-defunct age, but it didn't necessarily have a lot to offer to spiritual seekers in the cities of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman empire, and some were openly scornful of the religious and moral value of tales of the petty squabblings of the Greek gods and Zeus nymph boinkings. The sheer variety of alternative systems embraced by many -- from philosophical schools (Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.) to orientalizing mystery religions, to fatalism/astrology, to Mithraism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, "god-fearing", Christianity, etc. etc. -- would seem to indicate that there was significant dissatisfaction with official religion (though of course few refused to participate in traditional rituals if this would imply political disloyalty or cutting oneself off from society, unless they embraced strict monotheism). AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the move toward unconventional religions was motivated by a feeling that they offered something civic cults did not. But MacMullen and Lane Fox have, from what I gather, argued that civic cults still mattered to people. They didn't just participate because they felt social or political pressure to do so. Whatever philosophical or mystical system struck their fancy may have filled the "spiritual void" left by the civic cults, but the civic cults were still valued for what they did provide (public spectacle that brought the city together, in honor of gods that people, by and large, still revered). I may be overstating the case here, because I'm reading the arguments secondhand. But in any case, scholars reject, and may be overreacting against, the simplistic Franz Cumont narrative that dominated the scholarly world for decades. (Putting Cumont very crudely: Hellenization shook up the ancient world and made the old cults seem less relevant, mystery cults and whatnot came in to fill the spiritual void, and they prepared the way for the True Religion that everybody accepted because it was obviously better.) I should read MacMullen and Lane Fox sometime to see exactly what they're arguing. A. Parrot (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhenaten was pretty fanatical about erasing the old gods to replace them with just one, until they erased him. Then a "restoration" period followed and Akhenaten ended up being remembered as a heretic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, which is why many Egyptologists have seen Akhenaten's religious changes as a sort of spiritual precursor (though usually not an ancestor) to the more exclusive religious attitude of Judaism and its offshoots. But Akhenaten's reign is so confusing that it's difficult to discern what was actually going on. For part of his reign, the traditional gods coexisted with the increasing emphasis on the Aten; even after that, the erasure of divine names was rather spotty; and nobody knows what the general populace was doing at the time, or how much of Akhenaten's beliefs were pushed on them. The selective nature of Egyptian records makes it practically impossible to discern if there was any religious persecution in Akhenaten's reign. There are signs that courtiers had to pay lip service to his beliefs to stay in favor (no surprise), but I find it hard to imagine that he tried to force all of Egypt to reject the other gods (and to my knowledge, no Egyptologist that has suggested that he did). Doing so would have been highly impractical and, I think, too far out of line with the Egyptian worldview for even Akhenaten to conceive of it. A. Parrot (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Roald Dahl's book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory published three years later in the UK than in the US?[edit]

I understand that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was published in the US in 1964 and in the UK in 1967. I believe that in 1964 Roald Dahl was already a successful children's author, having published James and the Giant Peach in 1961. Why then was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory published three years later in the UK, compared with the US? Why wasn't the book published in the UK in 1964 when it was completely written? 176.27.8.103 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, no UK publisher wanted it. "But his main problem at this point was getting published in the UK. All the "top-tier" firms turned him down. In a 1964 letter to Alfred Knopf's wife Blanche, Dahl blamed the literary establishment's "priggish, obtuse stuffiness". A former publisher at Bodley Head, Judy Taylor, told Dahl's first biographer, Jeremy Treglown: "I could see that Dahl would be popular with children, but publishing for them has to involve more than that somehow." Another editor told Donald Sturrock, Dahl's most recent biographer, that she remained proud to have turned the book down twice." Nanonic (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for Judy Taylor, but just to give some possible meaning to that sentence, a children's book must also be popular with parents, because children don't buy books. I'm no expert on "British sensibility", but it feels like the thing to blame. Probably actually only factors in, somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Approved of" is probably more accurate than "popular" - a paternalistic attitude was pretty standard in children's publishing for a long time. "Yes, they would like it, but is it good for them?" Andrew Gray (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/30/charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory-50-years-roald-dahl-quentin-blake

But his main problem at this point was getting published in the UK. All the "top-tier" firms turned him down. In a 1964 letter to Alfred Knopf's wife Blanche, Dahl blamed the literary establishment's "priggish, obtuse stuffiness". A former publisher at Bodley Head, Judy Taylor, told Dahl's first biographer, Jeremy Treglown: "I could see that Dahl would be popular with children, but publishing for them has to involve more than that somehow." Another editor told Donald Sturrock, Dahl's most recent biographer, that she remained proud to have turned the book down twice.

It wasn't published in the UK until a US version was given a founder of Allen & Unwin by his daughter. CS Miller (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Singularity[edit]

Hi there,

In this weekend issue of Financial Times there is an article: "Irresponsible gods." It is a book review. The book is by Y. Hirari "A brief history of humankind." I found the book naïve and not worthy of attention, my opinion is based on this review, of course, but one point is interesting. He talks about exponential growth of human knowledge and especially of Ray Kurzweil’s (Google's director of engineering) idea that the growth of human knowledge will result in a knowledge singularity whereas the human brain will merge with a type of artificial intelligence more powerful than anything we have seen before, etc, etc, etc.

Well, R. Feynman, I believe talked about the end of Physics, we have seen recently how much it cost to find the Higgs boson. Experiments in physics are getting more and more expensive and involve teams of scientists so large that the list of authors is almost as great at the papers themselves. Soon, if not already this business will have run into cost limitations. Testing anything about strings will require such massive amounts of energy, everyone understands it is a hopeless idea. Theoretical exploration of the subject runs into zillions of options, I believe it is $10^{500}$ . Social impact of scientific knowledge is negligible. Just look at what is going on in the Middle East or Ukraine. The golden era of humankind was in Europe at the end of the 19th century although the life expectancy was not what it is today but who needs this life :-) --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very detailed article on Technological singularity... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather surprising. It looks like the Wikipedia is the true, and only Knowledge Singularity, he he, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness in chess[edit]

I've noticed that when I play chess I tend to favour the right-hand side of the board, and am more vulnerable on the left. I am right-handed. At higher levels of play, has any difference in style, etc been observed between right- and left-handed players? DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the board isn't quite symmetrical, with the king and queen each on one side. So, unless you played the game with a mirror image setup, you really can't switch between the left and right sides without changing the game. (It might be an interesting test to play with that mirror setup to see how you cope.) StuRat (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In starting position, the strong side is the side with the queen. And that is different depending on whether you are playing white or black. Perhaps the OP tends to play one color more often? --Jayron32 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed it whichever colour I play. DuncanHill (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color vs. colour. How humourous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colour all the way! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I'll go with kuller, but then I am a non-conformist. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What d'you mean? Spell bolour with a K? — Kolour. Oh, that's very good, I never thought of that." --65.94.51.64 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly bunt. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Of course, changing color also changes who goes first, so that changes the game dynamics, too. StuRat (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from a chess expert or fan. Most of my games last as long as they do for the rule against moving my king into check. But as a generally smart guy, that sort of thing seems like a significant and exploitable weakness. Even in games involving far more luck (boxing, soccer, skiing), the further you go, the harder you're going to feel it on your "soft side".

To be observed, even failing, at higher levels, one must use the whole ass. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Bubba73 is a resident expert on chess. You might want to run your question by him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this abstract, paper discussed here which suggests that high level players are less likely to be right-handed than the general population. DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was for all chess players studied. About 17% sinister, compared to about 10% of their non-chess sample. "However, there were no significant differences between skill levels with respect to handedness." InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that may relate more to using the creative side of their brains rather than the left side of the board. I might expect ambidextrous individuals to be the best chess players, if they can successfully integrate the creative and logical sides of their brain and apply both to the game. StuRat (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If creativity mattered in chess, it wouldn't be the one game famous for a computer owning a human master. It would have been nice to hear some clever, monotone trash-talking while that was happening, but that never really was IBM's thing. Just algorithms and stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When humans play, creativity is very important in chess. Computers beat humans be exploiting their huge advantage in lightning-fast computation. Human brains are not very good at this so successful human players exploit the brain's advantages with creativity being one of the most important. No human is never going to be good by trying to play like a computer. It would be like trying to win a foot race by mimicking a horse gallop. Leave that to the horses. D Monack (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as far as the human league (not this) goes, creativity matters because it can fool other human-level players. But at the top, it's all about remembering the mathematically optimal move. Trying something new is the first step toward failure. Likewise, if you can't succesfully mimic a horse, you're only go to get so far in the overall rankings, as will the horse until it works like a cheetah (or like a horse-powered cheater). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]