Humanities desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9[edit]

Meaning of the saying "The irish pray on their knees; the scots prey on their neighbors."[edit]

What does "the irish pray on their knees; the scots prey on their neighbors" mean? WinterWall (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See pray vs prey. It'd be just as meaningful to say it the other way around, depending whether you were joking with an Irishman or a Scot. Or a Welshman. There's no absolute truth to it or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which you say absolutely? μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several Scots pray on their knees. Though, no, I'm not sure they all weren't just pretending to pray, while they plotted to turn their neighbours into haggis to circumvent the US import ban on sheep lungs. Didn't think to ask them, or consider whether I'm always dreaming. Not absolute. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Note that pray and prey are homophones; they sound the same, but have different meanings. This quote is intended to be a humorous word play insult, suggesting that Irish people are pious and engage in prayer while the Scottish people are immoral and engage in predatory behavior (commonly understood as thievery, thuggery, etc.). —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the reference but I recall there being a Protestant/Catholic thing in there too; as in, Irish Catholics "pray" while their Scottish Protestant neighbours "prey". Works the same the other way around as pointed out above and in contexts other than just Irish/Scottish. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a mangled form of "There are four kinds of people in the British Isles. First are the Scots, who keep the Sabbath and anything else they can get their hands on. Next are the Welsh, who pray on their knees and on their neighbours. Then there are the Irish, who don't know what they want, but they'll fight anyone for it. and last are the English, who consider themselves self made men, which relieves the Almighty of a terrible responsibility." Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Brothers and sisters are natural enemies! Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!" InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why Christians don't want Jerusalem?[edit]

I recently watched National Geographic: Secrets of Jerusalem's Holiest Sites (2006), and I didn't understand why the Christians didn't really do anything in the conflict between the Jews and the Arab Muslims. The documentary did say that Christians did fight for Jerusalem, but now they don't seem to be very interested in it except running the church that now stands on the tomb where Jesus was buried and resurrected. Also, the documentary said that Jews consider Abraham to be the father of the Jewish people through his son, Isaac, while Arab Muslims consider Abraham to be the father of the Arabs, through his son Ishmael. So, what about Arab Christians or non-Arabic Muslims? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unpleasant experience of the crusades might play a role, in a historical sense. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Christianity requires the possession of Jerusalem for individual salvation, and Jesus wasn't very fond of the place, nor did his followers see the temple or animal sacrifice as necessary. A Church you can build anywhere. Of course certain sects disagree but none of them is mainline or orthodox. The Crusades has nothing to do with this, they mostly had to do with the rise of the hostile Seljuk Turks who abused Christians and their ancient privileges.μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

μηδείς is right. And don't underestimate the value of holy relics from the Holy Land during the time of the Crusades. The was a genuine desire on the part of (some) medieval European Christians to possess Jerusalem. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- (μηδείς is mainly right, but see Matthew 23:37 (or Luke 13:34) where Jesus seems to weep, or perhaps despair, over Jerusalem. ) Also see Luke 23: 28-31 for Jesus's prophecy about the future of Jerusalem. Arab Christians trace their Abrahamic roots genetically through Ishmael and spiritually through Isaac. Dbfirs 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

71.79.234.132 -- Christians do want very much for their holy places and memorial churches to be respected and be open to pilgrimage, and under the 1947 United Nations partition plan, Jerusalem-Bethlehem would have been a quasi-internationalized city (see Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) -- the Vatican was very strongly insistent on neutralizing or internationalizing Jerusalem until at least the late 1970s). However, that doesn't require sovereign domination, and the experiences of Christian sovereign domination over the area in the last thousand years (Crusades and British Mandate) did not end too well, as 71.20.250.51 alluded to... AnonMoos (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. According the Tabula Gentium in Genesis chapter 10, the South Arabians are the descendants of Joktan son of Eber son of Shem... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Known in the day as happy Arabians. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be useful. I don't know. There's a lot to read. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the idea of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which does not necessarily have to be the actual Jerusalem. As for the Crusades, there was a certain amount of fervour about hastening the End Times once the Christians conquered it, but even back then they realized how unimportant the actual city of Jerusalem was. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another theory is that the dominant churches for most of history, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, might not have wanted Jerusalem, since it served as a reminder that they totally changed Christianity from it's origins at the time of Christ, when it was relatively democratic and pacifist, somewhat like the Quakers remain today, to rather authoritarian organizations. The difficulty in actually holding it would also play a role in deciding if it was a worthy goal (much like the proverbial Sour Grapes, if they couldn't have it, then they decided they didn't want it). StuRat (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed on that one please. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that seems unlikely. The idea that Catholicism/Orthodoxy "totally changed Christianity" is a fringe conspiracy theory invented by those Protestant upstarts. And as we all know, Protestantism is just a passing fad. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and some of the "Protestant upstarts" have turned into "rather authoritarian organizations"! Dbfirs 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In more recent times General Allenby entered Jerusalem on 11 December 1917 during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign in World War I, having forced the Turkish army to retire. He and his staff entered the gate of the Jerusalem on foot in a show of respect. His subsequent announcement to the population said; "...since your city is regarded with affection by the adherents of three of the great religions of mankind and its soil has been consecrated by the prayers and pilgrimages of multitudes of devout people of these three religions for many centuries, therefore, do I make it known to you that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form of the three religions will be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faith they are sacred." Jerusalem remained in British hands as part of Mandatory Palestine, during which time the British attempted in a very heavy-handed way, to balance the aspirations of both Jews and Muslims, but ended up antagonising everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allenby's entry into Jerusalem is seen by some as the fulfilment of Biblical prophesies. See The Deliverance of Old Jerusalem - An Awe-Inspiring Fulfilment of Scriptural Prophecy. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a cartoon, in Punch I think, of Allenby as Richard the Lionheart, saying "at last my dream fulfilled". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is it. It's not clear that the figure is supposed to be Allenby, I read it as being the ghost of Richard I of England, but the message of the cartoon is the same however you interpret it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

spinoza's ethics[edit]

what's the point of this book? I am lost as to why it was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mathematical form is meant to provide certainty to his conclusions, what he wishes to demonstrate is that God is Natura Naturans, and that as part of God (God being nature) we will find happiness if we act in accordance with nature. I am unaware of any good commentary on him, I did take a 400 level class on him. Rebecca Goldstein's Betraying Spinoza is a hugely enjoyable popular book that's a blended confessional by her and biography of him but doesn't go into the ethics deeply. One problem with the work is that he assumes determinism is true, ten set's about offering advice. I suppose that would make him an automaton-prophet. He is largely a "classical" liberal from the modern perspective, and a stoic from the ancient one. If you read Epictetus first, Descartes (in relation to whom he stands as Aristotle to Plato), and the Maxims of Epicurus you might get a head start.μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :"Why" it was written requires quite a bit of context. The biography section of the Baruch Spinoza article provides a good background. In order to understand the "point of the book", it is important to realize that he lived in the 17th century, before the (18th century) Enlightenment, and his writings are considered to be an important influence for the Enlightenment, especially Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order —[which needs to be a redirect]→ Ethics (book). Hopefully one of the friendly and helpful reference desk helpers has the time to provide a concise explanation in 30 words or less; I'm going to bed. Or you could find a copy of: Curley, Edwin (1988). Behind the Geometrical Method : a reading of Spinoza's Ethics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 069102037X. — It's not very long, and relatively easy to understand. —Eric _the Read:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it another try...

Ethics, the nature of reality and Man's role in it, were considered important in classical antiquity. However, beginning with the Dark Ages freedom of thought, and the expression thereof, were taboo. Spinoza's background includes severe religious oppression, both for his Jewish heritage and his synthesis of rational thought from antiquity. —I've already exceeded 30 words, so shall sign off: ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the information - but who said thirty words! You didn't get to the point of the book. what's the point? why was it written? :) I appreciate everyone's references to literature, above, however I was hoping for your own brief summary, not so much as to the minute contents of the book as the overall point, i.e. why it was written. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book was written for the purpose of explaining the nature of creation and how man can achieve happiness in it based on what Spinoza believed was a logically certain argument fro his premises. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're asking about the odd final part: In A Study of Spinoza's Ethics (CUP Archive, 1984, p372-375) Jonathan Bennett wonders why Spinoza wrote the "last three doctrines" (mind's eternity, intuitive knowledge, intellectual love of God) which are deemed worthless and beyond salvation.

"Clearly he [Spinoza] wants this final trio of doctrines. Why?" Bennett dismisses explanations of Spinoza merely "trying to capture in his own terms the doctrines of others —e.g., Aristotle's views about immortality" as not credible.

He wonders whether Spinoza was perhaps "terrified of extinction, and convinced himself —through a scatter of perverse arguments and hunger for the conclusion —that he earned immortality."

Another possible explanation refers to C. D. Broad: "These doctrines, I am convinced, are the philosophic expression of certain religious and mystical experiences which Spinoza and many others have enjoyed and which seem supremely important to those who have had them. As such they belong to Spinoza's philosophy of religion rather than to his ethics in [...] the ordinary sense". Five Types of Ethical Theory.

Anyway, I probably just added to the confusion. But these "why" questions often lead to confusing answers. (and sorry about adding more book references :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durdane Series - Age of The Land of Shant[edit]

Its been a while since I've last read the series but in Jack Vance's Durdane Series was it mentioned roughly how long Humans have been on the planet Durdane and/ or how old the land of Shant is ? Scotius (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, long before I get around to rereading it, this question will have rotated away. —Tamfang (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is American Lutheranism different from German Lutheranism theologically?[edit]

How are the two Lutheranisms different theologically? 140.254.226.223 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more kinds of Lutheranism. In the U.S. some are in Category:Lutheran denominations in North America. For Germany Category:Lutheranism in Germany.