Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 16

= January 16 =

Quote's author?
“Individuals have the power to control their own thoughts and actions, and therefore to form their own character by their choices”

I can't seem to find who said this. Can anyone help?

Perfect Proposal  00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Google finds nothing. What makes you think it is a famous quote? Where did you hear it? It is basically a definition of free will. --Tango (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * More succinctly: “A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.” — Mahatma Gandhi Vranak (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's so succinct, it's missing some non-negotiable punctuation; as it stands, it makes absolutely no sense. How about "A man is but the product of his thoughts.  What he thinks, he becomes".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a semicolon. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As well you might. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Taken to its extreme: I think, therefore I am. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, "Cogito ergo sum" attributed to René Descartes is baseline individual Existentialism that is unlike the OP's quotation because it does not declare empowering Free will for all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a different quote, which states "Watch your thoughts, they become words; watch your words, they become actions; watch your actions, they become habits; watch your habits, they become character; watch your character, they become your destiny". The author of the quote is unknown. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we found out what his destiny was, yes? To be Ann Nonymous. I've heard a shorter version of somewhat the same idea: "Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does presentism imply nihilism?
Nothing you do will pay off until the future. According to presentism, the future doesn't exist. Doesn't that mean nothing will ever pay off, and thus nothing's worth doing? — DanielLC 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The New Testament verses Matthew 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-34 don't seem to me to be part of a nihilist philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't seem to me to be part of any presentism philosophy. They look like they're just saying that if you do what God wants you to do, he'll make sure you'll have what you need. — DanielLC 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you read the first sentence of the Presentism article again, you will notice that it says nothing about the future, only that future things are unreal, that is to say, they cannot causally interact with present, real things. This description of presentism in fact supposes a future. There is nothing in presentism that would prevent us from considering future things that are more or less likely to come into being through our actions. Further, one could argue that a presentist nihilism such as you outline would be as impossible to actually live by as determinist nihilism, which has been around since antiquity as the "lazy paradox" (since everything is determined anyway, why bother?)--Rallette (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Future events can causally interact with the present. Events in the present cause them. Similarly, events in the past cause events in the present. It's only causal one way, but unless we discover time-travel, all events are. — DanielLC 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The present moment is always moving into the direction of the future. Presentism therefore appears very nearsighted. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have confused nihilism with pessimism. Nihilism denies the existence of fixed values. Pessimism sits on its hands because it can see nothing worth doing. As to your question, I find 'presentism' to be a rather flaccid neologism and so have little to say about it. If the present truly is the only thing that exists then we don't need a term to remind us of that fact. It is an inherently vacuous term. Vranak (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nihilism just means not accepting some meaningful aspect of life. It seems that what I'm talking about would be a form of nihilism. Mostly I used that because I didn't have a better word. What you describe sounds like moral relativism. Philosophical pessimism just seems to be the belief that life isn't generally worth living. It would still be worth while to improve it or get rid of it. Presentism is the belief that the present is the only thing that exists. We use the word to distinguish people who believe that to people that don't. — DanielLC 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be your understanding of the term but I believe it to be in error. How for instance can you deny that which is meaningful? If it is meaningful it cannot be denied. Instead, nihilism is a mode of thought that suggests that contemporary values do not ring true to your experiences. It is in no way a denial of life, but rather a denial of the prevailing interpretation of life -- usually Christian in nature. Vranak (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to come back so late with a quibble, but then where's the fun in philosophy if not in nitpicking? In my book, interaction is by definition reciprocal, and your point about time travel notwithstanding, two-way causation over time is possible in turns: thing A can act upon thing B and B then act back on A. Assuming the persistence of identity over time. What I meant in my original response was therefore just what you said: future things cannot cause events in the present, and nothing can cause events in the past.--91.153.151.52 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If thing A now is the same is thing A in the future, then you can't have one be real and the other not be. If they're not the same, than past A acting on present B and present B acting on future A isn't two-way causation. Also, I get the impression that presentism is philisophical in nature, rather than semantic. You make it sound like the only difference between presentism and eternalism is the definition of the word "reality". — DanielLC 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

William Penn and Indian languages
What language or languages did William Penn learn to speak from the Native Americans, and is there any information other than that below regarding William Penn and Indian languages (when he learned them, how, writings by him about them...)?

"Their language is lofty, yet narrow; but, like the Hebrew in signification, full. Like short-hand in writing, one word serveth in the place of three, and the rest are supplied by the understanding of the hearer, imperfect in their tenses, wanting in their moods, participles, adverbs, conjunctions, interjections. I have made it my business to understand it, that I might not want an interpreter on any occasion; and I must say that I know not a language spoken in Europe, that hath words of more sweetness or greatness, in accent and emphasis, than theirs: for instance, Octocockon, Rancocas, Oricton, Shak, Marian, Poquesian, all which are names of places, and have grandeur in them. Of words of sweetness, anna is mother, issimus, a brother; neteap, friend; usqueoret, very good; pane, bread; metsa, eat; matta, no; hatta, to have; payo, to come; Sepasen, Passijon, the names of places; Tamane, Secane, Menanse, Secatareus, are the names of persons. If one ask them for any thing they have not, they will answer, matta ne hatta (given here as "matter ne hatta"), which, to translate, is 'Not I have' instead of, 'I have not.'" (source: http://www.ushistory.org/penn/penn_journey.htm) Thanks. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know which language it was, but it would seem probable that a language spoken in south-eastern Pennsylvania would be either Algonquian or Iroquoian... AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From information here it seems these are words and names from the Unami language. The place names mostly refer to locations in what is now Bucks County, Pennsylvania.--Cam (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jagrata and Vyala motifs in Indian Art
Are the motifs Jagrata, Vyala, Gajabidala and Gajasimha in Indian Art the same? If not what is the difference between them ? Is there any on-line source which explains these motifs? 220.227.207.32 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find a differing definitions each place i look, it's all very confusing. Gajabidala (elephant-cat) and Gajasimha (elephant-lion) seem fairly clear. Most authors use jagrata to mean a lion or lion-like figure, but it could be a particular depiction as in this tenth century work on temple architecture. Also:
 * viraja a standing lion looking backwards
 * jagrata a fierce standing lion, a roaring lion, or a seated lion w/ one paw raised
 * udyata a seated lion, or a jumping lion
 * gajakranta a lion stepping on or attacking an elephant
 * Vyala is the most difficult. Again, some use it as a lion or lion-like figure, but i've also seen: a fierce animal, a monster, a beast with the body of a lion and various different heads, or any type of hybrid creature. Some give yali as a synonym, others vyalaka. When authors mention a specific depiction, it's often a horned lion, usually goat horns. Maybe it's a regional thing, or different periods or dialects; but the best definition i can give for all of 'em (after quite a few searches) is: most likely some kind of lion.&mdash;eric 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for providing that reference. Britanica also defines vyala as a "popular motif in Indian art, consisting of a composite leonine creature with the head of a tiger, elephant, bird, or other animal, frequently shown in combat with humans or pouncing upon an elephant."  Jagrata seems to be a similar animal with a rider(warrior).  But is this really a bidala (rat)? 220.227.207.32 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chaucer's words
Chaucer is recorded as the first author to use many common English words in his writings. These words were probably frequently used in the language at the time of Chaucer. Some of those he introduced were acceptable, alkali, altercation, amble, angrily, annex, annoyance, approaching, arbitration, armless, army, arrogant, arsenic, arc, artillery and aspect. Is there someplace a list of all the words he introduced?--LordGorval (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some are here. It says there are some 2004 of them, so listing them all is no easy task. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.]


 * Just to point out that he didn't "introduce" them. As you say, and as it says in the article, they were already in frequent use in spoken English. Book printing was still very much in its infancy.--Shantavira|feed me 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...in Chaucer's time? not even in the womb.--Wetman (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So perhaps there is a way to derive these Chaucer words from the Oxford English Dictionary by filtering using "Chaucer" online or offline?--LordGorval (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had that thought, and tried OED Online (I have free access with my council library card), but couldn't see a way to search the citations. DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can do this on the online OED, choose advanced search and search for Chaucer as "first cited author". This incidentally lists only 1977 words so it seems scholarship has found earlier citations for a few words. This figure is related to senses of words though, the verb herald is first recorded in Chaucer but the noun is earlier.  meltBanana  15:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks MeltBanana, very helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might try: Mersand, J. E. (1939). Chaucer's Romance Vocabulary. "Tabulates the words Chaucer derived from the Romance languages, comparing his usage to that of his contemporaries, and generalizing about Chaucer's language, the chronology of his works, and his contributions to the development of English. Chaucer's vocabulary included about eight thousand words, about half of which are of Romance origin, nearly twice the percentage found in John Gower's English verse, and three times the percentage in Mandeville's Travels. Chaucer's use of Romance vocabulary parallels the 'accepted chronology of his works': his use of such words increased steadily until late in his career when he began to abandon them, perhaps because he fell out of favor with the Gallic court. Appends various tables, including a list of Romance words introduced by Chaucer into English."or another work from this bibliography.&mdash;eric 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Neuchâtel
When did the rulers of Neuchâtel became Princes because they were counts before that? Also what was the exact date when Frederick William IV of Prussia renounced his claim to the Principality of Neuchâtel.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1531 says Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911. but in effect the County of Neuchâtel was ruled by a Prince. At the treaty of Vervins, 2 May 1598, the Comté de Neuchâtel participated as fully sovereign, along with the Louables Cantons of Switzerland. At the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Munster (part of the Treaty of Westphalia), Henri II d'Orléans, duc de Longueville, is invariably qualified Prince et comte souverain de Neuchâtel. (I get this from Googling Jonas Boyve, Annales historiques du Comté de Neuchâtel et Valangin depuis Jules-César ..., vol. ii, ch. ch. xv "De l'interrégne de 1707"): he is prince in his personalty and count of Neuchâtel. The county had first passed by inheritance to the princes Orléans-Longueville in 1504, but the Swiss cantons occupied Neuchâtel, 1512-1529, because Longueville was fighting on the French side against the cantons. The successful partisans in 1707 for the rights of Prussia through his mother, asserted to the contrary that feudal overlords were not the HRE but the house of Châlon-Orange, whose right passed, according to a marriage of 1515, to the allied house of Châlon-Orange, in 1530, the same year the Reformation was introduced at Neuchâtel.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that have made the Prince a "count palatine"? In England and Germany (as "Pfalzgraf") these refered to sovereign counts, or at least counts (or earls) with some sort of autonomy from the Crown. Perhaps a similar term existed in the francophone world as well?  -- Jayron  32  01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * France didn't really have palatinates. There was the County of Burgundy but that was more associated with the Empire than France. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except Neuchâtel is in Switzerland, so was also imperial. The HRE contained francophone areas as well as German and Italian ones as well.  By the late 16th century, the Swiss Confederation had withdrawn from Imperial control, so I have no idea how it treated counties palatine.  -- Jayron  32  05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's true. Sorry, I was apparenly not paying attention... Adam Bishop (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who did Nixon shove?
The episode "Access" of TV show The West Wing contains a mocumentary about the history of the White House Press Secretary's job; this contains a montage of real historical footage of various presidents and their secretaries and their interactions with the press. One very brief clip shows Richard Nixon (at around 0:05.15 into the show). In it Nixon is seen talking to a suited man, jabbing the man in the shoulder with his finger. Then Nixon grabs the man by both upper arms, spins him around, and pushes him away. It doesn't look like horseplay. I guess a president shoving someone like this would be a newsworthy event - can anyone tell me who the man was (I'm guessing a reporter) and what happened? A grab of the (grainy) footage is here (none of the other frames shown in the show are any clearer). The only thing I've found in Google is this thing about Nixon shoving an FBI agent, but that brief description doesn't match the outdoor setting of the clip. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was his press secretary, Ron Ziegler. There was somewhat of a deal made of it at the time, but not too much of one, since Ziegler was Nixon's own employee. As I recall, it was seen more in a humorous light than anything. Unlike some other former press secretaries since, he did not write a book criticizing his former boss. In fact, he was a Nixon loyalist to the end. I looked for a youtube of that incident, but couldn't find one. Ziegler was the voice of some of the more famous sound bites connected with the Watergate scandal, including the term "third-rate burglary". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It happened on August 20, 1973 outside the Rivergate Convention Center in New Orleans where Nixon was going to address the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.--Cam (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good researching! Funny that the OP had the answer in his first sentence all along!  TresÁrboles (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neglected estate in England
Some years ago I saw a documentary about an estate of several houses somewhere in England or at least Britain. The houses had been left empty for many years. The administrator sold a house off every few years to pay costs, but argued that he could not do anything more constructive. The owners - I assume by inheritence - were traced to a trailer park in the US, where they refused to have anything to do with the estate, I assume for extreme religious or ethical reasons. Does anyone know where I can find out more about this? Thanks 89.243.76.202 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Erddig in the north of Wales? The Wikipedia article gives no hint of its ruinous state in the 1960s, its heir from Australia and how it was eventually passed to the National Trust, with a happy ending. --Wetman (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP says "houses", plural, so I guess it is more of an estate is the sense of a housing estate than in the sense of a stately home and its grounds (although the latter do often have other houses on the grounds, so it is possible). --Tango (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference between a "house in the country"— however stately its style— and a country house is that the genuine "estate" includes the home farm and other farms round about. An estate in this only genuine sense supports a house through the produce of its multiple farms. Sell off too many bits round the edges, each with their houses or cottages, and you're left with a white elephant no one wants to cross oceans to be saddled with. --Wetman (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be an estate (house). BrainyBabe (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view a misnamed article, as I said on its Talk page a week ago. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've completed the formal WP:RM procedure, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moonraker2 is correct.--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant estate in the sense of land ownership and the estate of the deceased. I do not think it was a large country house, although I might not have seen the whole documentary. It was not a housing estate, but several detached houses in the countryside or perhaps semi-rural suburbs. It was more recent than the 1960s, probably 1990's or perhaps early 2000's. 78.147.229.52 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that clarification. I've tried some googling for it, but no luck. We haven't enough information to find it, really, unless someone happens to recognise the story and can provide more details. Sorry. --Tango (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is what you're looking for - Haploidavey (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is the chap mentioned by the Torygraph - John Paget Figg-Hoblyn. DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, WP:WHAAOE strikes again! --Tango (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bull's eye!--Wetman (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an estate in the country house, sense, but otherwise fits perfectly, so I expect it is the one. Well found! --Tango (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, thanks. Why do American professors go wacko? Unabomber is another example. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that an entirely new question (in which case it should have a separate header), or does it have some connection to the foregoing that has escaped me? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The unwilling heir is an American professor. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly for the same reasons that professors from other countries go, as you say, wacko. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your example was Canadian. 89.240.50.241 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously using this guy and the Unabomber to judge all American professors?! Dismas |(talk) 02:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially since it would be more accurate to describe the Unabomber as a crazy person who happened to be an assistant professor for two years rather than a professor who went wacko. - Nunh-huh 07:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)