Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 16

Financing the revolution

Read a bit about Alexander Parvus - Der Spiegel ran a title story last week showing "new evidence" on how significant the German Empire's financial help was to the October Revolution. My question is whether and to what extent there is any evidence of other Central Powers helping finance the Revolution in order to weaken the Russian Empire. Thank you! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see this article, Sluzzelin. Is it for the week ending 15 December? Anyway, as far as your specific question is concerned, I have no direct evidence. Austria-Hungary and, indeed, the Ottoman Empire, gained from the collapse of Russia in 1917-18, though by this time both were close to economic ruin themselves, as was Bulgaria. Any financial aid given to the Bolsheviks, I would hazard, must have been minimal. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio, that makes sense. Yes, it's issue #50/2007, from 10 December 2007, here's the cover (I guess you have to pay for the article now). Here's the World Socialist Web Site's critique (the only one I found in English). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. I think I'll try to get hold of a hard copy of Der Spiegal, rather than reading the article online; I would like to study their sources. The socialist website seem quite unnerved by the whole thing, poor dears! In a sense it does not really matter if the Germans gave Lenin money or not; he served their political purpose quite well enough without a single mark; a plague bacillus injected into the heart of Russia, so said Churchill. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

HIndi and Tamil

How you write "Jilani Adam" in Hindi Devanagari and Tamil script? Sorry if I use my name on the site. please answer the question, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.100 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a question that would be more appropriately posted on the Reference Desk/Language section instead of here in the Humanities... I've studied Devanegari, but I'm very reluctant to try to give you a definitive answer to that. GIve the Language people a shot at it. Saukkomies 03:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Belgium

Two questions about Belgium. One, if Belgium were to split into two separate nations, Flanders and Wallonia, as is periodically proposed, what would most likely happen to the monarchy? Is the royal family more aligned with one of the two regions, and therefore more likely to remain with one or the other? Or would it stay with both, or cease to exist altogether?

Second, why did Belgium use French for the administration of its African colonies, as opposed to Dutch/Flemish? The Flemish are a majority in today's Belgium, and I assume they were also the majority at the point in time when Congo Free State and later Ruanda-Urundi were annexed. So why French, and not Dutch? The only reason I can think of (with my limited knowledge of Belgian history) is that using French would have made trade with the surrounding French colonies slightly easier. Thanks in advance, Picaroon (t) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your second question first, at the time French was the language of the ruling class in Belgium and therefore using it for administration of the colonies made some sense. Any answer to your first question is speculation, because splitting up Belgium is not going to happen in the near future (they will never agree on who gets Brussels), but let me just say that the children of King Albert II are not known for their fluency in Dutch, so I doubt they will ever be the head of a Flemish state. 82.169.148.34 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On (1), I guess it would become a matter for some democratic process in each of the provinces to determine. On the face of it, there's no reason why the monarchy couldn't continue for both, just as (for example) Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of New Zealand as well as Australia. When there was last a referendum on the future of a Belgian monarch, it was in 1951, and Leopold III had much more support in Flanders (a good majority) than in Wallonia (only about forty per cent). It was the difference in the attitudes of the two provinces which when he returned as king nearly led to a civil war. Of course, Leopold was a controversial king and there were many factors in play.

On (2), let's not forget that French was already widely spoken in Africa, and not only in some nearby territories, with about one third of the continent belonging to France. Xn4 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Picaroon (t) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of which part of Belgium would get the royal family, if the country were to be split, is indeed speculation. We just don't know what will happen. What I think is inevitable is that it will happen. I don't know how long Belgium will last, it could be a few decades, but I don't think it will survive. All we can hope for, is that the split will be as peaceful as the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. The royal family of Belgium is Wallonian in every aspect. They have many houses there, almost everyone was born there, they speak French in everyday life. And ofcourse they are very popular in Wallonia, where they are being seen as the cement that keeps Belgium together. Their image in Flanders, on the other hand, is abysmal. In many countries mocking the royal family is seen as a show of disrespect or protest. Many Flemish have gone beyond that, they can't even be bothered to do that anymore, that's how little the royal family means to them. This probably started when Albert II succeeded his very popular brother Baudoin. People in Flanders feel Flemish, they love their region, and see the country more like a bad marriage in which you stay together for the kids and the mortgage. This goes from harmless odes like Jacques Brel's Le Plat Pays (in French!) to language riots. These are ofcourse some broad generalizations, but they do paint a picture of life in Belgium. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Without Belgium, there would be no royal family, I'm quite sure. We have a king because electing a president would be tricky if not impossible. He'd have to be either Flemish or Walloon, and I'm not sure the other side would ever regard him as 'theirs'.

Aecis is rather overstating the level of anti-Belgian and anti-monarchical sentiments in Flanders. Jacques Brel, after all, considered himself to be Flemish, and recorded a Dutch-language version of 'Le Plat Pays'. Nationalism is a tricky beast, and Flanders is nowhere near a homogenous block - an Antwerpian, for instance, loves his city more than he loves Flanders, you can be sure of that.

As for (2), another thing to remember is that the Congo was initially 'settled' by Leopold II, with the support of members of the military. Both the royal court and the army were - and to some extent still are - bastions of the French language. Dutch was, for a long time, the language of the lower class. Random Nonsense (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that Jacques Brel was anti-Belgian or anti-monarchical, and if it came across that way, I want to clarify what I meant. Jacques Brel's love of Flanders was harmless in the sense that it had no political connotations, it was just the love for the area he was from. That is what I see throughout Flanders: people love the area and feel proud to be Flemish. That is quite contrary to the sentiments about Belgium: the Belgian national pride is not to have a national pride, their identity is the lack of a national identity. This love for Flanders is common throughout Flanders, it's certainly not limited to nationalists and separatists. But as you rightly said, someone from Antwerp will feel Antwerpian first and foremost, and will likely look down on someone from West Flanders.

Regarding Dutch having been the language of the lower class for a long time: what is interesting to see is that Belgium had almost no Dutch-speaking prime ministers prior to World War 2, and has had almost no French-speaking prime ministers since World War 2. I think the last French-speaking prime minister was Edmond Leburton, who was prime minister from January 1973 to April 1974. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Source for this verse about Thermopylae

This verse is attributed to Cicero in the article about the Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture:

“Exercitus noster est magnus,” Persicus inquit, “et propter
numerum sagittarum nostrarum caelum non videbitis!”
Tum Lacedaemonius respondet: “In umbra, igitur, pugnabimus!”
Et Leonidas, rex Lacedaemoniorum, exclamat: “Pugnate cum animis,
Lacedaemonii; hodie apud umbras fortasse cenabimus!”

Can anyone give me a specific source for the text? Thanks a lot! --bdesham ★ 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's in Chapter 5 of Wheelock's Latin! It's an adaptation of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, chapter 101, which you can read here. Adam Bishop (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --bdesham ★ 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is knowledge over-managed? Evaluate the accuracy of this statement

lida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.162.219 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a statement ,it's a question the way you've written it..hotclaws 10:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No because knowledge is impossible to manage, you can only manage information. The only people who think you can do so are the dumbos involved in Knowledge management (which in itself is a dying piece of consultancy snakeoil - wisdom management seems to what they call the latest batch). Here read this --Fredrick day (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Templars in England

What happened to the Templars in England after the order was banned?86.147.191.182 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See Knights Templar in England. Xn4 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Plead the 5th

Not a legal question

Does any other country have a notion similar to the US 5th Amendment right not to incriminate oneself? The article does mention that it has it's roots in old English common law, long since removed in England.

On the face of it, it appears a little ridiculous as surly the whole point of a court is to incriminate and trying to protect people from incriminating themselves over crimes seems to be concluding "if no one finds out, it's okay.".

What were the Levelers reasons for wanting these rights in England? Caffm8 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The right to silence still exists (more or less) in English law. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See Right to silence in England and Wales. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And this relating to all countries which are subject to the European Convention on Human Rights:

"The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that, the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6." DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with the assertion that "the whole point of a court is to incriminate and trying to protect people from incriminating themselves over crimes seems to be concluding "if no one finds out, it's okay."." The court is not there to incriminate, but rather to weigh the evidence and form a judgment based upon that evidence. It is for the prosecution to find evidence to support their case, and to compel a defendant to assist the prosecution could lead to abuse - such as the torture and harsh treatment mentioned in the article linked above about the right to silence in England & Wales. Furthermore, to compel a person to give evidence against themself would, I believe, strike most people as fundamentally unfair, and a judicial system which is seen as unfair will not gain the public trust it needs to function effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a legal question

Actually,

However, it is not a request for legal advice. -Nunh-huh 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the Levellers to attempt that part of the original question, but there may be material of use to you in that article, or in the articles, references and further reading linked from it. I suspect that our resident muse may be able to provide you with more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lilburne's reason was that he had been hauled in front of the Star Chamber. William Avery (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The right to silence article appears to suggest that while "There may be no conviction based wholly on silence", staying silence can and does prejudice you in a case. This seems wholly different than the Americans constitutional right where silence cannot be cause for discrimination.

The question was inspired the American judges ruling that someone cannot be forced to hand over encryption keys [1], and I doubt the same argument would work here.

Also, I was under the impression that a judge could demand you answer a question, and hold you in contempt for failing to do so, or perhaps prosecute for obstructing the course of justice. Caffm8 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A comment passing by: Constitution of Argentina has article 18 stating basically the same that the 5th amendment. And I guess most legal systems should have similar dispositions. Pallida  Mors 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Similarly in Canada, it's paragraph 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution of Canada. "11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence". --Anonymous, 04:44 UTC, December 17, 2007.

Caffm8 is "under the impression that a judge could demand you answer a question, and hold you in contempt for failing to do so, or perhaps prosecute for obstructing the course of justice. ": limiting this to the U.S., this is certainly true, but not in circumstances in which the answer can be used to prosecute you. That is, the question can't touch on your guilt or innocence of a crime unless you have been granted immunity from prosecution for that crime. The "right to remain silent" is not absolute, and calling it that is a little misleading; what you actually have is the right not to incriminate yourself. A U.S. citizen specifically has the right not to be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", and this has been expanded to include any statements made while in custody. Other testimony (in civil cases, or in trials of persons other than oneself) can certainly be coerced. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oldest person to be referenced

Who is the earliest person on record? I mean, who is the earliest individual whose existence is believed to be likely and not just mythological/legendary, mentioned in a document?

PS: I do not mean the person who's cited in the earliest document, but the earliest person whose existence is known, never mind how old the document is.

PS2: Not counting people such as Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosomal Adam - we don't know who they were, so we can't single them out as an individual. -- Danilot (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start the ball rolling with Iry-Hor - any advance? FiggyBee (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese Emperor Fu Xi is from a bit later, but we have better knowledge of exactly when his reign was (it began in about 2950 BC), although he has become an almost mythological figure (in much the same way Robin Hood has). Note that Iry-Hor is believed by some historians to be fictional - his successor Ka is more likely to have existed. The Sumerian king list contains all the kings of Sumer, but it becomes very unreliable prior to about 2600 BC; it's difficult to separate fact from fiction at this period. Ötzi the Iceman was likely born around 3300 BC, but he was found by excavation, not from records. Laïka 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to the Middle chronology, Sargon ruled from 2334 to 2279. His eleventh year would be 2323 BCE. He was the founder of the dynasty of Akkad." Chronicle of early kings, from Babylonia. [2] SaundersW (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Earliest documented people article, which is up for proposed deletion. Skomorokh ^incite 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NAFTA and Customs duty for shopping in US

Doesn't NAFTA mean free trade agreement? So when I shop in the US for clothes and other stuff, why do I need to pay Import duties to the Canadian Federal government? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

from here: Your goods qualify for the U.S. duty-free rate under NAFTA if the following applies:

• the goods are for your personal use; and
• they are marked as made in the United States or Canada or not marked or labeled to indicate they were made anywhere other than in the United States or Canada.

so if the clothes have a big "made in china" on the labels (which the probably do) then they can be taxed under NAFTA. Jon513 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the current duties?

How much Tax do I have to pay after coming from shopping from US? Like, how much percent? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

After each trip outside Canada of 48 hours or longer, you are entitled to a special duty rate of 7% under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff treatment in addition to your personal exemption. [3]. Jon513 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's duty. You also pay HST if you live in a province with HST, or GST and possibly also provincial sales tax if you don't. (See the same source cited above.) --Anon, 04:52 UTC + 6% GST, December 17, 2007.

Defending the empire

Considering that the Byzantine Empire was beset by numerous enemies over many centuries, and was often quite weak militarily, how is it that it managed to survive for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodora B (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all of its enemies always beset it at the same time. So when it lost Illyria and the Balkans, it still had Anatolia; and when it lost Anatolia it still had the west. Sometimes its enemies wanted Constantinople for whatever reason and did not bother with the rest of the Empire; Constantinople was fairly impenetrable, so when the Rus' attacked it dozens of times they couldn't get in, and when the Arabs attacked it four or five times they couldn't make any progress either. The Empire was also fantastically rich and could usually pay off any major attackers. It also had a rather advanced bureaucracy which, for one thing, could adapt to major changes, and for another, was quite willing to make alliances with former enemies. I'm not sure anyone really understood that bleeding them dry by conquering everything else first was the best way to defeat them, until the Ottomans; the only other group able to capture Constantinople, the Fourth Crusade, lost it again within the century because they looted the treasury, were surrounded by enemies they didn't have the bureaucracy to deal with. Try also Decline of the Byzantine Empire, Byzantine battle tactics, Byzantine army, etc. (And hopefully someone else will come and correct my half-remembered ideas from outdated text books!) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always been impressed by the subtlety-and the cynicism-of Byzantine foreign and strategic policy, which might be said to anticipate some modern trends by hundreds of years. In the twelfth century John Kinnamos, a Byzantine historian, wrote "Since many and various matters lead towards one end, victory, it is a matter of indifference which one uses to reach it." Yes, it's Machiavelli before Machiavelli; but, more to the point, its Clauswitz before Clauswitz. For the Byzantine state politics, and diplomacy, was 'war by other means', an essential part in the game of survival. Considering that, at its height, the Byzantine army was never much more than about 140,000 strong warfare could be a dangerous game, with serious penalties for failure. How much better, then, than to play one side off against the other; to get the 'barbarians' to do the fighting, when this was possible. If the Bulgars were troublesome, why, call in the Russians; if the Russians call in the Patzinaks, and so on! Bribery was used, as was deception, duplicity and subversion of one kind or another. When threatened in 1282 by Charles of Anjou the Emperor Michael VIII helped instigate the Sicilian Vespers, keeping a dangerous rival safely in the west. Constantinople, moreover, was full of pretenders, ready to be produced as the occasion required. If a Turkish sultan threatened to attack then his brother could be conveniently produced as a political diversion. It's really no wonder at all that forms of tortuous political intrigue have come to be called 'byzantine.' Power politcs, effective as it was, for as long as it was, kept the wolf from from the gate, just as much as the walls of Constantinople prevented him getting over the threshold. It was a game, though, of diminishing returns. By 1453 there were no returns at all. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

War Writing

Why did the First World War capture the imagination of writers more than any other major conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.48 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The first question, of course, is are you sure that it did? I know WWI has a reputation for being a front full of poets, ruefully writing clever lines before getting shot, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't really that far ahead of WWII, Vietnam, etc., especially if we aren't thinking of poetry as the only form of writing, and I assume we're probably not even going to bother thinking about non-Western writers and wars. But anyway, assuming that it did, one way to think about it is that it is a major conflict between a number of Western countries in the middle of a time in which the written word ruled unquestionably as a major medium for expression (there was some radio, but it was still new). By the time you get to World War II radio and film have become immensely popular; by the time you get to Vietnam television rules supreme. Just a thought (a little too technological-determinist for my taste, to be honest) on why that might be. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One factor might have been that it was supposed to be the war that ended all wars. It involved more countries than any other previous conflict, and resulted in more casualties than any previous conflict. It was called "The Great War" up until WW2, a monicker no previous war had ever earned. Also - and with all due respect to those who lost their lives, and their families - and I suspect I'll be shot down in flames for saying so in this terribly correct age we live in, but it's true nonetheless - it was romantic in the extreme, perfect fodder for writers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh there was nothing 'romantic' about the Hell where Youth and Laughter Go, an observation that has little to do with political correctness-which I loath-and everything to do with my understanding of what was called the 'material battle'. What romance, after all, for 'these who die as cattle.' Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was right. I was shot down in flames, and by the Menschette herself (almost the wiki-equivalent of the Red Baron in this context). However, I stand by what I said (which is why I said it, despite predicting the carnage that would ensue), and so I arise, phoenix-like, from the charred remains. I guess we could debate till kingdom come what "romantic" means; what I mean by this term is that in those days, war was still glorified in a way that no longer generally happens (thank God). For many young men, it was a jolly good adventure - all that biffing the Bosch, what. The notion of strapping young men going off to fight for king and country in foreign fields, despite knowing that in all likelihood they'd come back all shot up, if they came back at all - this was the epitome of romanticism. It belongs to the same ethos as Lord Byron going off to Missolonghi, fighting for Greek freedom, and dying there of typhus - and if there was someone who knew more about romanticism than Byron, I've yet to hear of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Jack, you and I are approaching this question from entirely different perspectives, hence the gap in interpretation. Anyway, in the best chivalric traditions of aerial combat, let the Baroness invite you to the mess, where she can wine and dine you while clarifying the finer points of her argument. Yes, you are right; there was a mood of excitement engendered by the anticipation of war; of its adventure and of its heroism; of its romance, if you prefer. But the only literature of any note that I associate with this is the later poems of the lovely Rupert Brooke. However, most of the great war-time writing, that which people most associate with the conflict, came from experience; and this experience resulted most often in reaction, a reaction against the heroic mood of 1914. The reaction is marked by an uncompromising and unadorned pursuit of truth, no matter how ugly. And what uglier truth than that expressed by Wilfred Owen

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

And, now, let me click my heels and wish you a safe journey to the Offlag! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of things to consider, 81.129, in answering your question. To begin with, the Great War was the first democratic conflict in history, if it can be so expressed; a struggle not of armies, but of nations; not of nations but of individuals. It was also unique in both its intensity and in its destructivness; a uniqueness that acted as a challenge to the imagination, seeking to express what had hitherto been beyond expression. The war also came at a point where literacy was becoming universal amongst the developed nations of the world. There had been writing in the past about war, but generally speaking it had not been considered as a suitable subject for literary treatment for a limited audience. Jane Austen wrote some of her greatest work during the Napoleonic Wars, though the struggle barely figures. The First World War could not be set aside in this fashion, because of its impact and because of its immediacy. It had to be filtered in new ways through the imagination; to be presented both before and after the event to an audience seeking some degree of insight and understanding of its novelty, attained in so many different ways in the poetry of Wilfred Owen or Siegfried Sassoon; in the writings of Erich Maria Remarque, Ernst Jünger, Henri Barbusse or Ford Maddox Ford; in the paintings of Paul Nash; and in the work of many others, too numerous to mention.

Many were able to express themselves as they did because the war came towards the end of a period of considerable intellectual innovation and creativity. The war had novelty and they had novelty. The same thing is simply not true of the Second World War; for the horror was now part of the universal imagination, as the poet Keith Douglas explained in 1943;

Hell cannot be let loose twice: it was let loose in the Great War and it is the same old hell now. The hardship, the behavious of the living and the dead, were so accurately described by the poets of the Great War that every day on the battlefields of the western desert-and no doubt on the Russian battlefields as well-their poems are illustrated.

Some truths can only be expressed once. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Swiss Confederacy

My question is this. Was the Old Swiss Confederacy a federation of a confederation? The article uses both words. I read the articles but I find it hard to understand the difference and I do not know enough about the Old Swiss Confederacy to give an answer to this question. Thank you. :wimdw: 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Old Swiss Confederacy was any of either, it was a confederation rather than a federation, using the meaning of these words in modern constitutional law. You may be confused because the article describes the Confederacy as "a loose federation", which is just another way to say "confederation". Certainly the Confederacy was not a federal state in the sense of the modern U.S., Germany or Switzerland. Just about the only things that held it together was its system of mutual defence agreements, a long common history and a number of subject territories that were jointly governed. There was no central government to speak of, and just about no common policy on anything but defence and foreign relations. Sandstein (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So I understand now, that a confederation is a federation. I read in Wikipedia, that a federation is a union of states or regions united by a central government. Did the Old Swiss Confederacy have a central government? Should that not be mentioned in the article? there is a big section "Structure of the federation" but that does not mention the government. Also can we say, that the Old Swiss Confederacy was a republic? I hope this are not stupid questions. :wimdw: 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimdw (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, and your questions are not stupid. The Confederacy did not have a central government in the modern sense. It did have the Tagsatzung, a periodic assembly of cantonal government representatives that decided on common issues of defence and foreign policy, but it had no capital or seat of government, no common laws, no common courts, and no common currency, weights or measures. It also had no central administration, except from the War Council, which was a permanent military staff that exercised federal high command and assumed some rudimentary governmental functions simply because it was the only permanent administrative body of the Confederacy. Put simply, the Confederacy was the NATO of the Swiss cantons - a defensive pact based on shared values and a shared history, but not much more.

The Confederacy was not a republic, because that is an attribute of states, and the Confederacy was not a state, except perhaps as seen from the point of view of the European powers. Its cantons were republics, but their constitutions were rather dissimilar, as shown in this chart. To confuse matters further, some of their associated territories were secular or clerical principalities, or federations themselves. Sandstein (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are Hegelians bound by the Categorical Imperitive?

Kant's Categorical Imperative is based on the idea of noncontradiction. But hegelian logic proves that all existence is made up of contradictions and opposites. So doesn't this cancel out Kantian ethics? --Jacobin1949 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm no Hegelian (or even a philosopher), but I'm pretty sure Hegel thought Kant's ethics were nothing but "empty formalism" and rejected Kant's approach pretty strongly. Our article on Kant seems to encourage this view as well. If you Google "Hegel criticisms Kantian morality" you'll find a lot of results on the subject. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the two, in very simple terms, is that Kant attempts to base his ethics on universal and transcendent principles, whereas for Hegel moral concepts are historically situated. Hegel's critique is, of course, more generally based, made clear in his Logic;

"This world, it is true, he [Kant} alleges to be a world of appearances. But that is only a title or formal description; for the source, the facts, and the modes of observation continue quite the same as in Empiricism. On the other side and independent stands a self-apprehending thought, the principle of freedom, which Kant has in common with ordinary and bygone metaphysic, but emptied of all that it held, and without his being able to infuse into it anything new. For, in the Critical doctrine, thought, or, as it is there called, Reason, is divested of every specific form, and thus bereft of all authority. The main effect of the Kantian philosophy has been to revive the consciousness of Reason, or the absolute inwardness of thought. Its abstractness indeed prevented that inwardness from developing into anything, or from originating any special forms, whether cognitive principles or moral laws; but nevertheless it absolutely refused to accept or indulge anything possessing the character of an externality. Henceforth the principle of the independence of Reason, or of its absolute self-subsistence, is made a general principle of philosophy, as well as a foregone conclusion of the time."

However, this is not to say that Hegel advocates a total rejection of Kantian attempts at universal forms of morality. His theory of the state, particularly the relationship between the state and religion, does allow for some convergence between pure form and historical substance. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a few Hegel questions myself. Why was Marx so influenced by Hegel? He seems to be the most conservative philosopher since Aristotle. Is there any direct link between Right Hegelians and Fascism? And what is suppose to "happen" when Hegel's geist "realizes" itself? --Gary123 (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

His particular conclusions may have been conservative; his method was not. The final goal of the Geist is self-realisation and freedom, the revolutionary potential of which was recognised almost immediately by the Young Hegelians. I can detect no link between the Right Hegelians and Fascism-a concept which might be said for the very antithesis of the dialectic of freedom, and a dangerous form of mass mobilisation and nihilism at that-though I do know of one conservative thinker, a former admirer of Mussolini, who turned to Hegelian idealism as the true expression of history in motion. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pound sterling

Why the British pound is called pound "sterling"? --Taraborn (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It formerly bought you (represented/was backed by) a pound (weight) of Sterling silver. The origin of "Sterling" is discussed at Sterling silver#Origin of the term. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't see that. Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)