Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 10

Renoir's Gabrielle Jean and Little Girl
I have a 24.5 by 26.5 inch print of this art signed by Renoir in the upper right hand corner Were limited editions of the original made and will you provide information relative to time, number, and current value? I understand the original was at the Norton Simon museum until 1980 and now is in a private collection. I have owned my print for twenty years after purchasing it from a woman who's grandparents had it hanging in their house of the farm for many years. We have enjoyed it so much and would appreciate your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.167.31 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Cross-over Gospel music
Can anyone list cross over gospel music between black and white churches in the 40's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.196.238 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

philosophy ? : "regional inquiry - formal logic"
Please help me to understand the usage of the terminology: "regional inquiry" as used in the context of an article written in the UK (Ireland) on the subject of philosophy with children. The publication is: Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 39, No. 4, 2005 Title of the article is: "Thomas Reid and philosopy with children"  writer is Fiachra Long of Ireland.

I am required to write a content summary paper for my masters degree in education, only I cannot understand the usage in the following sentence found in the article:

"Philosophy today identifies more with regional inquiries than with the broader reality of human life".

I will appreciate your help to understand what the author means by this.

Thank you,

H.W. Friedman
 * It means that many philosophers today do not occupy themselves with so-called real-world problems, but limit themselves to smaller areas of specialisation (e.g. formal logic). David Sneek 06:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Where can I demographics for the Schutzstaffel?
I'm looking for the demographics of Schutzstaffel memebership. As in, what was the percentage or religious affiliations, age groups, gender, nationality, etc. Thanks in advance.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When Germany surrendered 1/2 the SS were non-Germans. --  Миборовский  17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

South Korea Backing North Korean Tyranny
Ashton Carter, on Meet the Press, said, "We’re capable of military action, and it’s important that that be an ingredient of coercive diplomacy. But the real levers on Kim Jong il are the Chinese and the South Koreans. It is they who essentially support the regime economically and politically. So it makes sense to have them at the table," [underlining is mine].

Why do South Korean support the North Korean regime? I thought South Koreans opposed communism and tyranny. Aren't the two governments enemies?--Patchouli 09:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh brother, this is a issue of international politics and nothing is as clear and easy as it sounds. That statement has to be taken with great caution.


 * South Korea is probably trying to placate the North Korean regime with donations of food, etc and have absolutely no interest in beginning a war with that regime. The majority of the ppl there want a peaceful reunification, and some of them (small but vocal minority) blame the US for the curent situation being of the opinion that without the US there would allready been a peaceful reunification (which is bit ludicrous, but somewhat supported by the "anti-US imperialism crowd").


 * The USA don't want to start a war, because they are allready involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. They want to mantain the moral highground and the status-quo. Ashton Carter can talk all he wants (notice that to say something does not automatically mean that you really believe in it), but the US military is spread way too thin. He is trying to make some political points and is simplifying the whole issue for dubious reasons.


 * China isn't interested in a war in it's own backyard for that conflict would hurt them also, but they don't want that the US spread their influence in Asia even further.


 * Japan doesn't want to a war because they will be involved in it. They will not gain nothing besides corpses. They support the US aslong as the US policy is to contain NK and not to engage it in a fullscale war.


 * North Korea doesn't want to start a war that it isn't able to win, but they don't want to appear as weak or piteful. They (mainly the regime) might also be a bit scared that the US is planning to deal with them in near future (the famous "axis of evil speech" certainly hasn't helped maters). Therefore they threaten everybody (mainly the US) with these rockets, and make a great display of strength. North Korea wants to deal directly with the US (it's probably a bit of vanity mixed with politics - if negotiations fail they can easily blame the US "imperialistic ambitions") but the US wisely wants to involve everybody (especially China) so that in case "the *hit really hits the fan" (a fullscale war) all countries in the region fight against North Korea at the side of the US (or at the very least don't oppose it).


 * Everybody, except the NK regime, is interested in maintaing the stats-quo and the peace and are patiently waiting that either some moderate member of the ruling family rises to power, or that the NK military (or anyone) makes a coup-de-etat (a bit like Cuba - everybody is just waiting that Fidel Castro bites the dust). The current NK regime is interrested that the tensions run a bit high so that no NK general get's any funny ideas, like making a coup. The ppl of NK meanwhile can starve and die (these donations are not really solving the problem you know? Mostly prolonging the agony), for who really cares besides the ppl of SK?


 * Well, perhaps the ppl of the other countries involved really care, but what what are the politicians supposed to do? Invade NK to feed the ppl? Way too dangerous, and the consequences are unpredictable and quite bloody, and they will lose popular support and votes for any losses (as clearly shown in Somalia and Iraq).


 * As long as the NK rockets don't hit anyone they are simply a show of force, nothing more and nothing less.


 * Notice that this is my personal interpretation - it is mainly a educated guess. Fell free to disagree. Flamarande 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "North Korea wants to deal directly with the US ...if negotiations fail they can easily blame the US," is extremely insightful. I thought Kim Jong il and the elite wanted a guarantee against their overthrow, but Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns said that security was given to them in September of 2005.  You must be right about this.

"The current NK regime is interrested that the tensions run a bit high so that no NK general get's any funny ideas," is very plausible.

Pyongyang doesn't look rural and I doubt that people are starving. Doesn't North Korea have a national healthcare and good welfare system to take care of its people? After all, why did their people want communism? But I can't be sure about anything because of lack of transparency.--04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can find factual answers to these questions in the CIA factbook on North Korea. ...IMHO (Talk) 08:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also see the article Sunshine policy which describes the South Korean position on North Korea. --Canley 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Musical Difficulty
Of the "common" musical instruments in Western Music (what would normally be found in modern bands or orchestras), which could be considered the most difficult? Thanks in advance. --Burbster 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

violinists seem to have the most competition. 82.131.188.248 14:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Do you mean difficult to master? My first thought was the piano.   --Richardrj 14:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll just say the most difficult to learn and/or master. --Burbster 18:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The violin is pretty tough. It takes a long time to learn to produce a decent sound (unlike on a piano, wher you just need to hit a key). And even when you're good, it is difficult to play a straight note, which is why solo violinists use so much vibrato, to disguise the fact that they didn't hit the right spot (a violin has no frets on the finger board, like a guitar does). Also, the way you hold a violin is rather unnatural, causing a lot of rsi with violinists (you can get this with just about any instrument, but I believe the violin is one of the worst). Having said that, when it comes to top notch play, the piano has many keys and some composers like to use as many of them as possible. Studying such a piece will take long time. And then you have to get feeling into it. Also, unlike the violin, the piano is very often used as a solo instrument, meaning you get more attention from the listener and have to put more effort in not making any mistakes nad putting feeling into your play. If you're a mediocre violin player you can blend into the orchestral crowd so there should be better chances of making a living out of it. I guess. Some factual data on this last bit would be interresting. Not sure if that is what you were askming about, though. DirkvdM 07:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's impossible to get a 'straight' answer to a question like this, in the same way that it's difficult to say which foreign language is easiest to learn: it all depends. Different instruments have different difficulties, and which is easier/harder for you depends on your particular aptitudes, as well as your willingness and motivation for learning said instrument. The quality of the teaching also makes a difference.
 * A violin (or other similar stringed instrument) is difficult to play for the reasons Dirk mentioned - just getting a clean note is harder than it looks, and once you've worked that out, you need to hit the note correctly (not sharp or flat), which is a matter of millimeter finger placement. While a keyboard instrument like a piano doesn't have the problem of getting a clean or correct note (you hit the key and the note is played), it's difficult because you have to multitask like there's no tomorrow - not only do you have to play chords (so you have to be able to read music much, much faster than for another instrument), but your two hands could be doing two different things, which is like rubbing your belly and patting your head at the same time, only a lot harder. A wind instrument (like a clarinet) is difficult because the modulation comes from your mouth, and mastering the combination of lip movement and breathing (unusual movements) to get a good note while simultaneously thinking of moving your fingers to hit the right note is tricky. The trombone combines the difficulty of a wind instrument and a stringed instrument, as you have no guide other than your ear to tell you if the note you're playing is correct or not. Percussion is tricky because, again, different parts of your body are multitasking like nuts (try beating quavers with your left and triplets with your right hand), and your sense of rhythm needs to be dead-on, especially as there is often no music for percussion and you need to 'improvise' as you go along.
 * I could go on, but I think you get the idea :) &mdash; QuantumEleven 09:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say the oboe. I'm a musician, and among my friends it's considered the most difficult to play well.--Anchoress 09:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The top 5 hardest instruments in an orchestra would be (in no particular order) oboe, violin french horn, piano and harp. In a band, the top 5 hardest would be (in no particular order) oboe, bassoon, french horn, trumpet and bar sax. Mind, trumpet is only difficult because that is usually the focal point in a piece of music. They often have the rangiest parts in a song. Politic a l Mind, July 29, 2024 (UTC).
 * Dirk, your comment about violinistic vibrato didn't quite hit the spot (pun.). It's not just solo violinists who do this; orchestral violinists also vibrate away merrily.  The reason has much less to do with disguising a misplaced finger, and much more with adding richness and warmth to the tone.  JackofOz 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I believe you're right that the orchestral violinists vibrate too (so to say :) ), but shouldn't the 'warmth' of the tone, it's richness in overtones (if that's what you mean), simply come from their multitude? Each one slightly off should have the same respect. A solo violinist, though, has to vibrate to disguise his fingers being slightly off. Although there is also the sort of 'weeping effect'(for lack of a better term) in his case (is this what you meant by 'warmth'?). DirkvdM 07:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bit hard to answer, since I've never learned violin (I'm merely a half-competent pianist). But I've watched many hundreds of orchestral performances and I've never seen them not using vibrato.  If multitude alone provided warmth of tone, there would be need for vibrato.  I'm sure that competent professional violinists (solo and orchestral) rarely misplace their fingers, so disguising anything doesn't come into it.  If that were the case, a sharp ear would hear the wrong note being altered to the right one.  Your last question is more or less what I'm talking about.  Listen to the difference between a Jascha Heifetz or an Itzhak Perlman playing a Bach solo partita, compared to a learner.  Even a learner who had the notes spot on, but didn't use as much vibrato, would make a shriller, thinner, less pleasing sound.  JackofOz 04:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Last time I was in an orchestra most of us agreed it was the french horn, then the oboe, then everything else. -LambaJan 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends a great deal on what your skills already are - eg. someone who has good co-ordination could probably play drums better than most people. The right hand on the violin is very difficult too, but I found it easier than clarinet.--martianlostinspace 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio Play
Who owns the copyright on Orson Wells Radio play War of the worlds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.5.12 (talk • contribs)

the united states public, which is however, is prevented from exercising its right 1) by corporations buying term extentions. 2) by corporations burning original media so that the public will be unable to exercise its copyright. (The latter happening especially in the case of the Disney corporation). 82.131.188.248 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC).
 * This broadcast occurred in 1938 (not before 1923) so it is still eligible for copyright - if the renewals were filled on time. Rmhermen 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we still haven't answered this person's question, which was "who owns the copyright" on the 1938 radio play based on the 1898 H.G. Wells novel. (Obviously the novel itself is public domain.)  I believe the adaptation was actually written by Howard Koch, who also wrote the screenplay for Casablanca.  (He died in 1995, btw.) The article on The War of the Worlds (radio) will tell you that it was a creation of the Mercury Theatre.  Whoever owns it, given the existances of published recordings over the years the copyright probably was renewed.  But we still haven't helped this person because we don't know who their successors in interest were.  Crypticfirefly 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sealab 2021 DVD
Does anyone know if there are region 4 Sealab 2021 DVDS?


 * I believe so: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001MZ7K0/002-3146975-0703200?v=glance&n=130 --Proficient 02:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy, Nietzsche's quotation on vanity:
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that "vanity is the fear of appearing original: it is thus a lack of pride, but not necessarily a lack of originality.". May somebody, please, explain the meaning of that statement? I simply cannot understand a word, it's like the definition does not have anything to do with the word to me. Thanks.


 * Sometimes lousy translators can distort the essence of words, for instance, by choosing lust where the person actually meant parental or friendly love. However, I doubt that dabblers would touch Nietzsche's works.  This is not found in Wikiquote on Nietzsche.  Where did you find it?--Patchouli 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

consider vanity as meaning the behavior, rather than the characteristic of being vain: "Looking in the mirror is the fear of appearing original: therefore it is a lack of pride, however it does not mean a lack of originality." Consider this: "Running a spell-checker is the fear of appearing original: therefore it is a lack of pride; however it does not mean a lack of originality" (though I suppose the spell checker, like the mirror, can remove some of this. By looking in the mirror, I guess we could think of dressing with respect to a mirror?  Putting what feels right on, then vainly censoring the originality.)  I agree it's stretching it. If you'd give us the source, I'm sure it would go a long way. 82.131.188.248 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC).


 * I think that's on the right track, but consider vanity not as self-love, but as wishing to appear fashionable, wishing always to be beautiful. I.e. it is seeking to conform to a social standard of beauty at all times.  The difference between the beautiful and the vain is that the latter is hounded by a fear of not being attractive.  Therefore, the person consumed with physical vanity is always afraid of being an individual, always afraid of looking like him or herself.  Geogre 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I found it in the article vanity. Hmm... I think it begins to make sense, thanks... I'll keep reading.
 * The source is Morgenröthe, book IV: 365, by the way. David Sneek 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ("Die Eitelkeit ist die Furcht, original zu erscheinen, also ein Mangel an Stolz, aber nicht nothwendig ein Mangel an Originalität.")


 * I think Geogre has got it right. Maybe this formulation will be more clear: To be vain means to be uncomfortable with one's self, however strange looking you might be. You lack pride when you can't accept yourself as you actually are, when you are longing to be something else, says Nietzsche. But that doesn't mean you still aren't strange looking. (Obvious one ought not interpret this to be purely about aesthetic appearance.)--Fastfission 04:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Xinhua News Agency
How do you pronounce Xinhua? Does the x sound like \s\, \z\, or \zh\?

If you want to add a voice clip, then please do so.--Patchouli 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For an American, it always sounds a bit like "Shin-wah," but, of course, that's relying on newsreaders. Geogre 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would pronounce the x like a z, as I do when I say the word xylophone. &mdash;  Ed Gl  00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's written using the Hanyu pinyin system, and our page on that system describes x as "like sh, but take the sound and pass it backwards along the tongue until it is clear of the tongue tip", which sounds about right to me. The closest English sound is definitely "sh", though (at least in standard pronunciation). "Shin-hwa" or "sheen-hwa" would be my best transcription of the whole sound, although naturally, that won't get it exactly. -- Vardion 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not right. The IPA for the X in Xinhua would be the Velar fricative (see Pinyin), but it has no equivalent in English (not really).  It's sort of like sh, but not really, your tongue goes in a different position.  --ColourBurst 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I remember that the x in Deng Xiaoping (who put down the revolt at Tiananmen Square) sounds like \sh\.--Patchouli 04:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eritrean book
I want to know the Author of a book writteen in Tigrigna language(which is widely spoken in Eritrea, East Africa), in the 60'th or 70'th, entitled < WAY ANE DEQEY> (c).?


 * Google does not even give one hit. ("WAY ANE DEQEY") Who is it by? --Proficient 02:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Schengen implementation date applicable for Malta
Dear Sir/Madam I thought of asking you for some information about a DATE - the implementation date of the Schengen agreement (month and year) by Malta. Kindly send references to documents which state this date. I have heard conflicting dates so I prefer to refer this question to you in person. Thanks Best regards
 * Schengen Agreement should help. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

purpose for building Stonehenge
We were wondering if the purpose for building Stonehenge might be to develop navigation (and agricultural) tables while religious reasons might be used only as a ruse to get free labor? ...IMHO (Talk) 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want a simple naked-eye sun-position observatory in order to keep track of the tropical year, then you really don't need huge stone megaliths dragged in from distant quarries at great effort. All you need are some simple reference markings of horizon alignments and/or shadow alignments, and wooden poles would do the job just as well as multi-ton boulders.  Furthermore Stonehenege was erected long before the introduction of writing into that area of the world, and the idea of "navigational tables" is rather preposterous.  Observing the sun could be correlated with the agricultural calendar, but such correlations would not likely have been expressed as a "table" in the sense in which you have in mind. AnonMoos 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What you may need huge stone megaliths dragged from distant quarries to accomplish is a permanent reference not easily destroyed by opposing tribes. Any culture capable of Stonehenge and its exact alignments would need some form of record keeping whether it is called writing or not. ...IMHO (Talk) 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There theoretically might have been tally-marks galore (on notched sticks or knotted cords or whatever), but it's indisputable that there was no linguistic writing system whatever. AnonMoos 12:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is pretty indisputable that massive stones is not the best way to do simple astronomy if that is all you are trying to do with it. However if you are also making it a religious ceremony (and why not? is not simple astronomy an understanding of the sun, that life-giver in the sky, that which predicts the changes in the seasons and can mean the difference between life and death in an agricultural economy? is prediction not just a hop-and-a-skip from divination?), then it makes a bit more sense. I think it is probably highly likely that the same culture that made stonehenge had other ways of keeping track of what season it was, however probably none so permanent to be found by us today. And I don't know why you would assume writing is necessary to do astronomy; you know where things align because you know the sky, and you know the sky because there is nothing else to look at in the evening. --Fastfission 04:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but you might get tired of telling the next generation about the exact same thing over and over again if you did not have a permanent reference or you might want a permanent reference so that distant future generations could tell if there had been any change (which BTW has allowed us to date Stonehenge more accurately). I'm looking for ulterior not superficial motive. After all look at how youngsters worship the features and beauty of vehicles yet their ulterior motive for having one is to get from point A to point B. ...IMHO (Talk) 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any insights into gulls' opinions of humans?
I'm asking this here, instead of the science desk in an attempt to avoid "gulls don't have opinions - they're just hard-wired organic automatons"-type answers.

Anyway, I watch the gulls and the gulls watch me. I often wonder what the gulls think of me and the other members of my species as we go about our daily lives. Instinct must the gulls that humans are potential predators and something to be fearful of - yet experience tells the gulls that humans will provide them with free food and free nesting space, seemingly as a selfless act. It must be confusing for them. Unlike other urban birds such as pigeons, urban gulls still retain their fear of man. A gull will never allow a human to directly approach it, yet will happily feed alongside man. My experience of a small group of local gulls has led me to conclude that these particular gulls understand the concept of 'house' (they will come to my back door and tap on my windows to attract my attention) and the 'bipedal creature that dwells within the house' (they will come close to me to feed but are still fearful in the presence of other humans).

So, does anyone have any theories as to the 'mindset' of an urban gull and it's view on people? --Kurt Shaped Box 19:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gulls, like most other animals have neural network type brain but also have some hardwired behaviors. My experience is that they are opportunists and as for training they are not much different than any othe animal when it comes to free food. Even people can be trained to do certain things for food that is free. A word of advice though... Gulls do not like to wear diapers no matter how much food you give them for free so feeding them in your back yard might be okay but please not at the beach. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They probably understand us as a wonderful source of free food. Battle Ape 05:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, don't you think that the gulls see a contradiction in a large, unpredictable predator (one known to eat birds and eggs and with strange, unknown and probably very frightning-to-them technology) deliberately choosing to provide them with food? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's how religions start! Give them a few million years and they'll be building temples and praying to us. ;) --84.68.58.166 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So they recognise you personally? That's interresting. Does it matter what clothes you wear? I've wondered how dogs feel about their boss looking different every day. Now dogs use smell more than sight, but for a bird of prey that would be the other way around.
 * It is not uncommon for animals of different species to cooperate in some way. It is unusual that humans expect nothing in return for the food, but that probably doesn't worry the gulls. DirkvdM 07:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The one thing that I enjoyed about Finding Nemo was its version of what gulls would say, if they spoke: "Mine! Mine! Mine? Mine! Mine!" Geogre 11:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's funny because it's true! Everything that a gull sees belongs to him/her. Woe betide another gull that has the audacity to believe the same. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, whatever I'm wearing at the time, they know it's me. When I open my back door, the gulls will back off so that they'd be just out of range if I were to attempt a full-length dive-and-grab with arms outstretched - but they'll happily feed when I'm present. If any of my friends disturb them, or an unexpected person opens the door when they're on the back step, they're gone in a flash. Considering that gulls seem to be capable of easily recognising individual members of their own species (IIRC, through subtle facial/beak differences) and their own offspring (through the unique patterning of each chick's plumage), it doesn't seem like much of a leap for them to differentiate between individual humans (after all, we show much more variation as a species than gulls do). They have much better eyesight than humans too. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Reasonably I would have thought it was the same as a human's opinions of each other, or indeed of gulls: the opinion would be made on first impressions and would not be fixed for the entire species.  Gulls appear to us to be nice, nasty, greedy, territorial, &c.  Although we assume they work mainly on instinct, it is not logical to assume they view things in any other way.  Have you tried to make friends with one by offering it tasty treats?  --russ 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gulls probably just think we're odd-shaped magpies and react accordingly. Grutness...wha?  04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs of Socrates
In many of the accounts of the teachings and words of Socrates, in his speeches regarding religion, the vocabulary seems to vary between speaking of "the gods" (apparently referring to the mythological pagan gods of ancient Greece) as well as a singular "God".

I'm aware that there exists practically no first hand accounts of what Socrates indeed said, but rather his teachings are presented and elaborated upon by many of his students, most importantly Plato.

Of course, having died in 399BC, it would be chronologically impossible for him to have been influenced by Christianity, and, though Judaism existed as a monotheistic religion at the time, it would be EXTREMELY doubtful that he was at all interested in that religion.

Yet the fact remains that Socrates often seems to have spoken of one "God" on more than several occasions. What did he mean by this? Loomis 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do believe when he speaks of the singular God, it meant Zeus. Political Mind 22:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mostly a result of the translation. To my knowledge, there is no doubt that Socrates was a polytheist. - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that Socrates ascribed to the pagan Greek "religion" of the times. He was surely an independant thinker, and one of the most intelligent men of his time. In fact his beliefs (in general) were regarded as "corrupt", which led to his final death sentence.

Socrates introduced many philosophies concerning spirituality and religion that are useful to this day. I therefore find myslelf with at least some doubt that his religious beliefs were identical to the relatively backward pagan Greek beliefs of the time.

As well, I've done a good deal of studying of the ancient Greek religion and all the gods it involved. Through it all, I've never heard of the chief Greek god Zeus being referred to in the singular and simply as "God". Rather, whenever Zeus is mentioned, he is mentioned by name. I'm therefore still unsure of what Socrates meant when he refered to the singular "God".

I don't fully discount the concept that Socrates may have been something of a self-styled "monotheist", in at least a partial sense. Perhaps Socrates had entertained thoughts of monotheism independent of any organized monotheistic religion? Is that at least a possibility?

Then again, I could be completely wrong and any reference to a singular "God" was merely the result of an error in translation, and perhaps even an intentional fabrication to persuade early Christian Greeks that one of their greatest philosophers had indeed contemplated monotheism. Loomis 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Socrates was a really smart guy, so he must have known that all the "gods" revered by the Greeks were not the real deal, and that there is a "God" beyond the realm of human-created myth and legends. Akhenaten and others had the same realisation. Whatever names they may have used, they were all talking about the same unique entity.  JackofOz 23:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally folks ascribe the "God" to Plato, who did believe in a single creator. See demiurge.  Plato, in Timaeus, has Socrates arguing that there simply must be, logically, a perfect point of zero movement and full completion (essence, perfection).  This divine -- the God -- would never create anything, however, because creation requires a need, and this perfect point could not need anything and yet be perfect.  Therefore, a demi-urge, a thing between the perfect and the uppermost area of the empyrean, did the creating.  It is nearly perfect, but it desires.  Most people treat this monotheism as Plato's, but, then again, few people really speak of knowing Socrates's thought because Plato is so much of an intrusion.  So the short answer is, yes, you're reading properly: Socrates in Plato is a monotheist, and you're also correct that this single deity is totally unlike the Abrahamic God.  Geogre 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Samus Aran
why is she named "Samus Aran"? I heard the "Aran" part was code for "aryan" with the blonde hair and all but I doubt it....anybody know the real origin?
 * As Samus was originally a brunette/green haired in the original Metroid (the blonde hair was a retcon), I doubt that would be the case. As to "why", there's no reason, at least none that creator Gunpei Yokoi gave, and unfortunately he's passed on.  --ColourBurst 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In the original game she had green hair (check it out), so I doubt that can be it. My bet is that it has some sort of connotation in Japanese that it doesn't when rendered in English, but I have really no idea. --Fastfission 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My admittedly small Japanese dictionary gives "cold weather" for "samusa" and nothing for "aran" or similar. Google combined with my mediocre Japanese doesn't give much help either. It still may be something obscure in Japanese, or it could just be made up. --George 05:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case may be, it is still a cool name. --Proficient 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)