Humanities desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 25 >

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.

April 24

Pursuit of happiness OR happiness

Instead 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' wouldn't it be much more logical to say: 'Life, liberty and happiness'?217.168.3.246 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The passage deals with inalienable rights. Happiness is not a right that can be bestowed / preserved. Government can merely guarantee the right to pursue it. So, no, the original version is more logical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is life a right that can be bestowed/preserved?217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original form, whatever its other merits, has a simple poetic resonance which your amended version does not. Yes, a constitution can guarantee that life will not be taken, other than by due process of law; it can even guarantee liberty, but it cannot guarantee happiness! How could it? Indeed, how could it even define happiness, which, by its very nature, differs from case to case? It can only permit the circumstances in which individual happiness becomes a realisable goal. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I believe an earlier version of the declaration read "life, liberty, and property." Wrad (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was John Locke who first used that phrase Wrad, but Jefferson changed it a bit so it was not so economic in its outlook. I must say I rather its poetic simplicity -- its more memorable and inspiring that way. Zidel333 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't an early draft use Locke's wording, though? Wrad (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site looks legitimate enough, and discusses the topic of property vs. pursuit of happiness about a third of the way down the page. Our Wikipedia article on the D of I says that Franklin changed it, but there is a citation needed tag on it, so who knows. For what it's worth, Locke's wording appears in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, although in a somewhat different context. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have interpreted 'happiness' here as something like 'dignity' or a 'meaningful life' not just personally 'feeling happy'. In other declarations of rights this 'happiness' turns to be 'security of person', 'integrity', 'prosperity'. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the film The pursuit of happyness (sic), it means even the pursuit of money. But this is not the point. Happiness was left undefined. Would it have been precisely defined, it would have infringed your right to liberty. As Clio pointed out above, happiness is a quite subjective concept. You can choose what makes you happy. Another difference is that the word pursuit implies that you (yes, you) have to actively strive for it, it is not something that you are entitle to. It contrasts with your right to life and freedom, both them inalienable, no matter how passive you are. SaltnVinegar (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although inspired by Locke in a general way, Jefferson's immediate source for the phrase was George Mason's first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which read:

That all men are created equally free & independent, & have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot, by any Compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life & Liberty, with the Means of acquiring & possessing property, & pursuing & obtaining Happiness & Safety. [1]

Jefferson transformed Mason's verbosity into a more concise and memorable phrase, although the idea is perhaps clearer in Mason's longer version. By the way, Jefferson's original version of the passage, before his editors went to work on it, was probably this:

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

—Kevin Myers 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find these to be exceptionally good answers. What bothers me is knowing that there are people who for want of them would change the wording to accommodate their own misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for the nuances, which centuries of legal cases have allowed the rest to appreciate. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

First existentialist author

Or equivalent. Who was s/he? 217.168.3.246 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Existentialism? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moses, the legendary author of the Genesis, implies that Adam and Eve, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, were early practitioners of existentialism. Of course, the remainder of his magnum opus is less than existentialist, though the book of Job, probably by the same author, has a certain nihilistic flavour. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Indian Service

Was finishing off a stub on Henry John Carter, and came across the phrase "on Her Majesty's Indian Service". I tentatively piped a link to Honourable East India Company, but was wondering if this was correct? I wonder if an article on Bombay Establishment (search for the term on Google) would help? See William Cornwallis Harris for another example. I checked Honourable East India Company, and it says: "Following the 1857 insurrection, known to the British as the "Great Mutiny" but to Indians as the "First War of Independence", the Company was nationalised by the Government in London to which it lost all its administrative functions and all of its Indian possessions - including its armed forces - were taken over by the Crown." So it seems it was nationalised at that point. Anyone want to say more about what "Her Majesty's Indian Service" means? At what point did the East India Company become the British Raj? Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the British Raj article states, 1858. I'd presume that Her Majesty's Indian Service is the 1858+ administration in India. Given the dates of Carter's publications, he was in India prior to the switchover from the company to the government. (sorry about the brevity of the response - not being dismissive of your question, just, er, should be working IRL). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The term "Bombay Establishment" seems quite, um, established, and predated the switchover. Seems to be a combination of a military and company term. For example, from A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases: Hobson-Jobson, we have: "Every native of India on the Bombay Establishment, who can..." here. And "I was appointed a Writer on the Bombay Establishment in the Year 1789, and after that filled several subordinate Situations in the Revenue Line. I was afterwards Private Secretary to Mr. Duncan, when he was Governor of Bombay. After that I filled the Appointments successively of Commissioner in Malabar; Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay; Principal Collector of Malabar, for, I think, about Two Years; and, finally, a Member of the Government of Bombay, which I left in 1811; and since that I have not been in India." [2]. And, from the Transactions of the Medical and Physical Society of Calcutta (1829), we have a list of members and their locations/stations: "Bombay Establishment", "Bengal Establishment", "Assistant Surgeon, His Majesty's Service", "Madras Establishment", "H.M.S.", "His Majesty's <insert army regiment name>", or in some cases, just a city name, such as "Calcutta", "Bengal", and so on. [3] Most though, are "X Establishment", so I was wondering what people can say about all this? BTW, the first article, about "Lettuce Opium", is fascinating! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look also, Carcharoth, at the Government of India Act 1858. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. More specific question above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also found Pitt's India Act, which might be relevant to how the administration of the company worked. Another interesting link is here (1857, A Brief Political and Military Analysis, Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN - from the Defence Journal). And (slightly off topic, but copying here for future reference): [4] (The Royal Society and the Empire: The Colonial and Commonwealth Fellowship. Part 1. 1731-1847, R. W. Home, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 307-332). This question of "Establishments" may also be related to the "Presidencies" - see Presidencies of British India. Other colonial administrative units included Agencies of British India, and other subdivisions (see Category:Subdivisions of British India) were Cantonments, Districts, Divisions, Provinces and Residencies. Hardly surprising, as it was a large administration. Still not quite sure where the term "Establishment" comes from, and whether that was an official subdivision or whether it referred to the original establishments. Hopefully someone here will be able to add some more on this? Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this (from London Medical Gazette in June 1848) describing the medical set-up in India, with the medical personnel of the East India Company divided into three "establishments". A rather shocking tale of "Musselmen" and "savage natives" and more, in that link as well! Also, from here, we have "The East India Company (London establishment): an early domiciliary industrial medical service." Seems like "establishment" is a bit like "branch", as in different branches and divisions of a company. Definitely a formal type of subdivision, but still not quite precisely defined. Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more. From Honourable East India Company: "The major factories became the walled forts of Fort William in Bengal, Fort St George in Madras and the Bombay Castle." I'm satisfied that this point (from the 1600s) is what led to the later terms of "Bengal Establishment", "Madras Establishment" and "Bombay Establishment", though quite what the term meant to people in India and Britain at the time, I'm still not 100% clear. Honourable East India Company#Regulation of the company's affairs gives some idea of the succession of Acts passed. It seems by 1813, the company was effectively ended as an independent entity, though the formal dissolution did not come until as late as 1874 with the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act. Interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like "establishment" is geographical, so it's between a reservation and a city, between a compound and a district. I hate to do this, but it sounds a bit like Green Zone developed into a city-within-a-city and, at the same time, a commercial/financial distinction, like "Bombay office." Utgard Loki (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EICo originally set up factories - not what we understand from the term today, but fortified trading "establishments". When these were expanded, each had an individual administration and set of services, both civil (the so-called "writers") and military. Over time, these came to be capitalised when they referred to those establishments that were the seats of Governors - Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta. (As opposed to, for example, Kidderpore or Barrackpore or Surat or Ahmednagar, which also had "establishments" which were not capitalised.) "On the X Establishment" thus meant that you were paid and took orders from X centre of power. This system persists today in the Indian military's set of Commands - the phrase "on the Western Establishment" is still sometimes heard. Following the centralisation of revenue, recruitment and payscales in the late nineteenth the phrase became less common. Bombay is a special case because being "On the Establishment" meant both being in service and answering to the Governor of Bombay, and also sometimes meant geographically close to the Fort. (Bombay's fort, unlike Calcutta and Madras', did not have a name, as it was founded by the Portuguese who presumably named it for a saint that the CofE didn't much like.) By the 19th c, its best to think of the Establishment as basically the administrative and military service attached to a particular Presidency. For various reasons of tradition and hypocrisy, it wasn't considered appropriate to call it a colonial government until the full panoply of the Raj was unveiled by Disraeli & co; the Company preferred to pretend always that it was holding land in obligation to nominal overlords - in Bengal, for example, it held the Diwani from the Mughals and paid them nominal tribute.

Carcharoth, feel free to copy the above to the relevant article talkpage if it helps. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Copied to Talk:Henry John Carter. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticising Wittgenstein

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein said that he had offered a solution to all of the problems of philosophy. On the basis of the text what criticism can be offered of this assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wittgenstein returned to philosophy several years later that book was published -- which indicates he changed his mind on the matter. Compare Philosophical Invesitgations with the Tractatus for further details. -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do this as much justice as I can, J.E, but my mind is a little fogged just at present, so please come back to me if you need any further explanation.

In the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Wittgenstein says that the limits of thought are determined by the limits of language. In other words, we cannot go beyond language; for to do so would be to go beyond the limits of logical possibility. Logical propositions, expressed in language, are, according to Wittgenstein, 'pictures of the world.' This means, in effect, that certain things simply cannot be said if they do not correspond to the reality of the world; this means that the Tractatus itself cannot be said; for the various propositions are not pictures of the world!

Wittgenstein, recognising this problem, tried to overcome it by saying that although certain things cannot be said to be true, they can be shown to be true, although he eventually slams the door behind him in his concluding proposition-‘Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.' Consider the example of God. Wittgenstein says He exists, but He falls into the category of things that cannot be thought about or spoken. So the Tractatus remains, though this is not always fully understood, a blend of logic and mysticism; yes, mysticism.

The objections to the Tractatus go even deeper than that. How do we know that the relation between language and reality is a 'logical form'? Wittgenstein offers no solution to this problem. More than that, the category of things we are not, by his methodology, supposed to talk about, we simply must talk about, if social existence, civilization itself, is to be possible. For instance, we are not supposed to talk about good and evil, or even more basic concepts of right and wrong. Art also falls into the category of the inexpressible, which means that all forms of aesthetic language are simply nonsense.

In the end the Tractatus might be said to be both brilliant...and arrogant. The author himself eventually exploded the boundaries he had imposed on thought and action. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tractators! Every time I see this thread I think this. Apologies for spewing my mind-vomit. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops called Bishop

Have there been any bishops called Bishop (they'd then be Bishop Bishop)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.187.136 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost assuredly. Bishops aren't all that uncommon, nor is the name. You may also be interested in aptronyms, a closely-related phenomenon. — Lomn 15:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But have there been any Bishop Godfreys, say? (God-free=atheist.) Along the lines of the Dr Death and Dr Kill mentioned above. Or Bishop Randy Bender. Like Cardinal Sin. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what people called me in elementary school. (I guess that's what passed for humour for Catholic school kids!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Leofric Purdy Bishop was the Church of England's suffragan Bishop of Malmesbury from 1962 to 1973. Wandering slightly off the point, there was also Dr Alphaeus Hamilton Zulu, Anglican Bishop of Zululand from 1966 to 1975. Xn4 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a different though related note, read Catch 22 for a hilarious example. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell and Wittgenstein

What specific influence did Bertrand Russell have on Wittgenstein's thinking? Jet Eldridge (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell got him admitted into Cambridge, IIRC. -- llywrch (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Russell's, Our Knowledge of the External World, published in 1914, particularly Chapter Two, headed Logic as the Essence of Philosophy. Now compare it with the general scheme of the Tractatus. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn

I assume that Anne Boleyn must have been rehabilitated after Elizabeth I came to the throne. All your article says is that she was venerated as a martyr to the reformation. Nothing more?86.151.240.203 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During Henry VIII's reign, Anne's name was silenced after her execution. During Mary I's reign, the silence was broken and her name blackened. During Elizabeth's reign, however, the tide turned in Anne's favour. Although there was little attempt at "rehabilitation" of Anne's reputation, Elizabeth adopted her mother's badge and appointed her mother's former chaplain, Matthew Parker, as her Archbishop of Canterbury. It was rumoured that Elizabeth never spoke of her mother (although this is probably untrue), but she was torn between her strong father (whom she deeply admired) and her nymphomaniac mother, whom she barely knew. It was Protestant apologists that took it upon themselves to concentrate on Anne's "godliness" and praise her contribution to the English Reformation. During the Victorian era, her reputation was looked upon unfavourably by those who concentrated on the strength of Henry VIII, and concluded that Anne's appeal was "to the less refined part of Henry's nature" (DNB, Anne Boleyn); her guilt was accepted because the scholars believed that a monarch like Henry must have had some reason to send her to the block. The first biography concentrating solely on Anne was by Paul Friedmann in 1844. Friedmann emphasised Anne's influence on early Tudor politics, a view which is generally upheld today. Furthermore, the legitimacy of her execution is generally considered to be weak-to-non-existent, and recently there was even an appeal to overturn the charge of guilty! (It was rejected because the case was too old.) Nevertheless, her death was described by the DNB as a result of "cynical realpolitik". PeterSymonds | talk 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Peter, I see Anne still stands condemned as a 'nymphomaniac', which makes the judgement of 1536 entirely correct; she was an adulteress and a traitor! How very interesting! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, yes. In reality though, most historians cautiously dismiss rumours of adultery. One interpretation is Thomas Cromwell and Lady Rochford fabricating evidence. However, wherever or however they started, they're not generally given credence by historians. PeterSymonds | talk 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.151, not only did Elizabeth appoint Parker as Archbishop, but she also asked him to trace the papal dispensation for her parent's marriage, which he finally uncovered in 1572. In Parliament Elizabeth had Anne's legal title of Queen restored and her own as heir. The purpose was to vindicate her mother, whom she declared to be 'the most Englishwoman in the Kingdom.' She also had a ring made, which, when opened, revealed a miniature portrait of herself alongside her mother. She even declared that Sir Henry Norris, one of Anne’s co-accused, had 'died in a noble cause and in the justification of her mother's innocence. His son was created Lord Rycote. Anne's personal chaplain, one William Latimer, wrote an account of her death for the Queen, blaming it on her Catholic and Imperial enemies.

You will find all of this information, and more, in Anne Boleyn by Joanna Denny (2004). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diplomatic immunity

Does diplomatic immunity violates the rights of the person and is it unjustified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of debate. Read Diplomatic immunity and see what you think. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question was asked and answered last week, I think. If anyone knows how to search the Archives, a link might be useful here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOAP. -- Kesh (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

natural resources of Canada

What are natural resources of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article "Canada", especially Canada#Economy, also "Economy of Canada", especially Economy of Canada#Economic sectors. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

news article

Is there any news article related to microeconomics and macroeconomics that were published from November 2007 to present on Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can tell. I used a couple of different large archives and searched on either term in that date range. The Toronto Star has what looks like a good search thingie, by the way. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you are looking for may not use the terms "micro" and "macro". They may describe, and you may be better off searching for, inflation, unemployment, interest rates, pay negotiations, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Marie Antionette

Obviously the execution of Louis XVI did not pass unnoticed but what about that of Marie Antionette? Was there any reaction? Anne Fairfax (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. I was just re-reading Linda Colley's Britons - it's an awfully good book - and it has rather an interesting discussion of reactions to the execution in Britain. Mary Wollstonecraft is quoted:

The sanctuary of repose, the asylum of care and fatigue, the chaste temple of a woman, I consider the Queen only as one, the apartment where she consigns her senses to the bosom of sleep, folder in it's arms forgetful of the world, was violated with murderous fury.

Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, wrote: "The impression of the Queen's death is constantly before my eyes". Horace Walpole: "The Queen of France is never for three minutes out of my head". Regarding the incest stories, Hannah More: "It is so diabolical, that if they had studied an invention on purpose to whitewash her from every charge, they could not have done it more effectively." Colley herself writes: "Massively and gruesomely publicised in British conservative propaganda, the fate of Marie-Antoinette and her family seems genuinely to have appalled many women, encouraging them to see war with France as a cause in which their own welfare and status were peculiarly involved." (Quotations from Colley, pp. 255–256) Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [P.S. Clio will be along with a much better answer later on.][reply]

I've nothing to add, Angus, other than to endorse your recommendation of Colley (besides, I've got a beastly cold!) Clio the Muse (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add? What about Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France:

It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the Queen of France, then the Dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in, — glittering like the morning star full of life and splendour and joy... Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, — in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded.

The Reflections led directly to Thomas Paine's Rights of Man and Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Men. As the French revolution degenerated into The Terror and subsequent European war, Burke was proven correct in his analysis that the revolution was not simply a quiet reordering of the constitution. Sorry about the cold, Clio! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the most memorable passages, Major, from an important and memorable book. Remember, though, that it was published in 1790. Burke is in fact referring to the indignities that the Queen had suffered at the hands of the mob, particularly during March of the Women in October 1789. Her execution came in October 1793. I think if Burke was writing about that particular outrage his pen would have been a lot more acerbic: for if the age of chivalry was dead, the age of barbarism had been born. (Feeling a little better now, thanks!) Clio the Muse (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a bit of nuance here: not everyone was so overwrought. That memorable Burke passage was endlessly parodied at the time, in fact. Peter Pindar wrote a rather vicious couple of poems that caught the note of hysteria perfectly. Conversely, not everyone in France or in revolutionary circles was pleased; some had considerable sympathy for the manner in which the Widow Capet had conducted herself, and Robespierre was furious when he was told of the incest accusation, calling it "brutish", and saying that Hébert was a "blockhead". The version of events at the trial, however - of Marie Antoinette the ceaseless adulterer - became largely the dominant image of her throughout the years that followed, whatever the reaction to her trial and execution. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the things one could say about Hébert, that foul-minded pornographer, 'blockhead' seems altogether too mild. He was the Julius Streicher of the French Revolution, just as Le Père Duchesne was its Der Stürmer. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Hébert, the first tabloid editor. He is actually being increasingly studied now; his views on public expression and the duty of the press, for example, were considerably in ahead of their time, as was his support of progressive income taxation and grain prices set by a central authority with a trading monopoly. Le Pere Duchesne was the main organ of anti-clericism above all, and if the public secularism of France is traced back to the Revolution, he personally bears a lot of the credit (or blame). Clio's Streicher comparison, Ms. Fairfax, is illustrative of the power of the Revolution to divide onlookers even today. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name al-Tustari

I have seen both Jewish and Arabic personages from throughout history with this name. However, I cannot tell if this is indeed a surname or a title. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say its a title; "al" means "the", and jewish last names around that period would've been ben-whatever (literally son of...). Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "ben-X" where "X" is the father's name is better considered a patronymic rather than a surname at a time when the latter weren't in common use. Adam's suggestion (below & subsequently confirmed) is a good example of how a moniker indicating place of origin or perhaps profession became associated with an individual. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...or the parents may have been Reform Jews or entirely secular, and given their son an unrelated Hebrew name or none at all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's from a place called "Tustar"... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Adam is right. I looked around on google books and found a book on Karaite Jewish history that explains this family of Jews were originally from Tustar in Persia. They eventually migrated to Egypt and became intertwined with Fatimid politics. In fact, they became so powerful that the leading members were assassinated. Abraham al-Tustari was actually the former owner of caliph Al Mustansir's mother, who was a black slave. He had originally gifted her to Caliph Ali az-Zahir. Abraham served as the mother's adviser until his murder.

I'm assuming the Arabs with the name came from the same region.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher of power

Is it correct to describe Michael Foucault as a philosopher of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steerforth (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been said that Discipline and Punish brought Nietzsche to the aid of Marx-can you believe this?. I suppose I can. The argument is that as Marx had explored the relations of production, so Foucault explored the 'relations of power.' In focusing on the development of the penitentiary-and modern forms of punishment-he explores the evolution in techniques of power and control that may be made to serve more than one political and social interest. Putting another way, the techniques of power, the forms of coercion and supervision used, transcend the ideological complexion of any given regime. You will find the same practices in Democracy, in Fascism and in Communism. It is the seeming neutrality and political invisibility of the techniques of power is what makes them dangerous. So, yes, I suppose he is a 'philosopher of power', but he is so much more than that. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of Foucault comes down to different types of power, if you look at it in a very reductionistic fashion. I don't think it's a horrible description of him and his interests. --140.247.10.41 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair or not, that term has been applied to him. It's a way of distinguishing New Historicism from cultural history and showing how his concerns differ markedly from those establishing culture for its own sake. It is, as the IP above said, very reductive, but all short hand epithets are. Utgard Loki (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]