Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 21

= March 21 =

Likelihood of describing oneself as "Christ follower"
Among all the denominations of Christianity, which denomination has people who are more likely to describe themselves as "Christ follower", using that exact wording? 140.254.227.92 (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears "non"-denominational Christians are the ones most likely to not find that term pretentious - Christianity Today article on the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, that just means "evangelical Protestant that does not affiliate officially with any one of the established denominations", right? 140.254.227.92 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily "Protestant" in the anti-Catholic sense, but protesting any broader leadership. Some of them describe themselves as "pirates". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I sense irony on that website. First, an image of the definition of "Religion" is shown, and below it is a Statement of Faith. It may be a common trend these days among Evangelicals. 140.254.227.92 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "We believe the Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative Word of God" and "We believe the Church consists of all who put their faith in Jesus Christ." Those are the key points in being non-denominational. No human leaders, no archaic ritual, no hierarchy. There will always be hypocrisy, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you get this, Inedible? I certainly dispute that being an infalliblist amounts to being non-denominational. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a combination of the two statements. Treating the Bible as the sole material authority, and the Church as the combined temples of the Holy Spirit (that is, all people) rather than as any one order/clique/denomination. But I'm no expert. Just the way I hear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nondeminationalism is about rejecting all non-biblical organization of the Church. Insofar as any denomination from Orthodox to Catholic to Methodist to Baptist, has established a set of "standards and practices" (if you will) which exist outside of the Bible, nondenominationalists see all of that as bad.  A denomination exists because a group of likeminded believers has published a set of principles which says "This is what we believe, and this is what you need to practice to be a "True Christian".  That published set of beliefs is another document outside of the Bible.  It's this other set of documents that nondenominationalists object to.  -- Jayron  32  18:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the "this is what we believe" part, but not "this is what you need to practice". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the problem though. As soon as you create some set of documents saying "this is what we believe", and that isn't actually in the bible, then are you elevating your creed to coequal status with the bible?  Non-denominational churches say you are, which is why the take sola scriptura to the extreme.  That's the distinction between non-denominational churches and other denominations.  The concept of what defines a denomination is rejected.  -- Jayron  32  19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Then how do they know which part of the scriptures are authoritative when the scriptures were put together by the early church and would reflect the beliefs of the church? 140.254.227.92 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Any Church that takes sola scriptura to the extreme that the Bible overrides all earthly manifestation of God is adhering to a formal principle set by the Westminster Confession of Faith (the same paper granting divine authority to civil magistrates to punish heretics). The RLM doesn't really define any doctrinal principles or institutions, more of an "About Us" page. In my (again, non-expert) eyes, their way is the freer way than the capitalized Protestants'. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Iago in Othello
In Shakespeare's Othello, the whole of Iago's personality and being (and motivation) is that he is duplicitous, conniving, two-faced, dishonest, a back-stabber, and so forth. He says: "I am not what I am", meaning "I am not what I seem to be; I am not what people think I am". He also says that he will never allow his outer self (appearances, actions, words, etc.) to reflect what is really happening with his inner self (emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc.). He says, essentially, "I will never wear my heart out on my sleeve". He basically keeps his cards close to his vest; he never reveals his hand. Then, why is it that – in the very first scene, no less – he goes 100% against all of this? In the very first scene, he reveals all of this (above) to Roderigo. So, why does Shakespeare do that? Is there some reason, in terms of plot (or some other reason)? It seems contradictory and goes 100% against who and what Iago is. And, it's not like Roderigo is Iago's friend and confidante (in fact, Roderigo is one of Iago's many victims). It can't really be a device to drive the plot, since Iago can – and does – reveal his inner thoughts to the audience through his soliloquies and "asides" anyway. So what motivates Iago to go 100% against his own character and reveal all of these "secrets" to Roderigo in the first scene? And, by extension, what motivates Shakespeare? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Could it be that he planned to dispatch Roderigo before he could pass on any of that info ? StuRat (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. Roderigo sticks around for the better part of the story.  On the contrary, Iago actually wants to keep Roderigo around (to steal more money) more than he wants to get rid of him.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want another suggestion, perhaps, when Shakespeare wrote the opening scene, he had in mind that both of the two opening characters were lusting after Desdemona (as in the original story that Shakespeare adapted), and that Iago was intent on persuading Roderigo that they could work together to destroy Othello. Alternatively, perhaps it was just dramatic licence to allow the audience an immediate judgement of Iago's character.  I'm sure scholars have come up with other explanations.  I'm just guessing.    D b f i r s   07:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have been giving this some thought, and I think that I may have arrived at a plausible explanation.  (But, I am not sure.)  Roderigo is given all of this information by Iago on a silver platter; Iago tells him that he (Iago) is not to be trusted and he (Iago) only uses other people for his own self interests.  In the very next breath, Iago tells Roderigo "But, you can trust me; so, please still keep giving me money, so that I can help you in your cause".  Roderigo – even after having been warned (by Iago himself) about Iago's true nature – still continues to trust Iago and to give all of his money to Iago (despite the very explicit warnings).  Perhaps this is Shakespeare's way of showing two things: (1) how stupid / foolish / gullible / love struck / blind Roderigo really is; and how love makes a person totally blind to reality; and (2) just how convincing / deceptive / manipulative / believable Iago can be in his attempts to mislead people to their own downfall.  Thoughts?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could Shakespeare have been making use of the Epimenides paradox so that Roderigo's understanding was obfuscated? Thincat (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't follow you. What do you mean?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Iago reveals that he will never reveal himself. Because of this Roderigo (an aspiring logician) thinks what Iago is saying must be deceitful and therefore Iago is really a plain, straightforward fellow. This is what Iago wants him to think. (I've got tangled up in all this! Pay no attention to me!). Thincat (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. Good theory.  However, I think it's widely accepted that Roderigo is considered a gullible fool and a buffoon.  And, textually, there is much evidence to support that.  I think your theory gives too much (unwarranted) credit to Roderigo, his level of intelligence, and his mental acuity.  But, now I do see what you mean by your reference to the Epimenides paradox.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

England vs. the United Kingdom
Most people know that England and the United Kingdom are not the same thing, even though some people (including some of us Finns) think so. But lately I came to think about this. The other countries in the UK - Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - each have their own sub-national capitals and their own parliaments too, I guess. But London, the capital of the whole UK, is in England, and the Parliament of the UK is also located there. Does England have any sort of political features, like a capital or a parliament, all to itself, not to the UK as a whole? I can understand the situation in the USA, where Washington D.C. is not in any state but rather directly under the whole federation, and in Germany, where Berlin is a small city-state located inside the rather larger state of Brandenburg, but the UK is a unitary nation, not a federation, and thus there doesn't seem to be so clear a separation between England and the whole nation. J I P &#124; Talk 18:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Politics of England, the English government died in 1707. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That article (Politics of England) is probably a good place to start reading about this. Its section on "Post-devolution Politics" links to the articles on West Lothian Question, Devolved English Parliament, and English nationalism as "main articles". ---Sluzzelin talk  18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The situation in England/UK is, um, complex and requires an understanding of the full breadth of English/British history to really "get" why the current situation exists and makes sense historically, but simple analogies to other parts of the world, or trying to fit the U.K. into some "model" of how a state is supposed to work will generally fall short. Still, the short-short version works something like this:
 * Going back (WAY WAY BACK) to the time of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain there had been, in the British Isles, roughly two distinct groups of Celtic peoples: the "Goidelic" peoples which occupied Ireland and the northeastern third of Britain, and the "Brythonic" peoples which occupied the southern 2/3rds of Britain. When the Anglo-Saxons invaded and established themselves on the Island, it established the basic 4 "British" nations, the Irish (Goidelic) in Ireland, the Scots (Goidelic) in northern Britain, the Welsh (Brythonic) in western Britain, and the Germanic English in the central, southern, and eastern part of Britain.  This basic division became established by the Norman conquest, and remains to this day.
 * About 200 years after the Norman Conquest, Edward I of England began a program of conquest over the other Nations on the Island. Conquest of Wales by Edward I essentially eliminated Wales as an independent nation (though legally the distinction between Wales and England kept going until Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 eliminated Wales from any distinctions with England).  He also tried to do the same in Scotland, but the Wars of Scottish Independence kept Scotland mostly out of English influence and established them as a viable, unified, independent state (the fact that Wales lacked a history political unity of any sort is perhaps why it was subjugated easier that Scotland).
 * Fast forward another 300 years or so; Scotland and England have coexisted as separate states for a long time. However, due to the issues surrounding the succession of Henry VIII of England, after Henry's three children all served on the throne of England without legitimate issue, Elizabeth I of England named her cousin James VI of Scotland as her heir.  Thus, it is technically proper to say that England was taken over by Scotland, insofar as the Scottish Monarch took over the throne of England.  Oh, but were it so simple.  Some things to keep in mind...
 * While the states of Scotland and England remained distinct and nominally independent under a state of Dynastic union during the Stuart period, in all reality the Island moved inexorably towards becoming a unitary state under English domination. When the Acts of Union 1707 occured, it functionally ended the Parliament of Scotland, and expanded the English parliament into a parliament for the whole Island.  The two parliaments formally merged, but as they merged into a new body which met in London, it had the symbolic effect of confirming English domination of the entire island.  That situation pretty much remained status quo until the 20th century, when...
 * During the 20th century, a period of Devolution occurred, as modern political theory took hold and encouraged the formation of the various National Assemblies on the Island. The idea is that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, while on paper were co-equal constituent parts of a single socio-cultural-political-national thing called the United Kingdom, in reality the situation operated as a system which English culture dominated the other cultures, and English politics became U.K. politics.  The notion that the four separate Home Nations would assimilate into a single new national identity didn't really every happen.  The Welsh kept being Welsh, the Scottish kept being Scottish, etc.  They stubbornly refused to become English.  So each of the home nations was granted its own National Assembly to manage its own internal affairs.  England never was, because while on paper England was a co-equal partner in the U.K., in practice, the situation operated very differently, with Englishness becomeing "Britishness", and as the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish didn't wish to lose their cultural and political heritage to assimilation into a unified British culture (which in practice basically meant becoming English), they were granted some measure of home rule.  England has never been granted this home rule because it doesn't have another culture it is trying to protect itself from.  There's no real danger of England losing its Englishness.
 * To sum this all up, the purpose of Devolution in the United Kingdom is to protect the various national cultures from losing their identity. Since England wasn't really in danger of that, there's not been any real progress towards establishing a distinct English National Assembly.  In the U.S., it's analogous to reason why there's no "White History Month" when there is a Black History Month.  The white people of the U.S. are the dominant culture, and there's nothing to protect and/or revive.  Same deal here.  -- Jayron  32  18:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not really true. There are generic traditions like Maypoles that have been forgotten, and most especially, all the various races that have been assimilated into "just plain white" have given up customs.  There's a lot of need in the U.S. for people to recover and rebuild white European traditions, throwing them open for all the people to mix and match as they please; racism is a pall of oppression that has affected whites less cruelly than other cultures, but not less completely. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The largest pro-England political party would be the English Democrats, who are tiny. --89.242.206.103 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See English Democrats. Although this is indeed a tiny political party, it doesn't mean that English people are all entirely happy with the present muddle. The main problem with the current arrangement is known as the West Lothian question, which asks why Scottish Members of Parliament are free to dabble in English affairs, while Scottish affairs are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. The worst example of this was when a bill to introduce tuition fees in English universities was only carried through Parliament by the votes of Scottish MPs while the Scottish Parliament perversely decided that they didn't want tuition fees thank you very much. The traditional remedy to this sort of problem is a bit of tweaking of the famously flexible British Constitution, however, all this has been put on hold while the Scots decide whether they still want to be British or not. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not to say that the West Lothian problem is not a real problem with the actual function of the British Constitution. However, "efficient government" was probably not the primary motivation behind parliamentary devolution in the UK.  Cultural heritage and identity was, first and foremost, the primary issue.  If the motivating force behind devolution was purely bureaucratic, it would not have necessarily divided on historical national boundaries, for example, nor would it have occured in a hodge-podge fashion, nor would it have left England out.  The problems you note are real and present, but the fact that they still have not been addressed points to the core spirit of devolution.  It doesn't make it good, it just is.  -- Jayron  32  21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems likely to me that the proximate cause of devolution was that the Labour administration in the 1990s thought it would win them votes in Scotland and Wales and that they were quite certain that the devolved assemblies would have an in-built Labour majority. It didn't turn out that way though. Actually, there were solid plans for elected English Regional Assemblies but they were hugely unpopular and the apparatus set in place for them has been dismantled. Your hypothesis about cultural identity fails in the case of Cornwall, whose pleas for a Cornish Assembly have fallen on deaf ears. Den heb tavas a gollas y dyr ("A man without his language has lost his land"). Alansplodge (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the case that the Labour government believed the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales would have permanent Labour majorities. The Scottish Parliament was largely constructed on the basis of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and deliberately included an electoral system which it hoped would make it impossible for any party to win an overall majority (although this turned out not to be the case in 2011). The National Assembly for Wales had a version of the same system which just made it very difficult to win an overall majority. By 1994 the state of opinion in Scotland was such that it would have been impossible for a Labour government not to have created a Scottish Parliament. By contrast, the reason many Labour Party members in Wales were sceptical about the National Assembly (and voted against it in the 1997 referendum) was that they thought Labour control of Wales was more likely with Wales as part of the United Kingdom rather than with a devolved and proportionally elected Assembly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've obviously been reading too many Conservative newspapers. Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This whole situation (which I've thought odd for quite a while) is vaguely comparable to that of the pre-1992 Russian Communist Party. Each of the other fourteen republics had its own Communist Party, but into the last years of the USSR, there was no party for Russia, the core republic to which everything else looked.  In short, the Russians complained that they didn't get their own Party, and everybody else complained that the Russians dominated the Union-wide Party.  Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The situation is a bit similar here in Finland. Åland has its own parliament, and Finnish law guarantees Åland one seat in the main Parliament of Finland automatically. However, mainland Finland doesn't get any chance to say anything in Åland's politics. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Odd type of spoon
I recently saw an odd type of spoon being used for scooping out condiments. It was nearly flat metal with a dull straight end and curled up edges. I checked List of types of spoons, but could find no such type. I checked but found nothing. Can anyone help?-- Auric    talk  20:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it this one? If so, the general name for these are Sugar spoons.  The picture in our article has a bit of a more ornate design on the bowl, however there is a WIDE variety of sugar spoon designs.  You can see here what I am talking about, but there are quite a few that match the style you are describing.  -- Jayron  32  21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Condiment spoon" gets quite a few search hits, such as: Victorian Sterling Silver English Mustard Spoon / Condiment Spoon – Circa 1857 —71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are close, but they still have too much of a bowl. This type is the closest, but not exact. There are similarities to the sugar shovel type, but still not exact. -- Auric    talk  00:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be a caddy spoon - some of the Georg Jensen designs are similar - in fact, one is for sale on eBay at the moment - or a stilton scoop or a marrow scoop. 86.181.15.157 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)