Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 7

= July 7 =

Charles Gordon Hopkins
Does anybody know the birth date and death date of Charles Gordon Hopkins (1822-1886)? He was an uncle of Gerard Manley Hopkins who served as Hawaii's Minister of the Interior.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Last supper vessels and utensils.
Considering the norm of the time, and the circumstance of the occasion, what would be the nature of the vessels and utensils likely to be used in the last supper. Wooden, metallic, glass, clay? Would the drinking vessel referred to as the 'holy grail', be an non-descript clay cup, likely to thrown out, once it has reached its useful lifetime? Would they have used a low table, or none at all? What niceties would the host likely be able to provide his guests, would the guests have to sit on the floor, or on pillows, or something else? Paint me a picture what would have been the likely scene? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Start with Passover Seder and see where it leads you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That does not address any of my questions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I said start with. You need to find out whether the way they handled the Seder in Jesus' time is the same way they do now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, then how does whether they did or not, provide me with an answer? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because if they do it the way they did then, you can easily find out. If they don't, you'll have to research further. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One gospel says it wasn't a seder, the three others (which mostly copy each other) say it was. Scholars go both ways: . 184.147.144.173 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, my logic tells me that 'that', will only tell me what serveware would likely have been used, not what those items were made from. Plasmic Physics (talk)


 * Which reminds me of this oldie: What did Jesus say at the Last Supper? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What? (...of relevance?) Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Everyone who wants to be in the picture, sit on this side of the table." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Funny. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ROFL --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This picture doesn't show any utensils, as far as I can see. Except that for that metallic knife. Not sure who's supposed to be holding that. Silver plates, glass glasses and breadlike food. I suppose they ate with their hands, sandwich style. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is an image by Leonardo Da Vinci, discussed at The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci), and painted shortly before 1500. It's probably more indicative of the culture of the Italian renaissance than that of 1st century Palestine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting discussion of the accuracy of Last Supper Paintings here . 184.147.144.173 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, non-contemporary history is always a bit sketchy. When it's religious history in art form, even more room for error. Just figured there might be some basis to the painting. I notice the Bible talks about Jesus picking up bread with his hands and dipping it. Again, the Bible comes with the same sort of religious art asterisk the painting does, but it's quite a bit closer in time. If I had to guess, I'd still say they didn't have utensils. But yeah, my non-expert guess isn't worth much. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * An educated guess is better than nothing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A look at our Holy Grail article shows that there's no agreement on whether the Grail was a platter or a chalice. A little information on New Testament era tableware is here. Alansplodge (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And on the table question, here's the take of a Catholic Monsignor (reclining on a mat). 184.147.144.173 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Glass is very unlikely. Glass in first century Judaea would have been extortionately expensive. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Glass has been around for ages before this time in the form of jewelry, such as was made in Egypt. That being said, I have no idea about bottles and other functional items created by glass blowing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reply. I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it was very expensive. I'm not that familiar with the lives of the disciples, but I doubt any of them were astonishingly rich. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Our Roman glass article says that initially glass was only for the very wealthy, but the invention of glass blowing changed that; "By the mid-1st century AD this meant that glass vessels had moved from a valuable, high-status commodity, to a material commonly available". So just a few years too late for the last Supper. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The supper was not hosted by the disciples, but by an unknown Jew, who was wealthy enough to own a servant. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so dishes, and cups were likely clayware. What about knives and spoons? (I know that forks were only invented in the second millennium) Were they pewter, iron, or some something else? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If they indeed reclined on their left sides as IP 184's link says, using a knife to cut food would be some trouble. I know this from countless hours of experience. So I imagine that was made of nothing. Whether the spoons were made of anything seems lost to history, going by Google. I'll still guess Jesus used the literal blood and body of Christ. If he has women anointing his feet with hair, lips and tears at dinner, I doubt messy hands would be much of a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Western education culture
i'm from india and this is actually a two-fold question.

1) it's very common in my country for teachers to hold grudges against students for really petty matters, like "not paying respect", "not solving a problem exactly as told to" and so on. and many a times, this grudge translates to less grades in the final exams, even though the student deserved more grades. my question is: does this happen in the West?

2) my next question is about something what we call "the management quota" in Indian colleges. what this essentially means is that many kids "buy" their way into a college. maybe you don't know about Indian colleges' admission procedure, but we have a number of screening tests during admission, including national ones (IITJEE and AIEEE) and private ones which are for individual colleges. now, many-a-times, students who haven't got a good rank in those exams pay a helluva lot more than what they normally would and "buy" their way into a college. sometimes, it's not money but contacts and influence. for this reason, a huge number of colleges "reserve" a specific percentage of seats just for these students with rich and famous parents who would happily pay more to get into a college. my question: does this too happen in the West? do people just "buy" their kids seats? -- 05:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding question 1): By "very common in my country" (India), I presume you mean "A few of my teachers did this to me, and so I assume my experiences are universal in a country of almost 1 billion people." Because that seems a bit unreasonable that you would extrapolate your experience to the millions upon millions of teachers currently working in India, and presume without any evidence beyond your own personal experiences that such behavior is "common" in India.  -- Jayron  32  05:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This question sounds familiar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) Yes it happens occasionally at the secondary school level. Human nature is what it is. (2) Doesn't happen in the UK, where all the top tier universities are fiercely competitive and the tutors mostly get to choose who they teach. (They prefer to teach more intelligent pupils who will be more interesting to teach.) No idea about the USA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) In the US, it would be hard to get away with this in any class with an objective grading system, like a math class or a science class using multiple choice answers. If a question was marked wrong which was clearly correct, an appeal to the principal would get the grade corrected and the teacher reprimanded.  However, in classes with a subjective grading system, such as with written essays, it would be harder to prove intentional bias on the part of the teacher, although giving a failing mark on an excellent essay would not stand.


 * 2) In the US, public universities that take money from the state and federal governments might get in trouble for such behavior, but private universities are more likely to get away with it. An exception seems to be "legacies".  Those are students with parents or other relatives who attended that college.  Such students generally have lower requirements they must meet to be admitted.  These students also tend to come from wealthier families, than say a student who is the first in his family to attend a university. StuRat (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Humans hold grudges everywhere. That's universal human behavior.
 * 2) In the US they have legacy admission. College athletics in the United States also seem to be an easier way into college. Celebrities and children of them are also suspected to be entering well-known colleges through the back-door.
 * 3) Total OR here: no country or college can be trusted. If you want to assess the quality of the education that you'll get, check the department specifically, or be even more specific, enrolling for courses of specific teachers. No matter what university: they have their share of junk, try to avoid this. OsmanRF34 (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OsmanRF34 (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is pure opinion and I can't back it up, but I always wondered how on earth George Osborne and David Cameron managed to get into Oxford University. Maybe it has something to do with going to Eton. So I'd say to the second question, yes it does happen in England. Plus I have experience of (usually foreign) students who pay more to go to UK universities expecting preferential treatment when it comes to marking. But then maybe I'm just a cynical ex-university lecturer. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're saying about Osborne and Cameron, Tammy. Merely wondering is not an opinion, unless you're inviting us to read between the lines that, in your opinion, they were too dumb to get in on their own merits, or something like that.  Can you clarify?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that worse than George W. Bush going to Yale and Harvard? OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure how much you know about Oxford University, TammyMoet. Admission is to individual colleges, of which there are now 38, and each consciously or not has its bias over who it will accept. Getting in is only the start, however, since you have to survive interim exams and get a degree at the end. In 1988 David Cameron won a first-class bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics, which must put him intellectually well in the top 1% of the UK population. How far this past achievement is reflected in his present leadership of the country is a quite separate question. --Hors-la-loi 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I just wonder how someone who did this badly at school did so well at Oxford. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Academic achievement aged 11 is not always a good predictor of academic achievement aged 21, or even at 16. According to our article, he later took three As at A-level and a distinction in the Scholarship exam; perhaps Eton did a better job of teaching than Heatherdown did, or - more likely - he was a smart but lazy pupil who was prevailed upon to actually start doing some work. With Cameron, we also know that his tutor, Vernon Bogdanor, has called him one of the most able students he has taught; even allowing for a bit of rose-tinting over a quarter-century, it doesn't suggest he was particularly inept! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What would a professor at a private university say? "Half of my students wouldn't be here, weren't they from wealthy families, including that Cameron guy." It's not possible to know what is self-interest, what is marketing and what is education and honest testing. I have no doubt that he's well-read and over the average educationally, but within the 1%? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The number of pupils who get all A grades at A-level is a very small percentage. (Statistic please, anyone, for 20 years ago in particular?) The number of pupils who also get into Oxford or Cambridge is a smaller percentage (partly a subset of that former percentage). Estimating it at one or two per cent is reasonable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That means he was at the 1-2% of something, but this something doesn't have to be intelligence, or at least not purely intelligence. Going through the system requires many other aspects: social abilities, your economical situation, and even the month you were born can be an advantage towards your grades! OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * His family are definitely in the top 1% of British society, whichever way you look at it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, OsmanRF34 is right that lots of things can make a difference to your grades in the UK, but money or prestige is not the most important of them. (Reliable sources sometimes mention sensitivity to hay fever as being a significant factor.) Prince Harry's family are rather a great deal wealthier and more elite than Cameron's, and yet Prince Harry managed precisely one grade B and one grade D at A-level according to our article, despite claims (refuted according to that article) that attempts were made to help him with his work unfairly. He attempted a third A-level but dropped it after a year. Most Etonians do not get into Oxford or Cambridge; most of those who do, do not gain first class honours like Cameron did. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In Australia, the influence of money at university level is becoming proverbial, perhaps because of the impact of funding cuts, and the consequent need for universities to find a suitable replacement. Edward J. Steele was notoriously sacked for speaking out against soft marking of full-fee paying students. However, it does not follow that the problems are endemic or particularly widespread, merely that it is a real concern. IBE (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the second question... In the United States, colleges and universities can be divided into two categories; need-blind and need-aware.  Need-blind schools (which include many of the most prestigious) choose their incoming class without any consideration for their ability to pay.  Need-aware schools acknowledge that they make some admissions decisions based on the student's ability to pay.  This is combined with a school's financial aid policy.  Some schools promise to meet the full demonstrated need of every applicant; this means that the student will be offered loans or grants to cover any tuition they cannot afford (as determined by a common process, known as the FAFSA).  Other schools do not, and may admit a student but offer little aid, forcing the student (if not wealthy) to find outside funding to attend the school.  Different schools combine these policies in different ways, some of which may result in a phenomenon like you describe.  (Sorry, wasn't logged in) gnfnrf (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about Male Primogeniture and The Act of Settlement 1701
When the monarch in the UK dies, their crown goes to the eldest living son. If there are no living sons, then it goes to the eldest daughter.

So what happens in this case:


 * 1) The Monarch who dies had two male children.


 * 1) The eldest male is also dead, but before his death he had a single daughter.

Does the crown go to the dead monarch's granddaughter or his eldest living son? I know that in this case if the grandchild was a son, that he would get the thrown, but I'm not clear on the situation with a daughter and there is no historical parallel. --CGPGrey (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The daughter gets it. George IV's daughter was his heir, and would have been queen, but she predeceased him. Later in the same generation, Queen Victoria succeeded ahead of her father's younger brother. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Our article Order of succession gives the details (albeit without a reference): In primogeniture (or more precisely male primogeniture), the monarch's eldest son and his descendants take precedence over his siblings and their descendants. Elder sons take precedence over younger sons, but all sons take precedence over all daughters.  Children represent their deceased ancestors, and the senior line of descent always takes precedence over the junior line, within each gender.  The right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the reigning sovereign (see heir apparent), and then to the eldest son of the eldest son. This is the system in the Commonwealth realms. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was this part ' but all sons take precedence over all daughters ' that confused me. So in the example above, the eldest, deceased, son has already claimed the right of succession for his daughter, regardless of what else has happened in the family, correct?  --CGPGrey (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. If Prince Charles dropped dead today, Prince William would move up a notch in the line of succession and would succeed the Queen on her death.  Will and Kate's unborn child would then become the heir apparent on its birth.  Prince Harry would come next, followed by any children he may happen to have, assuming they're legitimate and he married with the Queen's consent.  Princes Andrew and Edward and their progeny, and Princess Anne and her progeny, would come next.  Basically, wherever a person sits in the line of succession, they are immediately followed by any sons or daughters they happen to have, and then by their children, and then by their children etc etc, before the next person gets a look-in.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only would that granddaughter be first in line, she would also be heir apparent even according to male-preferance primogeniture. Ancient English baronies descend the same way the Crown descends (ignoring abeyance), so it is not quite true that there is no historical parallel. This woman was heir apparent to her grandfather because her father was his eldest son. Although he was outlived by five other sons, she was the daughter of the eldest. Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The daughter would actually be heir presumptive, as there is always the theoretical possibility that the king could have a son who would disinherit her.  Rojomoke (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about daughters. I was talking about granddaughters, and so was the OP. A granddaughter with no brothers whose deceased father was the eldest son is heir apparent under male-preferance primogeniture, because there is no possibility that her titled grandparent could have a son older than the deceased eldest son and because her dead father (the titled grandparent's eldest son) cannot beget a son anymore. Since she cannot be displaced by anyone's birth (much like the eldest son), she is heir apparent. Surtsicna (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * However, male primogeniture is a thing of the past in the Commonwealth Realms, see Succession to the Crown Act 2013 for the current arrangements. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not yet in the past. It will be when the Lord President of the Council announces the new act. If it had to, it would still apply today. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 article makes no mention of that act not being passed, completely, and through all "bill stages". Are you claiming that that's incorrect? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once an Act is passed and recieved royal assent, it has to come into force. Usually, they either come into force immediately (on the day of Assent), at a specified time (such as the start of the next financial year), or at a yet-to-be-specified time. In this particular case, s. 5(2) states that "The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint." For an example of such an order, see this, which brought the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 into force; the Act was passed in July, the Order made in December, and it specified the Act would enter into force from February. This usually doesn't take long, but for an extreme case see the Easter Act 1928, which has never been brought into force. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Perth Agreement. Some of the Commonwealth Realms require local legislation to approve the change to the succession. (Other realms report that they don't require such local legislation, and still other realms apparently haven't indicated yet whether they do or don't require local legislation.) The change in succession will take effect when the Lord President of the Council designates after all the necessary legislation in the realms has passed. See Section 5(2) of the Act and Explanatory Notes] #42. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And the reason this is relevant is that the Statute of Westminster requires that any change to the law of succession must be agreed to by all the Commonwealth realms in identical terms, or it applies to none of them. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps somebody could add a note to our article, as it doesn't really explain those points. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the reason many people believe the change is already in effect is that, when it finally does come into effect, it will apply to anyone in the line of succession born after 28 October 2011, the date of the Perth Agreement.  That means it will for all intents and purposes have been in effect since that date, but we can't say that yet, until all 16 realms change their laws, and it's a convoluted process in places like Australia and Canada where there are multiple sovereignties.  This means that, if Will and Kate had a daughter who was born before 28 October 2011, she would be displaced in the line of succession by any later-born sons, but if such a daughter had been born after 28 October 2011, her place would be assured.  So, even though the laws are not yet in effect, we can already say with almost total certainty that the soon-to-be-born royal child will immediately succeed its father no matter what its sex is.  We just have to wait for the laws to actually come into effect to convert that "almost total certainty" into an "absolutely total certainty".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Victoria is a very good example to consider. She succeeded her uncle William IV as Queen of the United Kingdom through being the daughter of his younger brother (the Duke of Kent) under male primogeniture, but didn't succeed him as King of Hanover under Salic law, so that position went to the next of George III's sons, the Duke of Cumberland. Tevildo (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Victoria is the best "real-life" example, but she was heir presumptive, while the granddaughter OP asked about would be heir apparent. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences between socialism and fascism
Benito Mussolini was once a socialist, but then went on to forge fascism. The word "socialism" is used with such derogatory connotations in the media that I'm not really even sure about what it means anymore. "Socialism" seems to apply to a broader category of concepts than "fascism" does, but I think there are more differences than that. What are they? — Melab±1 &#9742; 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, there are plenty of examples of people whose political opinions shifted over time. Fascism and socialism are two different ideologies, and both contain a broad set of different tendencies and schools of thought. To judge which is broader than the other is quite arbitrary, but following the defeat of the Axis powers in WWII the term 'fascism' has largely disappeared apart from being used as in a derogatory sense. Socialism on the other hand does not carry such connotations, apart from in the United States. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both terms are misapplied in a derogative manner to cover a broad range of "the other side", so the boundaries of the terms become mushy at least in popular language. Check Fascism and Socialism. Some differences are that socialism usually is internationalist and egalitarian, while fascism is nationalist and elitist (while at the same time appealing to the massed by claiming they are all part of the elite). Socialism is, or, in practice, at least has, an economic model in which the means of production are owned by the state or the people as a collective. Fascism's economic model is about the same as Vito Corleone's. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fascist establishment and the Sicilian mafia found themselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum (at least in the latter phase of WWII). And socialism isn't inherently international, there are plenty of varieties with nationalist leanings. I think a key difference to be mentioned is the social conservatism of fascism, seeking to maintain the role of family, gender roles, tradition, military hierarchies, etc., whilst socialist movements tend to challenge established social and cultural norms. --Soman (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in no way unexpected or unusual for different crime cartels to be on different sides, or even in violent feuds, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty much a direct answer to the original question. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Socialism usually means that the government works to help the workers maintain fair and just control over the economy (with or without communism or capitalism), fascism means that the government is highly nationalistic and authoritarian. A socialist could be democratic and anti-fascist, pretty much holding that the government should ideally only have the power to help people, have no control over their lives beyond the ability to enforce nigh-universally accepted social contracts, and should recognize other countries right to exist without fear of colonization or domination.  A socialist could also be fascist, holding that the government should help the nation because that nation is the only nation with a right to exist, and then seek to exploit and domination other nations to bring that about.  A fascist could be anti-socialist, holding that certain people wouldn't need government aid if X group could be eliminated or Y nation could be "defended" against.
 * (I have excluded the more anarchist versions of socialism from this explanation, because I fail to see the difference between the workers maintaining control over the economy among themselves without outside aid and the workers maintaining control over the economy through a purely democratic government by the people and for the people; unless such a venture were to lapse back into capitalism).
 * (And by "with or without communism or capitalism, I mean that a socialist may or may not favor the abolition of private property as a means to liberate the workers should they be communist, or may see that the workers merely need to have their private property protected from hostile and immoral forces to ensure their liberation should they be capitalist).
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the articles and it appears that one difference is collectivism versus corporatism. — Melab±1 &#9742; 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What philosophy is this?
Im curious about what philosophy is this, i find its ideas interesting: "There is no other will other than my own. My own will is the only one that exists in this fictional reality. Everything begins and ends with I. Ideologies are meant to enslave my very own essence into a mindless doll. My happiness is the ultimate goal and in order to achieve it, i have to eliminate suffering and pain in my life. Life is suffering and pain and thats an absolute truth. There is no meaning to life, i am the only one who can give it a meaning, as an artist who finishes its masterpiece, i ended it with my own death, my best friend. "-isms" such as capitalism or socialism are just totalitarian ideologies that "eat" individuals who renounced their rationality. Man should eat ideas, not the other way around. To love life is to suffer the consequences: Insanity, its to be glued to an empty concept. My reason and logic are absolutes that transforms my life to be the expression of the hero who battles against the opressive collective, which is modern society." I´ll be waiting for your answers


 * "There is no will other than my own..." sounds like a pipe dream. I think Plato attacked this concept.  If you tell us where you found it, it might help. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, wait come to think of it I think the concept of Maya (illusion) might involve a philosophy similar to this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a melange of solipsism, pop existentialism with a few slithers of lightly sautéed Buddhism: covered with lashings of teenage narcissism. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like an indecisive suicide note. Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looie might have hit upon something here. We even have an entire category that might be relevant. IBE (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reads like a combination of nihilism and individualism, maybe similar to the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Nietzsche wanted to "eliminate suffering and pain"; that's more a Schopenhaurean borrowing from Buddhism. Paul B (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul has it more or less right. It's a recent ('totalitarian ideologies') pastiche basically of several 19th. century thinkers, who are interlinked in their personal genealogy of ideas (Nietzsche synthesized S & S, plagiarizing without acknowledgement much of the latter). (a) the suffering and pain motif comes from Schopenhauer (b) that ideologies enslave one's essence is straight from Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own (c)that 'Man should eat ideas' not viceversa, is a Stirnerian development of Ludwig Feuerbach's pun about Der Mensch ist was er ißt (Man is was he eats(ist/isst)) (d) 'my reason and logic are absolutes' is straight out of Gottlieb Fichte and (e) The commendation of suicide is Nietzschean but tagged with a recall of Maurice Blanchot, who analogized it (L'Espace Littéraire (1955)with the work of art and the heroic. Not bad I suppose for an undergrad whose reading of philosophical anthologies is so deep (s)he has no time to learn grammar.  If it's a suicide note, the act should be suspended until the author can come up with an original idea, i.e., indefinitely or never, as per Ecclesiasticus 1:9. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I got that fragment from a textbook about philosophy. And I liked what that type of thought said. And there is more, I'll continue: "Nothing matters. My self should enslave other wills. Life has a pessimistic bias. My might is above all other wills from the non-selves and should rule based on selfish rational motives. As there are no other selves other than my own it means there is no such thing as society. What we know as Society is just a collective of irrational entities who are slaves to their passions and absolutist ideologies and whom want to destroy the rational individual: Myself. the "I" is the absolute of all, the true alpha and omega. Manifestations of that collective of irrational entities such as the market and the State devour common sense, which is the basis of Order. Order is the "mother" of liberty and equality, concepts stolen by the Right and Left, and thus nothing more than empty words. Religion, Government, Marxism, Psychoanalysis etc. are tools of social control and thus decay into chaos, which is the opposite of the natural order or Autarchy. Decadence is the norm these days, the death of free will and one's own supremacy, from an individual to an automaton move by the contemporary trends and by the mysticism and arbitrary whim of the non-selves. I is the observer of time-space, the hero who achieves his values by "creating" a soul and killing his "personality", the individual who goes from man to God, the objective absolute. We is the object in essence, victim to the conflict between altruist utopias and ultra-rationalism. "
 * Sure. As therapy read Gore Vidal's Kalki, a reprise of Aldous Huxley's After Many a Summer. You might dislike them, but the prose is excellent.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One is also tempted to recommend Rick's Teen Anguish Poem in this sort of situation. Tevildo (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Haile Selassie I, who was Emperor of Ethiopia, wrote in his Autobiography that "God's designs always prevail over those of man" and he gave numerous examples of this philosophy. So according to this Ethiopian philosophy, while there is a conflict of wills that may involve millions or billions of individual wills, there is one Will that can aways prevail if and when it wants to. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been said better before. (come to think of it, that link may eventually die, so I should spoil the fun and note that I'm referring to the end of Dark Star (film))  The connection between the reaction to solipsism and the designed purpose of the solipsist is interesting, though.  Wnt (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't watch YouTube atm because of a computer issue, but the article describes a 1975 Hollywood movie about an artificially intelligent bomb that decides it is God, and destroys a spaceship in outer space. I doubt that is making the same point about reality that the Ethiopian Emperor was making, or that it is either 'better' or 'before' (he wrote Volume One of his Autobiography in Bath, England in the 1930s.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn't a specific reply to you, but a general comment on solipsism. Nonetheless, it's not entirely irrelevant to yours, because the Dark Star conclusion was that an entity, in the absence of all credible external input, will end up spontaneously acting out its designed purpose - which, for the bomb, is to explode. Wnt (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Japan and Russia
Japan and Russia are the two G8 member states where possession of child pornography is legal. Distribution of child pornography was made de jure illegal in 2003 after international pressure from the United Nations, UNICEF. why would the UN put pressure on making the kind of sick stuff legit? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your question. Your last sentence seems to be saying that UNICEF is putting pressure on Japan and Russia to make child pronography "Legit" (i.e. legal, or acceptable). This seems to contradict the previous sentence. There is some discussion of this in the article Child pornography laws in Japan, from which both of your first two sentences seem to derive. There is no suggestiuon that UNICEF is trying to make it "legit". Paul B (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The OP is making a distinction between possession (first sentence) and distribution (second sentence). I think he's asking "Since they made distribution illegal, why didn't they also make possession illegal?".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The last sentence is scarcely clear, if indeed that's what s/he is getting at. I imagine that representations are being made, but UNICEF does not generally try to force its views aggressively on independent nations. Each sovereign country makes its own laws, of course. As we know, if those laws are deemed problematic various kinds of international pressure can be applied, but it's usually only very major issues that lead to serious pressue. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree the question is very unclearly worded. The OP is assuming that, unless pressure from the UN to make distribution illegal was accompanied by UN pressure to make possession illegal, this would amount to UN pressure to keep possession legal.  That would be a very false interpretation, in my view.  There are many things that are illegal in one jurisdiction but not illegal in another.  That does not mean that the government of the latter jurisdiction is actively promoting whatever the practice is, or in any way condones it.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle identification


Can anyone identify make/model/year (approximate) for the pickup trucks seen in this image? I'd like to put the image in the Commons categories for the trucks, but I know essentially nothing about vehicles other than my own. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You could ask at WikiProject Trucks. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The one on the right isn't a pickup truck; it's a sedan. Looks like a beat-up 1957 Chevrolet to me. Deor (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like a good enough picture of the truck, to me, to include it in the commons. It's too obscured by the other items in the pic. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The truck appears to me to be a 1970s GMC C/K, though I'm not certain of that. The car on the right is indeed a '57 Chevy.  I would agree with SutRat on the usefulness of the picture as far as inclusion in the commons is concerned.   --some jerk on the Internet    (talk)  21:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If the car on the right is a pickup truck, it's a mid 1950s Chevrolet Task Force, which had essentially the same front end as the Chevy Bel Air. Since we can't see anything further back from the front doors, it could be the Task Force rather than the Bel Air.  -- Jayron  32  02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's a Task Force. Comparing it to the picture of the 1957 Task Force in the article, and to other images on the Net, it has a flat hood, with (missing) dual hood ornaments, unlike the curved hood of the Task Force.  There's  no large Chevrolet emblem at the very front of the hood, and from what I can tell, no mounting holes for one that's missing.  The cutout for the grille extends the full width of the vehicle to be identified, while on the Task Force the fenders extend past the grille.  You can also see three trim pieces on the fender immediately behind the headlight on the vehicle in question, which is consistent with the '57 Chevy coupes and sedans, but not the Task Force.  Those trim pieces appear to have only appeared on the 1957 model; I don't see them on the 1956 images I'm finding, and in 1958 the car had dual headlights.  I could be wrong, of course, but I'm reasonably confident it's a car (can't tell whether it's coupe, sedan, or station wagon), and not a pickup.   --some jerk on the Internet    (talk)  03:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look through, rather than at, the windshield, you can see the configuration of the side windows on the far side of the car (and even a bit of the rear window). It's definitely not a Task Force. Deor (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice catch, Deor. It looks like there's a window pillar visible, and you can see the slope of the roof toward the rear, which would make it a sedan (probably a 2-door from the proportions), not a coupe or a station wagon.   --some jerk on the Internet    (talk)  14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Perforator
What the heck is this? On the 1901 Irish census, my great great aunt has a job "perforator", but it says nothing else about it, and I can't find any indication what it could be that she would have been perforating. Any ideas? Mingmingla (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A long shot, but perhaps someone who perforated punched cards, perhaps for Jacquard looms? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are dozens of jobs that even today have the word perforator in their job description. Textile production was an important industry in Ireland the turn of the last century. That's an educated guess, but I also knew an Irish seamstress when I was young who'd've done that sort of work at that time. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)