Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 23

= July 23 =

Is there a philosophical notion for the inability of a corpse to have faith?
An old discussion I had on death was recently dug up on another Desk. Not revived, mind you. What's done is done and what's gone is "deceased". All good. But something I said there (and someone's recent question here) got me to thinking of something I can't seem to put into Google terms.

Is there a school of thought (or even a lesson) about how those who believe faith itself is what promises eternity are doomed, since dead people can't believe anything, thus automatically lose their faith and all the perks?

Don't confuse this with a question about whether this is how the world works. Things like that are best left unknown. Just things like who discussed it, where, when, why and how it went. What new words (if any) were invented? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine there's much discussion of it, because the premises are self-contradictory. Most beliefs about eternal life assume a soul-body dichotomy, with the implicit assumption that it is the soul that has faith, and thus can live forever. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hadn't even considered that. Are you sure it's common? Took a quick look around for that idea, I see theosophy believes this. First I've heard of that, though. (Had heard of it after all, just not the name.) I'll look around some more. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The notion that the body and the soul are separate would be common among pretty much all religions that believes in an afterlife. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the distinction between the soul and the brain part of the body. Is it common for the soul to do the thinking? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The belief is that the soul remains intact regardless of what happens to the brain. Consider the case of someone suffering from dementia. Obvously, their personality and thought processes are significantly impaired. The soul is not likewise impaired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so the soul's intact. I get that part. But if the person's brain is demented and they can't even remember their religion, can they use their soul to believe in it instead? If so, citation needed. Fate of the unlearned shows a lot of disagreement about what happens to those who don't know before they die, but they all seem to agree there's a difference between them and those who know, even though they all have souls. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The belief would be that once they're "saved", then they stay saved. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem true for those that believe in mortal sin. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither is it true for those who believe in the veracity of Romans 11:19-24. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here it is for those who like clicking. Or for something almost completely different, the "God's Word" version. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all denominations within Christianity believe in a ethereal soul, at least one believes that a soul is simply another term for a living being, composed of body instilled with the breath of God. Meaning that consequentially, there is no consciousness between death and the advent resurrection. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True. As if the soul goes into cold storage or something. But either way, separate from the physical body, yes? (Where's Jayron when we need him?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently, all the "soul"s in the Old Testament were intended in that "complete living being" way. Nephesh, they say. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've usually seen Nephesh used more in the context of a life force, and Ruach for the person's collected consciousness (not merely their consciousness in that moment, but their true self).
 * Part of the problem, I think, is that most people no longer distinguish between the life force, collected total identity (what one's Heavenly Wikipedia article would look like when all is said and done), and one's current identity. Older philosophy, religion, mysticism, and magic does.  You have the Greek Psyche and Pneuma, the Indian Prana and Atman, the Egyptian Ka and Ba, and the Chinese Qi and Shen.  While there are differences in finer details ( sometimes splitting one aspect into different facets like "rational" and "emotional" or "hungry" and "horny," or treating the two as a spectrum, with different shades of grey being distinct spiritual elements ), and major differences in what happens after you die, the idea is that one is the (now scientifically disproven) life force (like the Odic force or Orgone), while the other is a hypothetical reconciled collection of every stage of your consciousness (of which your current identity is only a portion of).  The life force (so say the mystics) may receive impressions of the consciousness, akin to jello being left in a mold long enough.  Distinguishing between the two is also why I really don't get why everyone thinks the Christian afterlife and reincarnation are irreconcilable: most of the religions that teach reincarnation hold that the consciousness is impermanent and focus more on a peaceful transition of the life force, while the Christian afterlife (at least in some of the religion's mysticism) assumes that the life force is mortal and needs to be replaced by Jesus and the Holy Spirit if the identity is to survive.  Lurianic Kabbalah gets it.
 * Anyway, to answer the original question: most such religions hold that when the body dies, the brain only hosts the current "page" of the book of the person's overall identity, and it's the whole book that gets put on the top shelf. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another important consequence, is that thought/personality/identity are completely organic in nature, in that it is an attribute of only the 'nephesh'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those organic souls are the ones I was concerned with in the original question. When their brain stops, their identity stops and their god doesn't recognize them anymore. There must be a term for that condition somewhere, even if it's not English. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Then again, if the soul departs immediately before we die, ultimately causing death, I guess there'd be no problem. Only if it leaves after, without remembering where it was supposed to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the view that I spoke of, the Ruach departs the nephesh concurrently with death. The Ruach is an inanimate object, and does not need to remember where to go, any more than a stone needs to know to fall when it is thrown. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But what's left to throw it (at least aim it), if the faith is dead? Or does the Angel of Death take it? According to the view you spoke of, I mean. The older ones seem different from the Michael I know. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I think I found them. Something like Michael. Apparently, Joshua ben Levi knew his pretty well. That article is copied verbatim from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but Wikipedia has its own Entering Heaven alive article. Probably useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The stone metaphor does not extend in that way nothing throws it. It just returns to God of its own accord. Ecclesiastes 12:7. The psychopomp candidates that you've give only seem to cause death instead of transferring Ruach. Another key element to answering the question, would be your definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1. It is reasonable to think of faith as an investment with a guaranteed future return. It is an investment which must be secured while one is still living. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're saying Ecclesiastes says it works like a boomerang, I'll say it doesn't. Only that it returns to God. Something can return without moving itself. Mail does it all the time. Some of those angels are more the Slayer type, but Michael row the boat ashore. Like a taxi driver, he doesn't judge, but gets where you got to go. Whether his "you" contains the mind and spirit, not sure.


 * Thanks for that psychopomp word. I'd have never have guessed it. I'll add it to the See Also for the angels. Another, newer word for those that just kill and let God sort them out is "Psychotron".


 * As for faith, I guess I think like Hebrews 11:1. Need a working brain to envision and hope for those unseen things. Per Hebrews 11:6, if you go to God without believing in him, he won't be pleased. Belief is a cognitive function, as is diligently seeking. So is disappointment, though, so it's all good, even if we're not saved in time. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't base my understanding of death on 19th century gospel, but that is your prerogative. I don't know the relevant passage, but it is says that everyone is offered salvation in one form or another, at least once in their lives. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, my understanding of death is based in growing up in a funeral home. There, it's simple. Bodies are emptied, filled, washed, dressed, viewed and buried. Never was much to learn about life after that, except that families like to be assured the soul went where they think it should.


 * That gospel tune is just something I considered, in the context of general beliefs about afterlife and that angel. I "know" him more than others, but only in a literary sense. I don't think he's real, certainly haven't met him. This question has nothing to do with my own death or soul, just what people have said. I personally believe our souls recycle in virtually the same way our bodies do, and will be reused to build any life form, not just humans. The human identity is all in our brains, and doesn't influence what happens next. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems to be based on 2 principle points:
 * 1 - salvation by faith alone, which is SFAIK pretty much an exclusively Protestant Christian belief;
 * 2 - other groups which don't believe in the Christian concept of the soul or their own approximation of it;
 * and, basically, what a member of group 2 would think of the fate of a member of group 1.


 * I very seriously doubt there are consistent basically dogmatic views from non-Christian groups regarding one group within the broad field of Christianity, because it is only the belief of a percetage of Christian groups and many or most of them don't have anyone in a position to make dogmatic statements. Of course, inconsistent nonauthoritative views are likely.


 * There are some Christian groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses who don't accept the conception of the soul other Christians have, but again SFAIK they do have their own conception of the continued life of the individual, and the continuation of individual existence is based on how well the individual does according to those standards, more or less without regard to whaever that person themselves believed.


 * If there were a group that denied the Christian soul and believed the individual is judged primarily or exclusively on their own personal beliefs, they may have addressed this, but I personally know of no such group. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What is does the term "Christian soul" refer to? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are multiple variant religious conceptions of ths soul, as per Soul, including a predominant Christian one at Soul. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In order to make sense of your final statement, I need to know what the group is denying. If "Christian soul" is a vague term then, the statement is equally vague. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was intended as being an abbreviated version of the previously used "Christian concept of the soul". John Carter (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So that would be the nepesh then? I did not say that there is a group who denies it, instead believing in judgment based on beliefs. To make things clearer, I am referring to the Seventh Day Adventist, and perhaps, the Baptist denominations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The condition of the dead is discussed at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Resurrection" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003709 and "Sadducees" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003795.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting reads. "Sheol" (or even "gravedom") is another of those words I'd been lacking without realizing it. Good to distinguish between the physical hole and the intangible sort of sleep. Same goes for rephaim, rather than the ambiguous "shade" or "ghost". More accurately describes those who reside in the gravedom, rather than haunt the living world. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also somewhat described (with euphemism aplenty) in "The Ballad of Sir Blunderbrain". He (and Wembley) were kind of like Jesus, but not in a sacrilegious way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

architecture
what is the source of le corbusiere's statement that a home should be a treasure-chest? 2.96.172.113 (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you see that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears on BrainyQuote as: "The home should be the treasure chest of living.". Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm not sure what the OP is asking: The specific source of the quote? Or the meaning of the quote? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a reference that answers either question, don't feel inhibited. I was only able to find it only popular quotation sites, which don't help much. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect Vers une architecture, but I can't find a definitive link, either.  ceran  thor 19:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Searching in Google Books for "maison doit" together with "Corbusier", I found several sources giving Le Corbusier's wording as "La maison doit être l'écrin de la vie". Google Translate renders "écrin" as "jewel" in this context, but my French-English dictionary translates the word as "jewel case, case, casket", which fits better with the translation as "treasure chest", particularly when the metaphor is presumably that home is where you store your memories.

Now searching for the full phrase, I find this page which says he used it in response to an order from a Bordeaux businessman named Henry Frugès; so I presume it comes from a letter. According to the page, Le Corbusier summarized his own attitude as: "Une maison est une machine à habiter. La maison doit être l'écrin de la vie, la machine à bonheur. J'ai travaillé pour ce dont l'homme d'aujourd'hui a le plus besoin, le silence et la paix." Which I would translate idiomatically as: "A home is a machine for living in. A home should be a treasure chest of life, a happiness machine. I have worked at what today's man needs most: peace and quiet." (Note: French does not have distinct words for "house" and "home"; I've chosen to translate "maison" as "home", the same as in the passage quoted by the OP.) --50.100.189.160 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Aha! That's why my search for caisse au trésor dew a blank. Well done! Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The usual phrase in French is malle au trésor or coffre au trésor. Sometimes we can translate "home" by foyer. Le Corbusier wrote "une maison est..." in the first sentence but "la maison doit...". I wonder if we can say "house" for the first one (because it is the concrete place where we live) and "home" for the second one (because je vais  à la maison = I go home). Just an idea: I am not fluent in English  — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if you did that, the reader would likely think Le Corbusier was making a contrast between what a "house" is and what a "home" is. --50.100.189.160 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. There is no such contrast in French, just a very slight difference. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The French cunningly rendered A House Is Not a Home (film) as La Maison de Madame Adler (The House/Home of Madame Adler). Cheats.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do Russians love to name their children "Alexei" and related names?
What's so special about "Alex" in Russian culture? 140.254.45.33 (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a guess, but Russians like to think of themselves as European empire builders (they consider themselves European, if their empire extends well into Asia), so perhaps Alexander the Great serves as a model. Also note that the word Tsar is based on Ceasar.  Neither communism nor the current post-communist period seems to have dampened their dreams of empire. StuRat (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Russia had three emperors named Alexander: "The Blessed", "The Liberator" and "The Peacemaker". Not so familiar with any, but those are rather "great" nicknames themselves. Seems reasonable they may have inspired some parents. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Historically, Russia also saw itself as the Third Rome and made many self-conscious cultural connections to Classical Antiquity, both Greek and Roman culture. -- Jayron  32  16:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Alexei is not Alexander. The latter is shortened colloquially as Sasha. Peter the Great had the son Alexei who was tortured for joining a conspiracy against him. He died in prison. There have been no Russian rulers named Alexei. In Slavic lands the names for children are fixed by tradition and the church. People cannot deviate much. I think Alexei was a saint sometime in history. The pool of acceptable names is not that great. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, don't get Aleksandr I/II/III confused with Pyotr Alexeyevich's father or son, both of whom were Alexei. Bizarrely, we anglicise his father's name but not his son's.  Nyttend (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Saint Alexius, Metropolitan of Moscow has a bearing on it. He "has been revered as one of the patron saints of Moscow" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My apology. I just did a bit of a search and it turned out the second Romanov was Alexey. So I stand corrected. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? You weren't wrong.  My "don't get Aleksandr and Alexey confused" was building off what you said, not attempting to correct it.  Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It ain't just the Russians. My Scottish grandfather was called Alec (short for Alexander), as were several other male ancestors from that line. Are the Scots empire builders? I teach Greek kids. Many are called Alex (for Alexander, et al). HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Since no one has linked it, see Alexey and Alexander. The two names share a similar etymology, but arrived in Russia via different paths, and thus in Russian are considered distinct names.  The closest parallel I can think of in English are the names Jacob and James, which like Alexei and Alexander are distinct names with a common root.  -- Jayron  32  20:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The assertion above that the Russians are in awe with Alexander the Great is incorrect and Russian Alexanders are named after a different person. Until recently (perhaps until 1917) the Russian church made decisions. You have to baptize a child, you take him to a priest and the priest looks at the calendar if he already did not memorize it by heart. Every day had a few saints (their birthdays or days of canonization, whatnot). So, the priest says: the boy is Alexander, it is his day today. He most likely meant Alexander Nevsky, a ruler of Russia or a part thereof who in medieval times confronted the Teutonic knights and defeated them, That stopped the German Eastward expansion. The church canonized him. He is a saint now. Alexander, of a Norwegian (viking) line, was a direct descendant of Vladimir, another Russian ruler, a Norwegian gangster, who grabbed the power in Kiev after a series of murders and in the end he baptized the whole Russian populace by ordering them to jump into the Dnieper river. For that the church declared him a saint. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is worthwhile to note that all of those Alexanders still likely derive (either directly or a more circuitous route) from Alexander the Great. -- Jayron  32  03:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And that Alexander was named after earlier Alexanders in his family (Alexander I and Alexander II). Maybe they were ultimately named after Alexander, otherwise known as Paris of Troy. 09:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See name day for what AboutFace describes above. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a strange almost mysterious power attached to some personal/proper names. I don't know if everyone feels it. For me Alexander sounds much stronger than Alexei. Ticonderoga is another example. Perhaps people here can bring out more examples. Why is it so? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear strength in John, George, Jim and Frank. Johnny, Georgie, Jimmy and Frankie sound like little boys. Same with Alexei. Something about the vowel. Trails off, while consonant has a decisive finish. Shorter names help. Jonathan, Franklin and Alexander sound a bit more "nerdy", probably due to verbosity. Those sound mature, but not physically strong. Alex would be the strongest version, I think. Drop the Frenchish "le", even stronger. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If a short name denotes power and decisiveness, then a long name denotes gentleness and thoughtfulness: Aloysius, Llewellyn, Percival, Solomon, Terence, Vladimir. Also, female given names are important: Ann(e), Claire, Dawn, Faith, Hope, Ruth.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC) and 17:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In Russia, parents not name children; children name parents. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most Russian names are either Greek or Slavic in origin. Both Alexander and Aleksey/Alexis are Greek names. Alexander Nevsky is an exceedingly popular saint who helped save Russia from a brutal onslaught by western crusaders. Hence the popularity of this name. Alexander and Constantine got their names from their grandmother Catherine the Great in connection with the Greek Plan. Alexius of Rome is a very popular Orthodox saint. The fact that the patron saint of Moscow is also named Alexis undoubtedly helped to popularize the name in Russia. His holy deeds were recently dramatized in The Horde (film). --Ghirla-трёп- 14:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Philatelic Collection
Who owns it: the Queen or the Crown? In other words, could Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor sell it like any other personal property, or would selling it require vaguely the same kind of procedures as selling a chunk of Crown land? The answer may be at this website, but my computer refuses to load it (but won't give a 404 or any other error message) for whatever reason. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And that site says
 * "After the death of King George V, Edward VIII became King. He is said to have considered selling the Royal Philatelic Collection but did not do so. Although the Collection is the personal asset of the Sovereign, it was, and is, regarded as an heirloom to pass down."
 * Rojomoke (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Which means that it's her personal property to do with as she pleases, but we can just about guarantee that it will please her to hand it down. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, Liz might succumb to an as-yet-unknown gambling addiction and squander her fortune at Monte Carlo, in which case she might want to sell those dusty old stamps to have another go at roulette, but that would be the sort of speculation we don't do here. Marco polo (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter L. Shaw
Of all the individuals listed on wiki I am most surprised that Walter L. Shaw, the American inventor, had no entry. How come? AT&T? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.7.242 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting (and definitely notable) fellow. Why no article? Because you (or more likely I now) haven't gotten around to writing it yet. Stay tuned to this bat channel ... Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Voila: Walter L. Shaw (inventor). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, considering a conspiracy involving AT&T and Wikipedia to hide the existence of a man is a much more reasonable assumption than "not done yet." --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Shhhh!  —I haven't received my payola from AT&T yet. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the nature of his grievance from what's in the newly-created Wikipedia article, because assigning one's patents over to one's employer was and is a standard and very-well-known condition of employment for researchers and scientists at technology companies... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)