Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 19

= June 19 =

Why is Battle of Fort Myers referred to as southernmost battle of the American Civil War?
When Battle of Palmito Ranch is more southerly? --Rajah (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Known as" isn't the same as "is". Maybe it's because Fort Myers was a Union victory, while Palmito Ranch was a pointless defeat. "History is written by the victors." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also probably because Palmito Ranch was fought after Lee surrendered, so it was completely inconsequential. -- Jayron  32  05:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Footnote: If ever there was a conflict in which "History is written by the victors" did not apply, it would be the American Civil War. After the war, Confederate leaders took up their pens and greatly influenced how the public still views the conflict; see Lost Cause for an introduction. "History is written by the victors" is a truism that isn't true; history is actually written by the writers, as obvious as that sounds. —Kevin Myers 12:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say that as an academic historian, that expression is probably on the top-five list of my pet peeves. History was written by those who had a writing tool and the ability to write. The barbarians won against Rome - oddly enough we have no account of their trials. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When looking for information about Civil War battles, it's important to know that most battles had two different names, depending on whether you're reading Confederate or Union sources. Manassas vs. Bull Run, for example.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to Palmito from Fort Myers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

value proposition of believing scientists about things you can't understand vs. believing marketers about things you can't tell are true or not.
This is related to my earlier question. I would like someone to tell me the exact value proposition a person faces when they choose to believe a scientist, on the scientist's credibility of course, about something (like quantum mechanics) they don't personally understand. This means: So, what is the value proposition, for me, personally, in believing in scientists' understanding of quantum tunneling or fission? Now we turn to marketing claims whose veracity I don't know. What is the value proposition in believing these? It seems to me, the value proposition would be that believing these things will make me happier - it will give me utility when using the product or in social situations when others believe it is as well, we have something in common/to talk about and so on.
 * The person doesn't know exactly what they believe, since they believe by proxy. I believe in quantum tunneling (I've heard it is used in making CPU's, such as the one in the computer I'm typing on now), but since I never learned what it means, I don't know what I believe!
 * The person cannot use their "belief" personally. I believe in fission reactions, but what does this mean?  I cannot personally make one, and will never be in a position where I could (I didn't go down a B.S. degree track).

So it seems to me, that there is a much better value proposition in believing marketing spiel that may or may not have any relationship with truth, versus believing science spiel which certainly has the most truth possible at the current date (though a different understanding may be shown to be more true in the future) but which understanding is outside of one's personal reach and, in fact, of no actual utility insofar as one cannot use it personally.

In other words, according to my analysis I am far better off spending 5 hours learning marketing B.S. about some of the products I own (or can choose for my next purchase in that category, versus other products of the same objective specifications / utility if you don't know the marketing behind it, but with a better marketing story), if this understanding will make me happier when I use them, than in spending 5 hours learning about nuclear fission, which 1) I cannot learn to a useful level in 5 hours - imagine if you got a major in fission engineering with 5 hours of study, and 2) which is not something I can personally use, after getting the poor understanding. Am I leaving anything out of my analysis? 92.229.14.159 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Several things. First, marketing bullshit is ephemeral. What you learn today will be useless tomorrow. Secondly, not all people are morons. Some will react better to a little real knowledge than to a lot of buzzwords. Thirdly, you can have a useful level about something without being an expert. After five hours you may not be able to build a power plant, but you may know enough to protest against building one, or to invest in one. More importantly, in 5 hours you can learn enough about astrology or homeopathy to understand that both a con games, and thus keep your money (and health), even if you would not make a good homeopath or astrologer yourself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all relative. Ideally you should approach everything you don't understand with some suspicion.  I wouldn't buy a car purely because the dealer says it's a good purchase.  I'd research the kinds of cars I'd look at beforehand.  That doesn't mean that I would have to know how to build a Toyota Camry, just that it is or is not what I am looking for.  The same is true of science; unfortunately science costs money, and often the findings reflect the entity paying for the research, at least in my experience.  So, the research there would be 1. Who is claiming that nuclear power is the single worst energy source ever devised?  Is it Jo Schmoe, the guy who was spouting off about finding Atlantis last week, or is it somebody who is respected in the fields?  Is it somebody who may be respected but is working for a company that has a stake in not expanding nuclear energy?  I bet I could find you scientific evidence as to why evolution is a bogus theory.  That doesn't mean you should just accept the evidence because you don't understand it.  If you were to check it out, it probably would not be written by a reputable scientist, and probably for an agenda. Falconus p  t   c 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm old enough to remember the controversy generated by Al and Luis Alvarez when they put forwards the idea that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteorite impact. This then became regarded as "scientific fact", and in the last few years this idea has been challenged again. With science, if you hang around long enough, what you thought was fact becomes fiction and what you thought was fiction becomes fact. With marketing speak, it's presented as the absolute and ultimate truth, which is why people tend to believe marketeers and not scientists. People like certainty, and they don't like to be told that what they believed has now been proved to be wrong. (By the way, please don't give questions huge titles, it means when we complete the edit summary we don't have as many characters as we need.) --TammyMoet (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "With science, if you hang around long enough, what you thought was fact becomes fiction and what you thought was fiction becomes fact" &mdash; trite and untrue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trite, maybe: but untrue, no. I gave an example from science fiction which became recognised as fact, and which is now being challenged as possibly untrue again. There are many examples from the world of astronomy which start off as being derided as fiction - take Fred Hoyle's theory of life being brought to earth by comets, for example: Hoyle's reputation took a dent with this (not quite as big as with his steady state theory) but this page shows how modern research might be turning this "fiction" into "fact". And who would have thought, before the Voyager journeys, that moons are not just cold, dead worlds but worlds where vulcanism is turning the moon inside out (Io), or might harbour life (Titan, Enceladus)? And I've lost count of the number of "studies" which tell us that tea and coffee are bad for us - and here's one telling us the opposite. I know this is the scientific process at work, but yer average person prefers certainty to doubt. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy to come up with some examples, but your statement was broad and all-inclusive, while I expect that it's about 1% of 1% of "established conclusions" that get reversed like this. And of course anybody being scientific isn't going to use the word "fact" overly in the first place.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Science is generally a process of refinement. We don't discover that our previous theories were completely wrong (we would have realised that pretty quickly) but rather than they are a simplification of reality. There are examples of theories that were completely wrong but still widely accepted for a time, but they are few and far between. --Tango (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Rings of Saturn by WG Sebald
Its been some time since I've read the book. Why is it called "Rings Of Saturn"? Is there any explaination anywhere in the text or elsewhere? The title was the same in the original german version. Thanks 92.15.4.168 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but would an atrological interpretation as a representation of man's limitations be applicable? Dmcq (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked because the same phrase was in the final line of a SF story I'd just read (Roger Zelazny, The Doors Of His Face The Lamps Of His Mouth), but then that phrase must be in lots of fiction. 92.28.240.72 (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Free violin sheet music
Hello again everyone! ok so this time my question relates to music. Is there anywhere online where i can print off popular solo violin music (aka.. Disney, Pop, rock, Hiphop), or classical or folk tunes? I have a 15 minute slot to fill at a fundraiser and need to have enough music to fill that whole time!

Thanks for your help :D - Stacy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have found 8Notes very helpful. Their selection of free, legal violin sheet music is here. Bear in mind that much recent stuff, like Disney and so on, will be copyrighted and thus unavailable legally free of charge, but you'll be OK with the more traditional stuff.  Ka renjc 17:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this quote really belong to Nietzsche?

 * "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."

This quote which is very popular on social networking site profiles is attributed to Nietzsche. Is it really him?--117.204.84.83 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very suspicious about this. It only appears on Google Books in non-scholarly books published in the last decade, and none of them offer an original source.  Searching for some plausible re-translations into German doesn't turn up anything similar. Warofdreams talk 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been keen on Nietzsche for about five years and never come across that quote. It seems a bit standoffish for him, though it does ring true to the sort of fatalism one encounters in pre-postmodern discourse. Like, 'some are born posthumously', that sort of thing. Vranak (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He wasn't referring to these people. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. He was referring, just to be perfectly clear, to people who were alive in his day, and yet didn't have a chance in hell of making it in this world, like modern man does. Vranak (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It reminds me of "It's my way, or the highway" saying by a very unconciously-kitsch couple in a comedy-documentary on UK TV a few years ago http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2022027 and which, now I think of it, may have inspired The Office. 92.28.240.72 (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. But I would be glad to see any citations.  N. gets misquoted almost as often as Confucius.  Zoonoses (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen the original attributed as "Sie haben Ihre Weise. Ich habe meine Weise. Was die rechte Weise anbetrifft, die korrekte Weise und die einzige Weise, sie existiert nicht." P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 00:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

War which caused the most deaths in history
The article on World War II claims that it was the "deadliest war in history", but is this really true? Wouldn't there have been other wars in the history of mankind which could possibly have killed more people?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which wars are you thinking of? Remember that the worldwide population was much smaller in more distant centuries, and few if any conflicts were fought over such wide ranging territory.  The list of wars and disasters by death toll gives estimates for deaths results from many conflicts, and only the high estimates for the Mongol Conquests and World War I (including the 1918 flu epidemic) exceed the lowest estimate for deaths in World War II. Warofdreams talk 17:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) List of wars and disasters by death toll has cited references in its list. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links to the articles. Actually, I had been thinking of all the Mongol invasions, but I suppose the combined Asian-European populations would never have been anywhere near mid-20th century global levels, hence fewer overall deaths.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Another depressing question - which country has suffered the biggest % loss of its citizens in a war? I can see a bit from the section of World War II casualties showing Poland with ~16% of their 1939 population, but would expect that historically there'd be somewhere with higher. (I.e. lower total of deaths but also a lot lower overall population). ny156uk (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest Paraguay's losses in the War of the Triple Alliance, 1864-70, against Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay - some estimates are that 90% of Paraguay's pre-war population of 1.2 million were killed, another estimate is 300,000 out of 500,000 - 525,000 (and only 28,000 of the survivors being men). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that in ancient times, sometimes a conquering power killed any and all men of a defeated foe (while the surviving women were often made slaves, the fertile ones sometimes forced into marriages with the men of the conquering power). The Great Cucumber (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethical master morality
Would it be possible to think and act with a master morality, as described in Master-slave morality, yet still be ethical by contemporary 2010 ethical standards? 92.15.4.168 (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a quick read and I feel you have a misconception. On a straight reading I have a master morality but by contemporary standards I am ethical. I am built the way I am, I am an end product of evolution of a social being, why should I act differently? Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't possible in the slightest. What Nietzsche called a 'master morality' in the 19th century is known today as being a bigot. You can't simply go around lopping off commoner's heads because they displease you. They throw you in jail or even execute you for acting like a master these days. The triumph of the herd is complete and final. You have to act like a 'nice guy' or you will just go insane. Vranak (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So the article doesn't describe it reasonably? I saw no mention of any discrimination there or lopping off people's heads. Not that I though it all made much sense, that 'nobility' business in particular. Dmcq (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't make much sense to me, either, but I certainly didn't get Vranak's interpretation. The article does make it clear that it uses "morality" to refer to societies, not individuals (we'd probably say "culture" rather than "morality"). I think it's an attempt to explain why Western Europe colonised and enslaved most of the rest of the world - it had a certain culture that might it outgoing and success and the other societies had a culture that made them easily dominated. The names are chosen because of the consequences of these cultures - the outgoing society became the masters and the others the slaves. I think it's pretty much a rejected theory, so there is little point trying to apply it today. Also, since it is talking about societies, not individuals, the OP's question simply doesn't make sense. --Tango (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My interpretation goes like this: there are plainly people who are 'higher' and 'lower' -- the whole 1993 PC notion of 'everyone is equal' is patent nonsense. So those who are higher have to put up with a lot of annoyance from the lower, immoral, noisy, contentious herd. A master would take it upon himself to start dealing with these heathens, putting them to work on his plantations, throwing them in the clink, or having them executed for some real or imagined crime. Or, there's always just straight up murder. These days, this 'masterful' way of dealing with the rabble has fallen out of favour, because the herd has become so strong and well-organized that murder is widely considered the most egrecious crime possible, and if you start dispatching 'lower' persons, you'll end up in far more trouble than it's worth. Hence my answer -- it's very disfavorable to go around with an untempered 'master morality' in 2010, you have to consider things from the point of view of the oppressed, oppressive, suffering masses or you will wind up in very hot water very fast. Vranak (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you seem to have an instrumental view of right and wrong. Your are implying that you would for example murder someone if it was in your interests to do so, but its being found and punished that stops you. 92.24.176.41 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Master Morality part, at the least, is talking about individuals, not society in general. It makes that clear a number of times. 92.28.240.72 (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the question is misconcieved or 'dosn't make sense' - it seems like a simple reasonable question to me. 92.28.240.72 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I felt you had a misconception. Why did you ask the original question, do you feel that what you asked was easily possible or not? The question implied a possible no for the whole world and yet I a random Wikipedian have no problem with it. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the misconception? Sorry I do not get your third sentance. 92.28.240.72 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked a yes/no question. Such a question implies a belief in some sllight possibility of yes or no. I see no reason for you to think there might be anything but a extremely tiny probability of no. I don't have much chance at guessing what your possible misconception is as you have not answered why you asked your original question. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems extremely mystical. I was expecting people to say "no" actually, or some intermediate position between yes and no with qualifications. And you say I have a misconception, but then you say you do not know what the misconception is - mystical again. You ask why I am asking, but what difference should that make to the answer? If I ask "Is that flower blue?" then my motives for asking should not affect the answer. I'm just curious. 92.24.178.183 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The key phrase in that article is this: "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena." For Neitzche, morality is self-determining, a function of the nobility of the individual. it is basically morality without a priori moral definitions, that needs to be determined in situ by a clear examination and understanding of one's self and one's situation. Neitzche's morality is different than conventional understandings of morality, and misguided approaches to Neitzche's morality can lead to results that are horrifying under conventional assumptions of morality. it's really an issue of scope. interpret Neitzche's philosophy in purely individual terms and you end up with a solipsistic worldview - a kind of 'self-actualization' or 'will to power' concept (think scientology). interpret Neitzche's philosophy in collective/racial terms and you end up with the core principles of fascism and Nazism. interpret Neitzche's philosophy in Kantian/universalist terms, and you'll probably find yourself up for sainthood in several different religions (and would certainly find yourself laughing about sainthood, if that happened). -- Ludwigs 2 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So in summary, your answer would be "no", unless you "interpret Neitzche's philosophy in Kantian/universalist terms". 92.24.178.183 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - no. my answer is 'yes', it is possible, but it requires an approach to morality that scares the shit out of most people.  for most people, the last thing they want to do is hold themselves responsible for the outcomes of their own actions.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have forgotten that I was asking about normal 2010 ethics, not Neitzsche's own brand of ethics. 92.28.241.163 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose psychopaths would all follow the master-morality. 92.24.176.41 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly but that does not imply the opposite nor that teaching more about religion saying your bodies are evil and wicked and the devil is out to get you is liable to make any psycho act in a more social way. Religion could make some social people act in a psycho way as they try and save others though. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Churchill Says...
This is said to be a famous quotation by him :

"Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears." —Winston Churchill

What the hell this means.... Jon Ascton    (talk)  22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was recorded by Harold Macmillan in his diary, 16/11/1943 as being said by Churchill. It basically means that soldiers can be brave in the field but are far more cautious and unwilling to take risks with their troops when around a strategy table and they will probably each try and outdo the others with objections to plans.  meltBanana  00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Churchill was continually inventing schemes that would have cost much and achieved little. General Alan Brooke, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, spent almost the whole war trying to talk him out of them (according to his War Diaries). Some slipped through the net. Alansplodge (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Luckily Hitler's generals were unable or too afraid to talk him out of his more harebrained ideas of how to fight the war. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

address of oriole lodge
Does anyone know the address of the Oriole Lodge in Toronto, the home of Tenth premier of Ontario, George Henry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.86 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article Henry Farm: "[George] Henry's house, called Oriole Lodge, still stands as a private residence at 17 Manorpark Court". Sometimes you can answer a question more quickly by Searching Wikipedia or performing a Google search. Intelligent  sium  23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Moral relativism, nihilism, and utilitariansm
Is it possible to be all three of these? Are any of these mutually exclusive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.220.169 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Yes in the sense that philosophical concepts don't need to be either true or false, they are just ideas, food for thought. No in the sense that one can only ponder a single philosophical framework at one time. I mean, you can only really hold one sensible idea in your head at one time, yes? Vranak (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean is it possible to hold all of these beliefs at once- I can't tell if your trying to be sarcastic in your last comment. 99.13.220.169 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's largely a matter of personal preference. You could make a case for either. Vranak (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking if these positions are in theory compatible, or if any serious philosopher has been all these things at once? There is considerable disagreement among people who call themselves moral relativists, and utilitarians, and presumably among those who call themselves nihilists too. That is to say, whatever argument you make, someone somewhere is going to say you are just not a proper utilitarian, or nihilist, or relativist, as defined by them. And so forth. But that's just a general philosophical caveat.

To sketch a possible solution: you could simply claim to be a relativist and to have a position of your own. That position could then be some flavour of utilitarianism. You could further claim to be a nihilist in that you don't hold utilitarianism to be valid for any other reason than that you (and someone else perhaps) espouse it. This last move is likely to draw criticism along the lines of "That's not nihilism, that's just common relativism!" Perhaps you could reply that yours is a nihilist relativism, in which relative morality is arbitrarily imposed on the world, as opposed to a non-nihilist relativism, in which morality pre-exists in the world but requires intelligent moral agents to give it an intelligible content and is therefore necessarily relative. Some nihilists would not be satisfied with this, but you can never get everyone to agree anyway.

That's just off the top of my head; I'm sorry I can't point you to any serious philosophers who might have discussed this question in detail.--Rallette (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)