Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 21

= April 21 =

Original (or oldest Latin copy) of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus
Who now physically has the original Latin version of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus written by Jerome himself? --Doug talk 23:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No autograph exists. --Wetman 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Who then would have the oldest know Latin copy? When was this copy made and by whom (if known)? --Doug talk 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am asking this question is because if there is no actual original autograph for a reference, then how would one know that it actually came frm the 5th Century. Maybe it came from the fourteenth centurty or fifteenth century or some century several hundred years later than the 4th - 5th Century when Jerome is said to lived.--Doug talk 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The style of the Latin might be a clue. Presumably other authors referred to it in the intervening centuries as well. And how could Sophronius translate it into Greek, and Gennadius write a continuation, if it did not exist in the 5th century? There must be a critical scholarly edition somewhere, which will discuss the manuscript tradition. Adam Bishop 06:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian Dosas and French crepes
I'm having an argument with a friend of mine. Which came first, the Indian Dosa or the French Crepe? I want to say Dosa because it's a staple South Indian food and because European cultures have been known for filching ideas from Asia, but maybe that's just my prejiduce speaking (I'm Indian).. Royrules22 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's far, far, far more likely that both are original to their home areas. Some forms of food are universal, and flatbreads are one of them. You'll find flatbreads in almost every part of the ancient world, from Rome to Ethiopia to pre-Columbian Mexico to Lebanon to Siberia to Alaska. To assume that all these breads had to come from one origin ignores not just human ingenuity but the fact that given some flour or crushed grain as an ingredient, one of the easiest and most (dare I say it) obvious things to make would be some kind of flat bread. Also, it's thought that the current French version of crepes comes from rural Brittany, and is dated to centuries before Marco Polo. -- Charlene 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On the Flatbread Trail might interest you. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What does "Rememver the Alamo" mean?68.188.29.176 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It means Remember the Alamo! Part of the Texas Revolution, the sacrifice of William Travis, Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and the other defenders of the Alamo Mission against the Mexican forces of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in March 1836, was to be used the following month as a warcry in spurring on the Texan forces of General Sam Houston to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. It has been used as a warcry ever since. Clio the Muse 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see someone's been watching "Jaywalking". --Anon, April 21, 05:28 (UTC).


 * Excuse me? I genuinely do not understand this reference!  Clio the Muse 05:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably Jay Leno recently asked this question on the streets of Burbank (or wherever he happened to be visiting) and received outrageous answers. Maybe Anon and 68.188.29.176 were watching the same program a few hours ago. ---Sluzzelin talk  05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a culturally deprived Englishwoman I have to plead total ignorance of Jay Leno and all his works! Clio the Muse 05:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ozzy Osbourn wee-ed on it.hotclaws**== 14:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ha!Whistleblower1881 11:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ha??? Clios ignorance about Jay Leno is understandable. The ignorance of US citizens about the Alamo is a shame (which Jaywalking showed again). Flamarande 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That fact that this surprises you is a shame too.Whistleblower1881 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The ignorance showed in Jaywalking is indeed surprising. I really pray that they show only the truly ignorant, and don't show the 'plenty of ppl' (?) who do know the correct answers. I am always surprised by the extent of American ignorance. Flamarande 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they only show stupid people on that segment (Street Smarts is another show that does the same). To see intelligent Americans, watch a few episodes of Jeopardy!. StuRat 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the selection criteria for appearing on Jeopardy! are unquestionably more rigorous than those applied in the other examples [namely, little more than: 1) a pulse; and 2) the abitlity to speak semi-coherent English into a camera on the public streets.] Make of that what you will. dr.ef.tymac 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas, another illusion shattered! From this side of the pond one tends to form the impression that certain events and people, like the Alamo and Davy Crockett, have such an iconic status in the American mind that they achieve almost total cultural penetration. Clearly, this is not the case. I now expect to discover that many people in the States have never heard of Robert E. Lee, the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Billy the Kid and the Gunfight at the OK Corral! How will I ever cope? Clio the Muse 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Somehow I doubt if the average British soccer hooligan knows much about the Battle of Trafalgar, either. StuRat 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that in both cases the people we're talking about will have heard of these people and things, but wouldn't be able to say much about them. But this, too, is just a personal impression. --Anonymous, April 22, 2022, 20:22 (UTC). Er, make that 2007.


 * That's football hooligan thanks StuRat! I also don't know if the average hooligan is that ignorant, compared to the general population, especially as they often take an interest in matters of national pride. I'll have to ask one.

Virtue theory
I am looking for some good articles which explain how the Virtue theory of moral reasoning explains why we shouldnt kill innocent people, like civilains in war. Does anyone know of any good articles, or could explain this approach for me?

Thank you


 * You should start with Ethics, proceeding to Virtue ethics, then moving on to a List of ethics topics, with enough page links to keep you going for quite a while! It would be surprising if you did not find a few clues and leads to your specific area of interest.  Come back here if you don't.  Clio the Muse 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For a readable scientific approach, I recommend the book The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * War is inherently immoral, I believe. However, if I was to take a skeptical stance, I'd explore the words "innocent civilians" from an epistemological aspect. You might also want to read The Old Testament for Collective Responsibilty. Perhaps even Section I, Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention might be of use; if that does not dissuade you from what you're about to commit, then god help us.Whistleblower1881 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "War is inherently imoral" is another bit of political correctness. Several wars are morally defendable (war against enemy invasion, etc). The moral validity of the Old Testament which defends the lapidation of sinners, besides other morally questionable actions (an eye for an eye...), is puzzeling these days. In fact a certain Jew re-appealed most of the these teachings. The original questioner did not announce that he was going to kill innocents, only that he was looking for good articles. If the search for knowledge is something which your god should protects us against, then you should better organize some good old-fashioned bookburning. Flamarande 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like kittens. ^_^ Whistleblower1881 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some reasons for opposing the killing of civilians in war apply even to people with no morality:

1) If you kill enemy civilians when you capture enemy territory, this results in them arming themselves and "fighting to the death" rather than surrender and be killed.

2) If you kill enemy civilians, they will likely target yours, which can bring down your government, if your civilian population is sufficiently angered at you for starting this cycle.

3) Other nations may withdraw support for your side or support your enemies, if you target civilians.

4) After the war, you may be tried for war crimes. StuRat 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 5) Killing of civilians and unarmed non-combatants can tend to "humanize" the enemy and generate sympathy among those who might otherwise support an ongoing military operation. Such support may be important for governments that are not openly despotic and depend on a certain degree of communitarian assent to legitemize its actions. dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What is 'virtue theory' exactly?

Also: "Virtue itself is offensive" - Nietzsche. Vranak


 * Nice quote their Vranak! Here are some more reasons:


 * 6) You risk alienating members of your own military who may have relatives among the civilian population.


 * 7) If you kill civilians when you are the invader, it will make rebuilding the country after the war that much more difficult.


 * 8) It may raise the number of veterans who suffer from Post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental disorders after their discharge.


 * I understand the Nazis suffered from this in the early stages of the "final solution", when they were just shooting people up close. That's one of the reasons they went to the "impersonal" gas chambers and such. StuRat 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 9) If the leaders of the war are religious (which I’m not), it may cause them to fear that they’ll go to hell or other similarly nasty fates depending on their faith.


 * 10) If the invading country is run in a democratic way, killing civilians may cause the congress or parliament to cut off funding for the war out of disgust. S.dedalus 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One more: people are a function of geography. If you wipe out a people and live on their land, you will become that people over time. Vranak


 * Sounds like you read the same story I did: the Russians nuked the US, the Americans used neutron bombs on Russia, then the surviving Americans moved to Russia, due to it's intact infrastructure, and ultimate became Russians. Anyone recall the name ? StuRat 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that why Americans eat so much corn/maize? (ever more off topic, sorry) Pfly 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct usage of titles JD and Esquire
After graduating from law school but before taking the bar is "JD" the only correct title or is "Esquire" acceptable? Can "Esquire" be used before passing the bar? Thank you for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurel26 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
 * "Esquire" is somewhat meaningless. It is used by convention for lawyers, but I do not believe very many books of protocol include it as a hard and fast necessity.  The term actually means, essentially, "horsed knight."  Well, few lawyers ride their horses, and fewer still are any use in a cavalry unit.  Formerly, the term would be used by land-holding men in general, but it has never had a very precise reference.  Geogre 20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the U.S.,at least, many women receive the J.D., but by traditional standards could not be a squire to a knight, hence would not qualify for "esquire." Edison 04:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Name that American war? (1891)


Hi all, trying to research this solider in my family tree, but can't figure out what war he would have fought in. We know that Thomas Daly was born in Canada, moved to the Arizona Territory.

Whatever war he was in, his regiment of the H Troop 1st US Calvary apparently had many ex-Canadians in it. As far as we know he died as a result of the war, and his wife was presented with a four-layer plate.

Her name was Margaret McCray/McRay in some of the later documents we have, but the spelling could have even been MacCrae, for all we know.

So my question, what war would this be? The list of wars that Wikipedia has claims there were no US-involved battles during that year. There's two H Troop soldiers with his name in another regiment in the Civil War, and 80 Thomas Dalys total in the war, but that's way before the presentation of the plate. -- Zanimum 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I'm seeing now that 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) has a history on Wikipedia.


 * In April, 1890, the Cheyennes assumed a threatening attitude and their agent called upon the commanding officer of Fort Custer for protection, who sent Major Carrol with Troops B, D and M to the Tongue River Agency where they established Camp Crook. In September a white boy was murdered by "Head Chief" and "Young Mule," and every attempt to arrest the murderers failed. On the 11th they sent word that they would attack the agency and on the 12th made their appearance on a hill commanding the agency buildings where they opened fire upon them. They were soon dislodged and killed.

The regiment took part in the operations against the hostile Sioux in the winter of 1890-91, but was not brought into actual contact with them.

In December, 1890, word having been received that a troop of cavalry was surrounded by hostile Indians at or near Cave Hills, Montana, Troop A made one of the most remarkable marches on record in going to its relief. It marched 186 miles, 95 of which were made in 25 hours, and 170 in 53½ hours. The report which caused such tremendous exertion proved to be without foundation.


 * Is there a list anywhere with casualties during this era? --  Zanimum 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only fight i've found which the First Cavalry was involved in around this time was in late 1890, when two Cheyenne challenged an entire troop commanded by a Lieutenant John Pitcher at Lame Deer, Montana. Both Cheyenne, Heart Mule and Head Chief, were killed, and there is no mention of any army casualties.&mdash;eric 22:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your next step, if you haven't already done so, is to check for Daly's military records in the U.S. National Archives. If your information is correct, his wife almost certainly filed for a pension, and her application probably still exists. For a nominal fee (last time I checked), the National Archives will copy it for you. She will likely have stated the circumstances of her husband's death on the application. You have a reasonable amount of information to go on: name, widow's name, unit, approximate years of service (c. 1891), so my bet is you'll have no trouble. Information about ordering records from the National Archives can easily be found online.

If you don't do that, many larger libraries in the U.S. will have a genealogy section which would be of use, and have books like Index to Indian wars pension files, 1892-1926, transcribed by Virgil D. White, which cuts it close on years but might work. Good luck. —Kevin Myers 00:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most larger Mormon churches have at least one genealogical library in their stake, and if that particular library doesn't have the White book in question, they can order it from another Mormon library. The Mormon genealogical libraries are open to all researchers, Mormon or not.  Corvus cornix 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

utility
I'm a bit confused with something i have been reading about utilitarianism. I have read an arguement in a journal which suggests that Bentham does not distinguish between the intensity of pleasures felt individuals, he treats them all as the same. It gives the examples that he attributes the same pleasure which a pig derives enjoying slop, with the pleasure a philosopher get from contemplation of truth.

I was just wondering have I interpreted this arguement right, because I know Bentham developed the felicific calculus, which proposed to take into account intensity, duration etc

Can, and if so how can i reconcile these two??

Was the felicific calculus proposed after the original utilitarianism was propsed by Bentham?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.108.247 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I assume you have read the Felicific calculus and Jeremy Bentham? If the calculus cannot accurately measure degrees of human happiness, I fail to see how it can possibly be used in determining the levels of satisfaction in a pig!  And I would thought that a philosopher is just as likely to feel more pain than pleasure in the contemplation of 'truth.' For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. (Ecclesiastes 1:18) Clio the Muse 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this isn't a matter of intensity. I believe you're getting confused between John Stuart Mill's concept of pleasure "quality". He's the one that said "Socrates dissatisfied is better than a pig satisfied". Also Clio; Ecc 1:18, you're taking it out of context. Jesus is talking about how "wisdom" is meaningless when it comes to salvation. (All the knowledge in the world means nothing if you don't have faith in Jesus). --Kirby♥time 00:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these observations, Kirby. Am I missing something here, because you have left me quite baffled?  First of all, the quote from Ecclesiastes-in the King James version of the Bible-was meant to illustrate my point that the philosopher's contemplation of truth does not necessarily lead to pleasure; quite the contrary.  The quote, moreover, is the entirety of Ecclesiastes, Chapter one, Verse eighteen, so I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that I am 'taking it out of context'.  But the part that puzzles me most is the reference to Jesus!  Ecclesiastes is, of course, a book of aphorisms and maxims to be found in the Old Testament, by an author who only ever identifies himself as the 'son of David.'  The chief emphasis is on the vanity and transience of earthly things, not on routes to salvation.  Clio the Muse 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, major blunder. I got confused with Ephesians. I'll be off to sitting in the corner with a dunce cap now.--Kirby♥time 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. Now I know I'm not going crazy!  Come back: all is forgiven.  Clio the Muse 01:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A second chance is more powerful than a first one. I am humbled.--Kirby♥time 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ... how could such a lovely example of reconciliation and unity have issued from the Mouth of Sauron? dr.ef.tymac 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All is possible in the mind of the Dark Queen! Clio the Muse 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, was there a cleaving¹ or a cleaving²? I dare say perhaps, the solo bird belies the insinuation.--Kirby♥time 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is Mill referring to when he means quaity? Surely if Bentham allows intensity, duration etc to be taken into account then this is quality. Would i be right in thinking the quality arguement runs a bit like this; Mill and Betham fail to differentiate between the pleasures and pains of animals for example and humans. Humans of course need more to make them happy than a pig??

What are the consequences of such an action?? Could I for example claim that individuals are not respected, and are being used purely as a means to achieve the greatest happiness? For if they were respected, and utilitarianism recognised there were different qualities of pleasure, they would be acknowledged in their own right??


 * I'm torn between admiring your determination to get to the bottom of a problem, to deepen and extend your understanding, on the one hand, and concerns at the speed with which you seem to be attacking this, which cannot allow you sufficient time to pause and think about the detailed information and guidance you have already been given, on the other. Please do not concern yourself about the pleasures and pains of animals.  Bentham does argue against animal cruelty, though neither he nor Mill attempt to draw them into the Utilitarian calculus in any meaningful sense.  It is difficult enough to determine the pleasure and pain principle in human beings; it is impossible to do so in pigs.


 * Mm, why? Vranak


 * Try to conceive of Utilitarianism as a guide, at the most basic level, to practical ethics, an attempt to build a code of moral values on the greatest happiness of the greatest number. But, as I have already said now ad nauseum, how is this to be measured and calculated, on what basis are we to accept some 'goods' and reject others?  Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are higher than the satisfaction of mere physical pleasures, that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; but Socrates is a rarity, and fools are common.  Socrates satisfied might require the dissatisfaction of a hundred fools, which would seem to turn the whole Utilitarian calculus upside down; unless the intensity of Socrates' satisfaction somehow outweighed the unhappiness of the fools; and how does one begin to measure that?  If you read Utilitarianism, even if you just read the page on John Stuart Mill, which I assume you have (?), you will see that, in his view, high art is better than simple pleasures, that opera is to be preferred to hopscotch.  But this is an arbitrary, and culturally specific, value judgement.  If one starts to draw arbitary classifications between the levels of satisfaction obtained by the 'higher' and the 'lower' in any given social order, one might as well make a similar distinction between cultures and nations; that the satisfaction of an American professor is much to be prefered over the dissatisfaction of an African peasant.


 * The whole problem with Utilitarianism as a system of values is that it is deeply rooted in the mindset of the English middle classes during the high noon of the Industrial Revolution. It has, as Karl Marx  rightly observed in Das Kapital, no real historical dynamism, that it cannot transcend time and place, and it cannot account for changing values and needs.  The perfect Benthamite might very well be said to be the figure of Thomas Gradgrind in Charles Dicken's novel Hard Times, relentless in his demand for facts, and only facts.  And I can think of no more damming critiqe than that penned by Nietzsche-If we have our own why in life, we shall get along with almost any how.  Man does not strive for pleasure; only the Englishman does.  This, in my view, might very well serve as an epitaph for the whole Utilitarian movement!  Clio the Muse 11:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)