Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 21

= March 21 =

Was there any contemporary European analysis done of the Ming-Qing transition?
Was there any contemporary 17th and 18th century European analysis done of the Ming-Qing transition? How was it interpreted? How did it affect European relations with China? --Gary123 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Dutch were certainly affected when Koxinga took Taiwan away from them... AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * More on-the-ground reactions: Jesuit China missions. I am too interested in the European thoughts back in Europe of the great upheavals during this period.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in hearing the answer. A possible approach might be to follow up on works about China by European authors who were in China during and immediately after the transition, such as Gabriel de Magalhães or Domingo Fernández Navarrete. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This paper: "A EUROPEAN DOCUMENT ON THE FALL OF THE MING DYNASTY (1644-1649)" looks helpful: it is specifically about a document which records a European view of the fall of the Ming, and also provides some historiographical context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Real first name?
Spider Robinson? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * His real first name is Spider. That's not the name he was born with, but it's his real first name. He was called Rob or Robbie growing up, but that's a contraction of his surname. He seems to not want the name he was born with known. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We know he was born in the Bronx in 1948, so it might be possible to find out his birth name once the US census details for 1950 are released to the public - in about the spring of 2022. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, a person's real name is the name they tell you is their real name. The OP may be looking for birth name, but that's not any more real than a name a person has chosen to adopt; sometimes even legally as their official name.  Name change would cover Mr. Robinson, as he is American, if indeed Spider were not his birth name (which I'm not saying it isn't.  People can and are given such names as birth names) -- Jayron 32 21:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An interesting perspective; try taking that approach with a police officer who requires your name, if you've not changed it legally. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Organs of the state do not always act in reality. -- Jayron 32 17:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm reminded of the bit in The Flying Sorcerers where Shoogar explains to the narrator that "the phrase 'My real name is' is a spell." —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Title in Beauty and the Beast
In the most recent movie of Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson and the other guy, the guy's title is "Prince of France". I know that Dauphin of France is the eldest son of the king. So, are the younger sons princes? I know it's a fictional story but I don't get why Disney has to make the Beast lacking in table manners while the Beast seems to be well educated due to an "expensive education". Also, if he's the prince, wouldn't the king be still alive? Or maybe, like in Romeo and Juliet, the prince is the one who is in charge of the town? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. An "expensive education" could be something, circumstantially, not matching a court's expectations. Education was a responsibility in ancient times often conferred to slaves, or people of lower extraction, all which, circumstantially could be punished. --Askedonty (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of crown prince, one of many princes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Dauphin was the eldest son of a French King, and therefore the heir to the throne. Other sons of the king would also have the title of Prince, and would continue to be princes even after their elder brother had become king. The same tradition continues in many monarchies today. In the UK, Charles is the heir - but his brothers Andrew and Edward are also princes, and will still be princes once Charles becomes king. Wymspen (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fils de France has a good explanation of different ranks / titles of princes and princesses in monarchical France. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looked to me like the "terrible table manners" were caused by the beast's inability to hold cutlery, etc. in his claws rather than anything else - Q Chris (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Google returns this article, which says "PRINCE Harry has terrible table manners and cannot even use a knife and fork, his dad Charles said yesterday", for "prince bad table manners". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Prince du Sang. -- Jayron 32 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Muslim women calling for reforms for women in Islam
Who are the women that are calling for reforms in Islam regarding women and their rights? Are they asking for women to lead prayers? Are they asking for women to have more inheritance than men? What are the reforms that they want to change Islam for? Donmust90 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Your question reminded me of this article about a woman led mosque - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/women-lead-friday-prayers-denmark-first-female-run-mosque-mariam I suspect that your wider question has a very simple answer - they want the same rights as men already have - so not more inheritance, but an equal share with the male heirs. Wymspen (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Similar to Francafrique
Is France the only former colonial power to have this relationship with its former colonies in Africa? What about UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Italy? Is there a term in French that deals with France having its relationship with its former colonies Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Donmust90 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For the UK, see Commonwealth of Nations. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be looking for the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Rojomoke (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The French Union (1946–58) and French Community (1958–61) were closer French equivalents to the Commonwealth of Nations in the early years of decolonisation than Organisation internationale de la Francophonie has been since its foundation in 1970. jnestorius(talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For Purtugal, see Community of Portuguese Language Countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not mentioned in the article - Equatorial Guinea was a Portuguese possession until ceded to Spain in 1778.  Uruguay is not mentioned at all, although it was a part of Brazil until 1828 and has observer status (associate membership). 86.134.217.56 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW there is a stub article Verwantschapslanden for former Dutch colonies, which has an Afrikaans interwiki but no Dutch one.jnestorius(talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, the section title "African Elysée's cell" in Françafrique is a bad translation which does an extraordinarily poor job of conveying the idea that through the 1980s France's African policy was mostly run by a network of officials directly under the president, bypassing the French foreign affairs ministry... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Mozambique has jumped ship and joined the Commonwealth, despite never having a previous association with the UK. The Portuguese in the 1960s and 1970s attempted to prevent the independence of its African colonies, a brutal affair called the Portuguese Colonial War, which left those emerging states with little goodwill towards their former rulers. Alansplodge (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure "jumped ship" is the correct analogy here.  Mozambique is a founder member of the organization and no country has hosted its annual heads of state conference more times.   I think "welcoming others aboard" would be a more descriptive term.   For countries of the former Soviet Union see Commonwealth of Independent States. 2A02:C7F:BE18:CF00:806B:F237:22E4:784A (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite right - the perils of a quick post :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Philosophers similar to Ayn Rand
Are there any philosophers with similar ideas to Ayn Rand that are less controversial?Uncle dan is home (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any philosophers that aren't controversial? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is less a synonym of not? —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "less controversial than Ayn Rand". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you read the articles on Objectivism and the Objectivist movement? Those would be an excellent place to start. uhhlive (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For a certain value of "similar". Rand is broadly associated with the American libertarian tradition, though she personally didn't have much love for libertarians, whom she saw as infringing on her intellectual property or something.  Probably the most traditional-philosopher-sort-of-philosopher associated with that tradition is Robert Nozick.  His reasoning was rather different from Rand's, but he came to similar conclusions on an array of issues. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For a certain value of "similar". Rand is broadly associated with the American libertarian tradition, though she personally didn't have much love for libertarians, whom she saw as infringing on her intellectual property or something.  Probably the most traditional-philosopher-sort-of-philosopher associated with that tradition is Robert Nozick.  His reasoning was rather different from Rand's, but he came to similar conclusions on an array of issues. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Herbert Spencer: The Man Versus the State, Friedrich Hayek: The Road to Serfdom, Murray Rothbard: Power and Market and The Ethics of Liberty (once a Rand fan, who later rejected her) as some ideas. Besides American libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism is broadly similar to Objectivism.  -- Jayron 32 21:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am curious why you are not interested in thinkers who are more incisive than Rand, rather than less controversial? Nozick and Rothbard (and Greenspan) are all just previous hangers on and second-hand knockoffs.  You might look into Nietzsche and Spinoza, both of whom were extremely controversial.  You might look into Stoicism.  But you really have to ask specific questions about specific teachings or concepts.  Otherwise it's like asking if there's any politician like but not Nixon. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that's fair to Nozick at all. As far as I know he was never a follower of hers.  He was in the natural law tradition.  Rand never seemed to understand that there were other ways of arriving at the non-aggression principle besides incomprehensible claims about how it followed from pure logic and epistemology.  And she never acknowledged predecessors like Auberon Herbert. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't quibble over follower for Nozick, he was at first a leftist, then a member of he inner circle for some time; left or was ostracized; and she felt he took some of her ideas without crediting her. Herbert is a political thinker, she may or may not have known him, but she did praise Laura Ingalls Wilder and Isabel Paterson as well as Locke and other political thinkers.  For her "politics is downstream of culture".  I don't think you can attribute her aesthetics, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics to any other one philosopher, or claim that all her ideas were taken from others.  I still find the "isn't there someone like Rand I can say I like without getting criticized?" notion a bit odd, and this is really not the proper forum for it.  There are plenty of Objectivist fora on line where this can be discussed, but I won't endorse any of them or engage in further debate. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Herbert was a moral thinker. His central point was "that which one man may not morally do, a million men may not morally do".  I think his politics all pretty much flowed from that.
 * Rand's obsession with getting credit was one of the least lovely things about her, in my opinion. I mean, of course, in the academic sphere, naturally you want credit.  But surely for a moral/political activist trying to change the world, changing the world must be more important than getting credit for it?  And beyond that I think a lot of her claims to originality were simply incorrect.  The original part of her philosophy, the logic/epistemology stuff, is mostly nonsense.  A lot of the moral/political part does resonate, but is not original with her. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Resonates? Hmm. As in Trumps rhethoric resonates with a lot of voters? Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make all resonation automatically bad. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * John Hospers comes to mind. His mainstream, and otherwise excellent textbook, "An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis", introduced her ideas to a generation on Anglophone philosophers. See also his: Conversations with Ayn Rand 1 Conversations with Ayn Rand 2 -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The two-part article is worth a read, and the first is a very accurate portrait. The second is accurate in dealing with her tendency to break with almost all her associates, indeed, it leaves out a lot of lurid details about her reprehensible treatment of friends and family documented in The Passion of Ayn Rand and more recent biographies.


 * But Hospers' descriptions of her beliefs on metaphysics, epistemology, causation and free will are inaccurate to the point of uselessness. Hospers does admit that Rand had not yet written her non-fiction works, and her ideas differ profoundly from what he admits are his not-necessarily clear remembrances.


 * (For example, she accepts the genus diffentia formation of definition, and does not hold that all the properties of all tables are part of the definition of "table". Rather than speaking of "true" definitions, she speaks of proper definitions, that identify what are the contextually most fundamental properties of a concept at one's level of knowledge.  While a child might define man as a two-legged animal, an adult would have a more sophisticated definition, and neither definition would have anything to say about if men might be green.)


 * Those interested in what she actually held should read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd Ed.) μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)