Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 18

= June 18 =

Intrinsic value
Is there a clear definition of what "intrinsic" means in the terms "intrinsically good" and "intrinsically bad"? The only statement I can think of that I agree with is Kant's "good will", which I take to be adherence to moral law. --Melab±1 &#9742; 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It means "inwardly", i.e. "by nature". Your typical tree, for example, is intrinsically wood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just think of it as the opposite of "extrinsically", meaning through some external force. Beyond that it's a matter of what you're talking about: for example, in one context you could say that money has intrinsic value, whereas stock has value only because you can sell it for money.  But on the other hand, in a different context you can say a bag of flour has intrinsic value, because you can bake with it, whereas dollar bills have no intrinsic value (i.e. as wood kindling, writing paper, packing material, insulation, etc).  So you have to figure out what the person means. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For there to be such things as "intrinsically good or bad", one must believe, at least in part, in moral absolutism. That is, "whatever is right is always right and whatever is wrong is always wrong".  By contrast, those who believe purely in moral relativism would argue that different things are right or wrong in different contexts.  Most people would agree, however, in a moral model in-between those two.  For example, randomly killing people is "intrinsically wrong" and dealing honestly with customers is "intrinsically good", while the type of clothing people wear isn't intrinsically good or bad, but depends on the society, context, etc. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there some account of how value relates to oughts? --Melab±1 &#9742; 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vitruvian pose
My coach gives us homework every night and tonight she told us to define the word VITRUVIAN POSE. I looked everywhere to find it and I can't! Someone please define it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.231.82 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See Vitruvian Man. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

what's to stop creation of a second Israel
what's to prevent someone creating a second Israel in some less contentious part of the world but with exactly the same philosophy. It would offer all of the benefits except some of the infrastructure, the literal sacred history (though replicas could be made), or direct foreign aid / military aid since a lot of that seems to be due to geography?

The reason this might be done is that Israel proper spends a lot of money and time on security, this really takes resources away. I believe in Jewish people and others who would benefit from the law and progress of a Jewish state. What's to stop someone creating another one?

There is enormous progress and R&D, education in Israel. This is overshadowed by the security issues - to the point that there are academic boycotts against Israel! A second Israel could give some academics freedom to publish within such a system as well. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The options are very limited. See Terra nullius.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Other options might include repopulating Moisés Ville or the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? These might fit the OP's suggestion of a "secure" location; see my next (= outdented) remark. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The present state of Israel is not merely a Jewish homeland but the expression of Zionism. The OP's proposed "second Israel...with exactly the same philosophy" doesn't account for the exclusive identity of the Land of Israel as the site of the Jewish homeland. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is relevant information at Jewish homeland and Proposals for a Jewish state. - Ka renjc 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

1. For your answers regarding territory - couldn't a territory be bought or acquired? 2. couldn't second israel also have the same zionist philosophy and call itself the site of the Jewish homeland, on historically false grounds? Mormonism is, historically, far more 'false' in its identification. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#Relation_to_mainstream_Christianity - the first sentence says mormons consider themselves Christians. hoewver, they added a book to the bible. So, obviously a big leap of faith was required - however, after making htis, they established a thriving community in Utah. Should an appropriate territory be acquried, couldn't 'second Israel' do the same thing, while holding the same beliefs about its territory (though this is absurd, as it would just be some random territory) as Israel? If this aspect of the religion is important to someone, obviously second israelis would be derided for their belief. However, if someone doesn't care, then who cares that it's obviously as false as the golden plates?

Could you go into other issues that there would be with this? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, there's plenty of people believing in a bunch of fiction. The problem is, in order for it to work, one needs to get people to believe it. If you tell any Jew today that Jerusalem is actually located on a remote island in Micronesia, he'll laugh in your face. In order for a falsehood to gain great acceptance, there needs to be a great deal of ignorance first. In Joseph's Smith's day, very little was known of the prehistory of the Americas, and in the midst of much speculation, it was quite easy to come up with a story that somewhat filled the void of knowledge. It's a completely different story with Israel, there's just no possibility of credibly denying its history. - Lindert (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In answer to the academic aspect of the question: there's already a technologically advanced nation with a numerically (though not proportionally) large Jewish population who are able to conduct research and scholarship free from (most) boycotts: the United States. As Deborahjay rightly points out, the perceived need for Israel to exist in its present political shape is directly linked to its specific location. Without the Land of Israel for the State of Israel to be located in, Zionism makes no sense. Note that as the location of Jerusalem is also important for Christians and Muslims, you'd have more than half the world against you if you tried your wacky 'falsification' plan. You appear to be treating the entire thing as a 'toy problem' rather than the lived experiences of millions of people. No matter how deep my own misgivings about the Israeli state and especially its current politics, I'm not about to deny that it's home to so many people, and that their lives and experiences are bound up with the land in complex personal, religious, political and social ways. You cannot even begin to address the issues that the State of Israel raises unless you acknowledge the reality of those people and their experiences and needs. (The same argument, mutatis mutandis, applies to the other nations and peoples of the Middle East too, which is what makes it so intractable.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be more specific on the first point you made, there are more people who identify as Jewish in the U.S. than in Israel itself. And to reinforce all of the other points: the facile solution is no solution at all, and shows a great ignorance of the history and culture involved.  There is no means of "erasing" the cultural memory of the Jewish people and of the importance of the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem from their cultural history anymore than doing the same for Mecca from the cultural legacy of Muslims. It is patently ridiculous.  Whether Zionism itself is enough to justify the existence of the State of Israel is perhaps a matter of political debate; but this is not the place for political debate.  Zionism is certainly enough to explain the existence of the State of Israel, which should be enough for the OP.  Learn about Zionism and about the history of Judaism, and one can easily understand why Israel is where it is.  Any attempts to argue for or against its existence, however, are definitely NOT what this desk is about.  -- Jayron  32  11:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in reading on Jewish Territorialism. There is an exhibit at YIVO right now on the topic.. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't the forum for a religious debate, but as a sidenote and a reminder, this is a reference desk (and the Humanities one at that!). As such, your use of the word "false" to categorize a religion (or ancient metal plates as the source of the Book of Mormon) is somewhat bad form.  We Mormons consider ourselves Christian because we strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not because we strive to some certain level of doctrinal similarity to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism.  You may exclude Mormons from Christianity based on a certain definition of Christianity; but this definition is yours (and your religions'), not ours (and not Christ's.  His definition is found in John 13:35).
 * You might consider our acceptance and use of extrabiblical scripture as proof of falsehood, but as some of the Bible's books were not written until decades after Christ's death, and the many books of the Bible were not grouped into one volume until the fourth century, we would assert that although we love and revere the Bible; that there is nothing *in* the Bible that precludes the existence of other holy scripture (in spite of how you might read Revelation 22:18-19).  Again, I don't care to debate, but I felt that a response should be written.  Best--  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Kingsfold, I apologize for having been offensive. I believe you consider Joseph Smith to be genuine and honest in all his teachings, including on the prehistory of the Americas from the time of Jesus onward, as well as his testament and the golden plates.  The sense in which I meant "false" is that whereas Joseph Smith believed all that he testified, the beliefs of second Israel might not match that definition by the founders: some zionists may simply not value truth as highly as security.  I would be one such person, and I would love to live in second Israel even if it is a replica.  Instead, I'm part of the diaspora only and have never visited that part of the world, nor have any interest in doing so: I get neither the real thing nor a cheap replica.  However, there is more to religion than belief and I'm not particularly devout but do like the story and would very much like to reenact a replica of it, which itself may be offensive to many.  However, I believe in 2012 the spiritual aspect of land is easy to transfer even online: see MMORPG real estate.  It just doesn't matter (to me) where something is, only the people that comprise it, their history, laws, and customs.  178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmm... you wrote "as false as the golden plates," which didn't really seem germane to the discussion; but, OK. No harm done. Thanks.  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Book of Mormon is universally regarded by scholars as a forgery with no genuine Native American content. See archaeology and the Book of Mormon.  Besides describing advanced civilizations that never existed, it refers to Old World domesticated animals, Old World crops, and technology (e.g. steel) thousands of years ahead of what pre-Columbian Native Americans possessed.  (For reference, no Native American society used metal for functional purposes; no society invented melting, smelting, or casting of metals.)  This being the Reference Desk, I think everyone has the duty to put factual accuracy ahead of avoiding offense.  --Bowlhover (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bowlhover-- My point (perhaps poorly communicated) was that it's impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the truth or falsehood of a religion; and as such, it's pointless (and kind of arrogant) to declare a religion false on Wikipedia's Reference Desk. I realize you probably disagree, but since you are calling for "factual accuracy," I'll briefly respond and be done for now.
 * The Wikipedia article that you link to says, "Critics and supporters disagree as to whether archaeological findings support or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon." Therefore, the Book of Mormon is NOT "universally regarded by scholars as a forgery."  I don't feel the need to respond to each of your assertions, but I hope you find [this] discussion of steel in the Book of Mormon helpful. If you'd like to continue this discussion offline in an amicable way, please post on my talk page.  Thanks!  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bowlhover, what do you mean by functional? While Native Americans may not have come up with melting, smelting or the casting of metals, they did use copper extensively as tools. Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America, the Old Copper Culture, Two Traditional Northwest Coast Fishing Tools, Introduction to Contact and Precontact Period Copper & Brass Metalwork and many other all show that Native Americans did indeed use metal for non-decorative purposes. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I received many references (blue links above) and the responders were also unanimous, no real debate here. I think the form was somewhat open-ended but quite clear and literal, and got a clear answer related to facts about zionism and the fact that that faith centers on that land specifically and would not be amenable to suspension of disbelief or adoption of alternative belief for security reasons alone  So, thank you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You might do better regarding Zionism as a form of belief system rather than a "faith." Some of its adherents identify with Jewish culture rather than the religion Judaism, and may be secular or atheist. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)''


 * For a gauge of the challenges, the State of Israel has declared Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel while many of the states in relations with Israel wouldn't accept such a disputed location and keep their embassies at Tel Aviv. If it is hard to move the Israeli capital, imagine moving the whole country.
 * Incidentally, this reminded me of the episode The Jerusalem Duality from The Big Bang Theory:
 * Sheldon Cooper is envious when he meets 15-year-old child prodigy Dennis Kim (Austin Lee). Losing faith in his research, Sheldon annoys his friends by criticizing their work. Deciding his work in physics is useless, he aims for the Nobel Peace Prize by attempting to solve the Middle East conflicts: he proposes the creation of an exact replica of Jerusalem in the Mexican desert.
 * --Error (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Has anyone ever proposed making Jerusalem the property of the UN, and turning it into an international tourist attraction? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dunno, but can you imagine hundreds of thousands of Jerusalem landowners just handing over their title deeds to the UN? Why do you ask?  Was it a serious question?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was, once, sort-of, that. See League of Nations mandate and British Mandate for Palestine, whereby the League of Nations assumed control over the remains of the Ottoman Empire and those territories were administered by specific nations (in the case of Palestine, by the UK) on behalf of the League of Nations.  -- Jayron  32  21:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. And yes, it was a sincere question. Not the entirety of Jerusalem, just the parts that are of most interest as tourist attractions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd contend that only to outsiders are those parts of Jerusalem "of most interest as tourist attractions." To adherents and especially the devout believers of several of the world's major religions, some of those "parts" are sacred sites revered and historically significant for centuries, even millenia. And shouldn't the locals - even the secular inhabitants - living in a long-populated major city should have more say than visitors? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gojong
Why did Gojong of the Korean Empire succeed to the Korean throne instead of his father Heungseon Daewongun and what were the circumstances surrounding his accession after Cheoljong of Joseon's death? Did they had to search for him?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Heungseon Daewongun, the title Daewongun is given to fathers who have had their sons adopted by the reigning monarch. uhhlive (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "usually because his son had been adopted as heir of a relative who did reign" doesn't seem like a definite staftement. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)