Humanities desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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.

June 30

Freud in portuguese: "Arquitectura Animica"

I´m trying to help a friend translate a concept for a psychoanalysis peice he's writing. After a long attempt at trying to get a general understanding of the term and realizing that it must exist in english but that I just couldn´t put my finger on it, I started asking him etymological questions. The concept is "Arquitectura animica," and it was first used by Freud. Animica comes from animus which pertains to the soul or the soul's faculties. The idea (as best as I understand it) relates to concepts, assumptions about the world and manners of interpreting the world that are hard-wired into an individual´s psyche by their parent cultural and upbringing. I suggested "paradigm" and "ideology," but my friend didn't bite. If anyone can give a better translation, preferably (if possible) the phrase in common use by freudian translators into english, it would be much appreciated. --Shaggorama (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find out exactly where this is used in a Portuguese translation of Freud, then it should be easy to find what the term used in a good English translation is. Strawless (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our morals, ethics, etc. Illusion?

If we were tought from birth that killing each other is okay, and there is no stealing, just take and keep what you're strong eneough to hold onto, and if everyone did just that, would we not be stating that this is our God given morals? That it's the right thing to do?--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, since it would be considered "natural behavior". Hard to tell. But it's nice to note that it has been suggested that our code of ethics evolved naturally. See evolutionary ethics. — Kieff | Talk 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who argue that anyway[1], against co-operation and for competition. People like God-put-me-here Robert Mugabe commonly use "God" to justify their behaviour or will to predominate, but I'd guess it gets lonely at the top of the heap with fear for your friend. Btw, do you mean to have a username all in caps for any particular reason? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that morality and ethics are social norms rather than anything to do with nature - yes. Look across 'the wild' and you'll find plenty of animals fight to the death over mates, over food, over placement in the group. So yes we would consider it perfectly normal if we had never culturally decided it wasn't acceptable in general society. The more interseting question would be...would society ever have developed as much as it has in that world? Collabaration and the rule of law are doubtlessly huge factors in why we've developed so much. Without the security of a state that claims to protect you would you ever invest huge amounts in something that might be taken away from you by another? Is the incentive to work hard and toil still there when anybody is free to take the proceeds of your work? I suspect in the above universe while our ethics and morals wouldn't be offended (since they would be constructed in a world where that was the norm) our lives would be hugely different and (I believe) hugely less developed than they are today. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that some form of the golden rule seems to exist in most religions, I think it could be argued that there is some natural basis for morality (check out tit for tat. Not to deny that cultural variance exists, but, in my view, biology does impose some restraints on where culture may go. Random Nonsense (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are social animals and not a bunch of free roaming loners in the wilderness. As social animals we need a social contract (embodied in religion / law / politics, ie. morals and ethics). If parts of it have been conveniently hardwired in the course of evolution is a moot point.

There can be no developed culture on the basis you specify as every culture is team work over many generations, requiring a smoothly operating frictionless society, requiring the absence of fear, requiring a trust in a secure future. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Given that morality and ethics are social norms rather than anything to do with nature": that is of course the point of view of the person who wrote it. There are certainly other points if view, including the one that there are rules of behaviour imposed by God which are immutable. It's interesting that of all the societies in the world there has never been one that took the attitude suggested by the question asker. That might indicate that such a society is unfeasible, but it might also indicate a level of inbuilt morality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Friedlander

Can any user please let me have further information about a Dr. Friedlander who was a physician and taught at King's College Hospital Medical School - University of London in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this him?John Z (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the right person. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural differences between the West and the East

What will be the most significant cultural difference between the Western and the Asian civilization? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could provide the subject of a debate, but it couldn't have an answer at the Reference desk. --Wetman (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should be more specific about the range of my question. Is there really a fundamental difference between the two civilizations, when it comes to the issue of equality between genders? I mean, the feminism movement is the product of the West, of course, but it appears to me that gender-based discriminations exist everywhere. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a look at Women in the People's Republic of China and at the bottom of that is a template "Women in Asia" that links to articles for other Asian countries. Fribbler (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Society of the Song Dynasty. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, there is no single "Asian civilization". There are Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and various Southeast Asian and Southwest Asian civilizations, each of which underwent enormous cultural change over time. For that matter, it may not be very useful to speak of a single Western civilization. Within modern Western civilization, there are big differences between the United States and Europe and among individual European countries. Also, where does Western civilization end. Should we include Russia? It is very different from the rest of Western civilization. If not, then what about Greece, which like Russia is an heir to the civilization of the Byzantine Empire, and traditionally the place of origin of Western civilization. As for gender discrimination, that does seem to be virtually a geographic and historical constant, but different civilizations have varied in their treatment of women across history. For example, women in 9th-century China or 11th-century Japan probably had more freedom and power than their counterparts in Europe, even if the reverse is true today, at least in Japan. So it is impossible to generalize about Western versus "Asian" civilization, even on the question of gender relations. Marco polo (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's practically impossible to answer such a question - but how about monotheism?87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. The traditional religious beliefs in Asia tend to be polytheistic, unlike the Judeo-Christian monotheism. But then, polytheistic religions did exist in pre-Christian Europe... --BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the foundations of western civilisation (greece and rome) where polytheistic (Pre ~0 BC)

But I'd suggest that the differences go deeper than the adoption of a particular religion.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the difference between latin/arabic scripts (alphabetical) and non-indian asian scripts eg chinese which are ~~pictograms~~ logograms.. That's a big difference many people will notice.87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the original title of Dr. King's address at the March on Washington?

- thanks

The popular title appears to be I Have a Dream, though I'm not sure if Dr. King himself gave the speech another title. Spencer^T♦^C 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When and by whom was Kings address at the March on Washington first called the "I have a dream speech"?

- Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhange (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this google news search for the 1960's and I Have A Dream. Looks like the title was coined immediately. Fribbler (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the "original title" is concerned, some nice person in DC could take a peek at it in the Library of Congress, where it is often on prominent display. He copyrighted it about a month after giving the speech, and submitted the manuscript. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "original title" was "The Bounced Check," which makes sense if you read the whole speech. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bounced Check" is correct. The main theme of the speech is how blacks support the U.S. government time and time again only to receive in turn an insufficient funds check from the federal government. The "I Have a Dream" is only a small portion of the speech. In terms of propaganda, the I Have a Dream quotes are very eloquent and present a soon to be determined time when racial harmony reigns. The main speech is not complimentary to the U.S. Civil rights leaders comment about the misapprehensions concerning the speech among the general public.01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice75Janice (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]