Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 September 21

= September 21 =

Do we have something as a spirit that gets cultivated?
What do people mean when they say something "cultivates our spirit?" Is watching opera or ballet anyhow different than watching youtube videos of a kitten playing with a wool ball? Are we improving ourselves by reading a novel, looking at classic paintings and so on? --Llaanngg (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a topic which is hotly debated, and I don't think you will find a definitive answer anywhere (well, you might, but if so, you'll find other definitive answers which strongly disagree with the first one). You could start with reading High culture and Low culture. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't hotly debated. No one (that I'm aware of) believes that culture elevates us in any way. The first step in answering this question necessarily involves looking at the supposed assertions that culture elevates us in any way or has any positive effects on people. I remain unaware of any such assertions. Where are these assertions? Can we see an example of such an assertion? Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Googling "culture elevates us" produced these hits. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick perusal of those hits finds: "Recovering the roots of language in the felt, perceived world seems to be a key step in dispelling the illusion that culture elevates us above the world rather than—when properly wielded—articulating our embeddedness." This may actually support my contention. It refers to dispelling the illusion that culture elevates us above the world. Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course this LinkedIn hit supports that "Great culture elevates us, inspires us, and brings out our best", but I was hoping for a more substantial source. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In another of those hits I find "The Arnoldian notion that culture elevates us, makes us empathetic and sensitive, is just not true." (I think the reference might be to one Matthew Arnold.) Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In another of those hits I find "The ability of art, music, literature, poetry and paintings, to inspire people to endure the worst deprivations of war is an established and accepted fact. The finest culture elevates us even if only for a few seconds from our current circumstance which is why during the siege of Sarajevo people still risked their lives from sniper fire to listen to Vedran Smailovic play his cello. Or why the starving of Leningrad flocked to hear the orchestra for it opened a window to a normal world, a world that was now crumbling around them. But this is comparing a dire circumstance to a normal circumstance. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A newspaper article says "High culture elevates us out of our small lives into something bigger, and more wondrous, than ourselves, and in so doing gives us empathy for others. When we’re gazing at a painting, listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book, we become lost in the experience, taken 'out of ourselves'", but is this a good source? Or is it merely repeating what it believes to be commonly held wisdom? Bus stop (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a freely abridged rephrasal of an artist and aesthetician who holds that art is the food of the soul:


 * Is the universe intelligible or unintelligible and unknowable? Can man find happiness on earth, or is he doomed to frustration and despair? Does man have the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, the power to direct the course of his life—or is he the helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, which determine his fate? Is man, by nature, to be valued as good, or to be despised as evil?


 * Consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, man knows that he needs a comprehensive view of existence to integrate his values, to choose his goals, to plan his future, to maintain the unity and coherence of his life.


 * Philosophy is the science that deals with the fundamental nature of reality—involves man’s widest abstractions. It includes every concrete he has ever perceived, it involves such a vast sum of knowledge and such a long chain of concepts that no man could hold it all in the focus of his immediate conscious awareness. Yet he needs that sum and that awareness to guide him—he needs the power to summon them into full, conscious focus.


 * That power is given to him by art.

"Here's the source, User:Llaanngg, with the unabridged original. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Medeis—Ayn Rand doesn't address the question posed by Llaanngg, who wants to know how we distinguish between art and non-art. Llaanngg wonders aloud if perhaps art is ennobling. I am paraphrasing Llaanngg. We can also paraphrase Llaanngg to say that Llaanngg is asking how one would distinguish between "fine art" and "non-fine art" and if the distinction is perhaps that fine art elevates or improves us. Ayn Rand is not making the pointed statement that fine art elevates or improves or ennobles us. Ayn Rand does not attempt to distinguish between "fine art" and "non-fine art".  Ayn Rand does not say that opera, ballet, literature or fine painting "cultivates" or improves us. Ayn Rand simply does not address the question posed by Llaanngg. ColinFine's answer appropriately, in the context of this question, juxtaposes Low culture and High culture. What I took exception to was ColinFine's assertion that anything about this topic is "hotly debated". I don't think anyone argues that "high culture" makes us into better people, ennobles us, improves us, or cultivates us. I don't think that Ayn Rand, in the above quotes, asserts this. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ayn is a she. I find all those 'Ayn Rand's remind me of the 'Bob Dole' campaign. :)  Sciabarra here quotes Rand as saying "Art is the technology of the soul".  I took the OP as asking whether art helps/feeds one's spirit, which is a theme the OP can find throughout her work on aesthetics, and which he can start exploring at the site I linked to.  I certainly did not mean that that quote was the only relevant thing she had to say.  I didn't understand him to be asking whether people not trained in ballet appreciation were lowbrow, and hence had uncultivated spirits.


 * Here is another abridgment, emphasis added:"Among novelists, the greatest are Victor Hugo and Dostoevsky, and, as single novels (whose authors were not always consistent in the rest of their works), I would name Henryk Sienkiewicz’s Quo Vadis and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. ... The distinguishing characteristic of this top rank (apart from their purely literary genius) is their full commitment to the premise of volition in both of its fundamental areas: in regard to consciousness and to existence, in regard to man’s character and to his actions in the physical world. Maintaining a perfect integration of these two aspects, unmatched in the brilliant ingenuity of their plot structures, these writers are enormously concerned with man’s soul (i.e., his consciousness). They are moralists in the most profound sense of the word; their concern is not merely with values, but specifically with moral values and with the power of moral values in shaping human character."The full quote, from The Romantic Manifesto as well as excerpts on many related issues can be found here. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Medeis—Ayn Rand had favorites in art. You are providing us with a quote which shows which authors she liked and why she liked them. You are misunderstanding the question. Llaanngg is asking, if I can paraphrase him, Does exposure to the fine arts have a beneficial effect on people, and can this be demonstrated by comparison to exposure to that which may be cultural, loosely-speaking, but which is generally not thought of as fine art? Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I am misunderstanding anything, as above "man knows that he needs a comprehensive view of existence to integrate his values...that power is given to him by art." Your sole objection seems to be that she gives examples in her excerpts, and that I give excerpts.  I am recommending The Romantic Manifesto as a whole, not just the quotes I gave above to show she's concerned with the topic.  (Of course, since it is a collection of essays, not all may be directly relevant.) I am not sure what could be more explicit than "[Artists'] concern is not merely with values, but specifically with moral values and with the power of moral values in shaping human character". μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I do find a source that could be construed as supporting the argument that the fine arts promote "social improvement." Here we find it said that Matthew Arnold argues that "culture is a combination of broad intellectual interests with the goal of social improvement." And a quote from Matthew Arnold: "There is a view in which all the love of our neighbor, the impulses towards action, help, and beneficence, the desire for removing human error, clearing human confusion, and diminishing human misery, the noble aspiration to leave the world better and happier than we found it,—motives eminently such as are called social,—come in as part of the grounds of culture, and the main and pre-eminent part". Therefore I am wrong when I argue that no one argues that the fine arts leads to the betterment of people. Bus stop (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

America's Christian Heritage and Communism
The Christian right strongly believes in America's Christian heritage. They believe that America was founded as a Christian nation by Christian people under Christian principles. Why? Is this just because of communism? During the Cold War there were two superpowers, America and the Soviet Union. America was democratic and capitalist. The Soviet Union was communist and atheist. Communism is atheist. Is this why the Christian right believes in America's Christian heritage?

Desklin (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Humanism and Communism
Are secular humanism and communism the same thing? I'm asking this because the Christian right claims, thinks and makes us think that secular humanism and communism are the same thing.

Desklin (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Communism and Human Nature
I've heard that communism doesn't work because human nature is evil and selfish. Why? Is communism based on a belief that human nature is good?

Desklin (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal position of "hazing" in Canada (and the UK)
(legal disclaimer noted)

Does anyone here have any suggestions on where to start to get basic assesment on whether so termed hazing is legally barred in Canada (or the UK)?

My reason for asking is that as far as I was aware the UK didn't have a specific anti-hazing law, and was wondering if other Commonwealth realms did, for comparative purposes.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We have "embarrass the new guy" customs in the UK - asking the new guy on a building site to go to stores for a "long weight" or a "long stand", or ritually humiliating the groom on his stag night by making him wear something ridiculous or leaving him stranded somewhere embarrassing. I imagine worse goes on in the army. But we don't usually call it "hazing", so we're not likely to have laws against it under that term. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm reasonably confident that there's no specific law on the topic. However, we do have laws against assault, which are conveniently overlooked when it suits the right people. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that's how Canada deals with it, too. All fun and games till someone crosses the line into plain crime. A clear difference between sending someone to find a left-handed screwdriver and repeatedly poking them with a left-handed screwdriver, or between a weekend of roasting and months of verbal harassment.
 * According to Wikipedia, hazing is "known to be" illegal in "most countries". Somebody there needs a (humane) paddling, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hockey Canada (basically normal Canada, but smaller) doesn't take kindly to "initiation practice that may humiliate, demean, degrade, or disgrace a person". Whether it's punishable and how is up to the Branch, though, and players are still generally allowed/encouraged to make the other teams cry (within the law). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that "hazing" is called "bullying" in British English. See Workplace bullying and harassment from the British Government. Alansplodge (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not appear so. It appears, from the page that you linked, that the British English term "bullying" is closest in definition to the American English term "bullying".  I know, it's like a wonder we even call them the same language.  Hazing, however, is a form of Initiation which is, by its nature, harmful.  There's likely to be some overlap (for example, some forms of hazing may include activities that would also be described as bullying).  -- Jayron 32 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also blurs into "involuntary homicide" and "straight-up murder" sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I stand corrected. In that case, note that "hazing" is called "an initiation ceremony" in British English. This article suggests that it constitutes a tort rather than a criminal offence in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the British government piece on workplace bullying is a good guide.  These terms have a legalistic definition under employment legislation and have special meanings.   A wider discussion is had in the leaflets which are linked to in the website. 92.25.66.15 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How can I point out a typo on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news?
When I'm not removing apostrophes from Wikipedia articles I spot (more and more these days) sub-editor goofs on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news. Their pages used to have a link for reporting grammar or factual mistakes but now it has gone. (I might have pissed them off one too many times.)

Today, for instance, I want to tell them that this sentence needs rewording: "By getting planes to link to ground cell towers should significantly increase speeds." It was obviously partly changed and then not properly checked.

What is the best way now to correct Aunty? Hayttom (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Use this form. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. That's more or less what I used they used to have a link to.  I'll bookmark it.  The good feature is that you can paste in the URL of the offending story.  Hayttom (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would happily join you in a campaign to eliminate every instance of the otiose little hook from Wikipedia, and indeed from every other sample of written English. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Most damaged European city in WWII
Which European city suffered the most destruction in World War II as regards buildings and monuments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure one can quantify it, but the Bombing of Dresden in World War II was famous for it's level of wanton destruction; depending on how one defines a "city" and "most destruction", it would certainly be close to the top of the list. -- Jayron 32 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dresden wasn't actually particularly badly damaged in comparison to other German cities like Hamburg or Cologne. The idea that it was springs from holocaust denier David Irving who fabricated claims about the casualty levels in an effort to push a "the Allies were just as destructive as the Nazis" theme; Irving's claims were repeated in good faith by Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse Five and entered the popular consciousness. Minsk is usually considered the major city which suffered the most damage, with 80% of housing and almost 100% of commercial buildings destroyed and the population reduced from around 300,000 to 50,000. (In terms of percentage of buildings destroyed, Stalingrad surely wins, albeit from a much smaller base.) &#8209; iridescent 18:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Not Dresden, where the damage was concentrated in a fairly small area and the city, although a major cultural centre, was not a capital city. The unhappy systematic destruction of Warsaw must be the worst. Otherwise, there are well-known villages including Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane, destroyed as reprisals, although the destruction on the Eastern front - the Ukraine and modern-day Byelorussia - was even more thorough but is not as widely known. Major firestorms were started by (predominantly British) bombing in Hamburg and Dresden. Bombing Berlin caused extensive damage, but the spread-out nature of the city prevented a firestorm.


 * Just as an aside, my father was posted to Cologne at the end of the war, and was astonished at the scale of destruction. Even today, when one visits cities such as Hannover, the lack of pre-war buildings is obvious. The further East one goes, the more thorough the destruction. From a personal point of view, my great sadness is the destruction of the old Hanseatic League cities of Hamburg, Lübeck, and Danzig (/Gdansk). 86.148.135.247 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you miss old Bremen, I'll apologize for my grandfather. He was still young and foolish. If it's any consolation, he smartened up after the ground shot back and he lost all of his teeth on a death march. Not sure if he destroyed anything irreplaceable (I doubt he even knew, from that height), but it was "just" a few runs. Still, every little bit of TNT went toward a pretty severe smashing, especially if you judge the city on its buildings' military potential, rather than their cultural history. Something better than death we can find anywhere, but seeking to destroy the instruments of death itself is perhaps a purer annihilation. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For those into crossword clues, a strandhögg was a bombless slave raid. For those into black metal, "Pure Annihilation" has a delightful tune and album cover (by wartime Poland standards, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not to say art wasn't also destroyed; oddly enough, one of the raids burned Washington Crossing the Delaware, the only piece left in the Kunsthalle, for being too big to move. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe it can be quantified in terms of number of buildings left standing or some such. American Army Air Forces in the Pacific would measure the degree of destruction by square miles burned. I recall reading (but can't find a cite at the moment) that almost no structures survived the Battle of Stalingrad - that most of what still stood was damaged beyond repair and had to be knocked down. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is touched on briefly in the recent BBC television series Blitz Cities to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, available on the iplayer for a limited period.  The series covers Birmingham, Liverpool, London, Norwich and some others.   Apparently, if Hitler hadn't turned his attention to the Soviet Union we would have lost the war. 92.25.66.15 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That Britain could ever have lost the war without the Germans inventing the A-bomb is such a fringe theory, the term alien space bats exists to describe the level of external intervention that would have been necessary for a successful German invasion of the British Isles. The UK likes to play the "plucky little island" narrative, but in reality the British Empire had a considerably higher population than all continental Europe combined, as well as the ability to move munitions factories to un-bombable locations in Canada and Africa should it have become necessary. German plans were based on making continued fighting so costly that a lobby would develop in Britain and the US against continuing the war, rather than on defeating Britain—let alone the US—in battle. &#8209; iridescent 09:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any cases recorded where a belligerent who has acquired air superiority has gone on to lose the war? 92.25.66.15 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, yes; Bashir al-Assad is currently illustrating the point fairly spectacularly that total air superiority doesn't count for much against a determined opponent. Vietnam, in which ground troops defeated the most powerful air force in history, is the most obvious example, but the Eritrean War of Independence, the Algerian War and the Croatian War of Independence are all recent examples of ground forces winning against an enemy with total air superiority, and without the difficulties of mounting an amphibious attack against a heavily defended coastline followed by fighting street-to-street through the most densely populated area in the world, against an opponent with a literally unlimited supply of manpower. &#8209; iridescent 11:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Assad's opponents aren't exactly wingless. Unless you mean his "evil" opponents. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Some cities in northern France were razed to the ground. St Malo, Le Havre and Amiens suffered much damage. In Caen only the two medieval abbeys and the castle were visible above the ruins. I don't know if there is any standard way to compare cities in this way. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Off-topic because wrong war, but for interest – Ypres today looks quite similar to other Belgian cities with buildings dating back as far as the mediaeval period, but during World War I it was near-literally razed to the ground by German bombardment – the photos have to be seen to be believed. After the war it was deliberately rebuilt so as to recreate its historic appearance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) was ~80% destroyed.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From the tables in de:Luftkrieg im Zweiten Weltkrieg (incomplete) it appears that Emmerich, Wesel and Jülich were all 97% destroyed, Royan is listed as 100% destroyed. The French article fr:Royan differs: "Royan est détruite à plus de 85 % ". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly different, just safer wording. 100% is more than 85%. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)