Humanities desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

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.

November 25

The Cross Section Of The Zeit-Geist

Does anyone know whjat this http://www.laclosca.cat/data/images/zeitgeist_freehand_lg.jpg is about? Or where I can see a clearer version please? I think I've seen something like it before somewhere. Thanks. 78.146.58.39 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is, of course, a pentagram.~~ And see also skepdic.com/pentagram.html. On that particular drawing, you may find some clues on the page it's linked from. Xn4 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a pentagram (5 pointed star) but rather a hexagram or Star of David (6 points). It's hard to see the labels on it at that resolution, but it appears to posit an axis of "eclectical world-view" midway between reason and necessity, and allude to Hegel (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). I don't think you'll be able to discern its meaning without finding an explanatory text and a depiction at a resolution that allows the accompanying words to be read. - Nunh-huh 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nunh-huh, I see now that it is indeed a hexagram, but the reason I was mistaken is that it has many of the characteristics of the magical pentagram (like, for instance, Eliphas Levi's), such as the intertwining of notional bands. I suspect those resonances may be what the OP was reminded of. Xn4 (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Figures

Here [1], who is the man at the very top center above Trump and McCain and behind the word "capitalist", and who is the man in the very top right-hand corner? TIA, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very top right-hand corner looks to be a sketch of the Unabomber if memory serves me right. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) unibomber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that image be a mirror image. The Democrats are on the right whilst the Republicans are on the left, that doesn't seem correct. - Akamad (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the unibomber in the libertarian camp doesn't make sense at all. One of the key tenants of libertarianism is the rejection of the initiation of force, not to mention the unibomber wanted to control other people's lives (by rejecting technology). I'm not sure where the unibomber would go. Maybe on the left because he's an environmentalist? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those dopey political compasses. As usual it has been deployed to a misleading effect with the goal of making Libertarianism look like the only reasonable option, with everybody else being somewhere between Hitler and Stalin. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, libertarianism *is* the only reasonable option. :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anarchist and totalitarian corners are occupied by murderers. I can see how someone might make such a display to make their own pet notions "look like the only reasonable option", but it wouldn't be a libertarian; more like someone out to discredit any who challenge the conventional left-right axis. —Tamfang (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy above Trump is The Nuge! Here's the source image. Above and behind W. is Ronald Reagan, with Jerry Falwell to his left. Can anyone identify who is behind Hillary Clinton? --Sean 15:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell who's immediately behind her - there are three "missing" id's that there just be too little showing to make sense of. - Nunh-huh 16:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Hillary is Bono. (I thought it might be because of the hair and edge of glasses; a Google Images search for "Bono" shows it to be a flipped version of the first image). If I had to guess as to the smile under Hillary I'd guess it was Bill, but that's just a guess. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I've updated the "key". The two remaining faces (left of Huckabee, and below Clinton) are so small one hardly knows why they were included. - Nunh-huh 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a McCain poster, it reminds us that the nutty 'socialist' tag aimed at Obama did McCain's campaign more harm than good, as it was widely recognized as untrue. Didn't it start with Joe the Plumber? Xn4 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was pre-Plumber, if I recall. McCain used the "S" word before the second debate, but it wasn't until after the second debate that they started up all the "distribution of wealth"/Marx comparisons. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama *is* a socialist but for some reason socialists don't like to use that word in America. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the right-wing in the US has been able to change the perception of socialism such that it is considered to be synonymous with (Marxist) communism, or, even worse, with the fake communism (really just totalitarianism in disguise) of Stalin and Mao. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chart implies Obama has a similar economic outlook at Stalin. That simply isn't true. He's not trying to nationalize the entire economy. If the chart were more honest, all of the American politicians would be far closer to the center when it came to economics, or else those who advocate total control of the state economy would be an order of magnitude lower on the page. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty compelling, for a certain demographic: "John McCain: somewhere between the Nuge and a Sith Lord". --Sean 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it in the other direction. If you look at who he is surrounded by; it shows that McCain views himself mostly as a hybrid of George W. Bush, Adam Sandler, and Donald Trump. Read into that what you will... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You have to wonder at the worldview of anyone who thinks Barack Obama is out at the extreme of anything and McCain firmly in the center, given which one of them just won a national election in what is generally considered a center-right country. So would FDR be off the chart in that direction? - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words have to mean something, and I agree with the lead of our socialism article, which at the moment says "Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society." No doubt Obama is an egalitarian (and so is McCain), but it was and is potty to call Obama a socialist and it seems to me to say more about McCain than about Obama. There must surely have been cooler heads in the Republican camp not wanting to set that hare running. Xn4 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling Obama or McCain a socialist, or at least partly socialist. By definition, anyone who advocates Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, welfare, etc. is advocating socialist policies. Socialist shouldn't be a dirty word that people are afraid to use. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, welfare" are socialist policies. In the UK, the equivalents of all those things were dreamed up not by socialists but by Liberal politicians like David Lloyd George and William Beveridge; although the expression 'welfare state' seems to have been invented by Archbishop William Temple. Xn4 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare are all forms of wealth redistribution. I'm not sure how anyone can possibly justify that they're not socialist. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beveridge may have dreamed up the welfare state, but it was the Labour government who implemented it and indeed asked him to look into it in the first place. To me, that makes it a Labour initiative, not a Liberal one. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in the politics of U.S. the battle was lost many decades ago as far as defining "Socialism" to be an alien foreign political tradition which has no meaningful connection with the history and political traditions of the United States. In the minds of many Americans, the word socialism is generally associated either with eccentric Scandinavian exoticism or grim Communist tyranny. If a policy or program can be successfully labelled "socialist", that's generally the political kiss of death here. AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crazy country where a discussion of the optimum tax-rate for the highest income brackets turns into furious accusations, from a candidate's mainstream opponent no less, of, "Socialism! Wealth Re-Distribution! Class Warfare!!!" - 161.181.153.10 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But surely that doesn't make the country crazy? Especially when it swung against those who offered this flawed analysis. Xn4 (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Hand Path and Deism

Are any Left-Hand Path religions compatible with Deism? Neon Merlin 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what "Left-Hand Path" means in this context, but Deism is basically the idea that God determined the laws of the universe and set it going, but does not directly intervene in events afterwards (not in any way which violates said laws). Some forms of Gnosticism posit a semi-evil demiurge, who is quite different from the true high God, and also posit that the true high God does not really directly intervene in events at this phase of cosmic history, but in most respects Gnosticism and Deism are pretty much opposite... AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path.--droptone (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link is informative about historically changing meanings and widely-varying usages and alternative definitions, but it doesn't directly help too much in answering the question that was asked... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, "Although some sects value proximity to the divine, most followers of Left-Hand Path belief systems seek to become divinities in their own right." Then there's a list you could sift through further down[2] which at first glance look to be incompatible with Deism as it developed from the 1500s on. Left-hand path seems to the locate the deity elsewhere. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards about marriage

Why are African-American couples who have children out of wedlock deemed a bad example, but Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are applauded for breaking tradition by doing so? Isn't this a double standard of ethnicities? Forgive me if I sound like I'm soapboxing, but I'm not. If I'm doing so unintentionally, then feel free to remove. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that has anything to do with ethnicity...they are rich and famous and it doesn't matter if they aren't married, whereas for most other people, white or black, having children out of wedlock often implies poverty and irresponsibility. I'm sure there are black unmarried famous couples, although I can't think of any (Halle Berry, kind of?). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is whether both parents are present, not whether they're married. If both parents are present, but unmarried, then their li'l bastards will probably turn out alright. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present and financially capable of supporting a child. The latter is more important - single parents frequently do an excellent job of bringing up children, but all too often being a single parent means having no income and having live on handouts, which is not good for the child (or the taxpayers that have to pay for those handouts). --Tango (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the US, where this question seems to be aimed, there is a sufficient financial safety net that children aren't going to die from starvation or exposure, if their parents seek assistance. However, an absent parent can cause the child to die. For example, the lack of a father may cause a boy to join a gang and get killed or a girl to be sexually promiscuous and get AIDS. So, the lack of emotional support is more deadly than the lack of financial support. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any developed country the chance of a child dying from either having a parent absent or being in poverty is very remote. I was thinking of more lower level harm - bullying, poor education (although I suspect the correlation between education and wealth is due to a common cause of the parent(s) being poorly educated rather than a direct link), being drawn into petty crime and drugs, etc. Rarely fatal, but certainly not good for the child. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I question whether the general public applauds "Brangelina" for it. The media can be biased toward celebrities because they want to be able to keep reporting on those who are rich and famous. They might not report unless there is a huge public outcry against the couple. But, people in the (admittedly more conservative) circles that I am in tend to denounce "Brangelina" as a horrible example just as well.

Now, as to why the media tends to give this bias, I think it's as I stated above. Plus, they might be in a profession that claims to be unbiased, as reporters, but that isn't always the case. If a media person believes in having children out of wedlock as a positive thing, they might go into Hollywood reporting and just ever so slightly slant the news about such celes to make them sound more positive, withut reporting on the negative aspects..Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is based on your impression that EVERYONE deems one group of people a bad example and EVERYONE applauds another couple. That is not true. To get an answer to your question, you need to ask whomever it is that fits your criteria what they are basing their opinion on. It is an opinion, not a fact, so it will be difficult to provide a reference to a study or paper written about this topic. If you simply want to discuss your opinions, please use one of the millions of discussion forums on the Internet. -- kainaw ™ 13:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States in particular what people care about most of the time when thinking about morality is economic productivity. Child out of wedlock? No problem if you can pay for it. It's a wonderfully American obsession—if you are economically solvent, then you must be doing something right. If not, then shame, shame on you, you horrible person. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They get so much attention because of the celebrity-industrial complex. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat restating some of the above: I haven't seen many condemnations of African-American couples who have children out of wedlock. I have seen a good bit of tut-tutting about young, single women having children, and sometimes that is racialized. (As are a lot of issues in America involving poverty. It seems like some people forget how many poor white people there are in this country.) Somehow there seems to be less condemnation of the (presumably generally somewhat older) males who get these young, single women pregnant, which seems to me to be even more of a double standard than one that focuses on whether one has the money to raise a child. - Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to bring up here the case of Sarah Palin's daughter who got pregnant out of marriage but was not criticized by cultural conservatives, as she planned to marry the child's father. I'm sure there's something racial here (as has been noted, if a theoretical teenage Obama daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock with a black teen who curses on his myspace page, etc., it's easy to imagine a very different response and effect on the political sphere), but to a large extent, people who criticize sex outside of marriage are really criticizing child-rearing outside of marriage, and with famous couples like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, just being together appearing very devoted probably gives them a pass with regard to not actually being married. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The taboo is not against conception outside marriage, but childbirth outside marriage. "Bastard" means born outside wedlock, not conceived outside wedlock; a child born one day after his parents marry is legitimate, not illegitimate. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do they still use that terminology? I thought it was passé these days. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, social conservatives are mainly against sex outside of marriage. Else, why the crusade against abortion and giving teenagers access to birth control and the push for "abstinance only sex education". They could give a shit about whether or not a girl became pregnant or not; its all about not having sex before being married, and that's it. Say what you will about it, but it IS a rather consistant philosophy; its also why the same groups of people also tend to support such bullshit as the "defense of marriage act" and are against gay marriage. Marriage legitimizes sexual relations, which means that making gay marriage legitimate makes gay sex legitimate. Granting "civil union" status does NOT in any way legitimize sexual relations, so that's why there is SUCH a push to strictly prevent homosexual couples from marrying, but allowing them to have civil unions. They don't care if two dudes get tax write-offs or health care, as long as they don't have to endorse as legitimate two dudes having sex, it doesn't bother them... Its the same deal with teenage pregnancy. Providing and encouraging the use of birth control by teens would reduce teenage pregnancy, but would mean that you endorse teenage sex, and we can't have that!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jayron, I wasn't clear. I understand all about marriages being considered legitimate or not. I was asking whether children born to parents who are not married are still described as "illegitimate children". That seems to impose some sort of judgment or lowly/second-class status on the children, who have no control over the marital status of their parents. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This all seem very old-fashioned to me. In Scandinavia, couples live together all their lifes and have children withouth being married, and no one thinks of this is bad morals, as everyone does the same; if we marry, we do so when our children are old enough to be our brides-maids. My parents have lived together their whole life, but they did not marry until I was twelve, and not even my grandmother thought this was in any way odd. But I suppose the reason is, that USA is a religious country. And also, that americans believe that marriage is the only way to ensure that a couple live together, as it seems impossible to do so in America if you are not married. --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get though, is that even within the African-American community, some old-school (or narrow-minded) people still make marriage a big deal, regardless of whether the couple are better off not being marrried, or that the real issue is that they are good, responsible parents. Some people have created "Marry Your Baby-Mama Day", which I find just plain stupid. I even saw a lady on TV yearning for the days of forced shotgun weddings. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth considering that while Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie who are in a commited relationship and appear to be resonably mature tend to be accepted, younger people like Keisha Castle-Hughes & Jamie Lynn Spears raised more eyebrows when their pregnancies were announced. A lot of the criticism I'm aware of is not just directed at unmarried couples but young couples (or not couples, as others have pointed out the cases that come under the most criticism are when the people aren't even in a commited relationship) Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God and Free Will

If God (in Christianity) knows everything we have done and will do, then in reality, is our salvation really of our own free will? Or maybe this is just another argument for predestination? But surely we get a choice. --Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. Consider this hypothetical example: a person born in a remote area and lives their entire life without hearing of Christianity's message. They have free will their whole life, but are they saved? --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Christian... AnonMoos (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within Christianity opinions differ on this subject. For example, Erasmus and Martin Luther had a long debate about free will and predestination (On the Bondage of the Will). Free will in theology has more points of view. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"knows everything" == omniscience. On that and the problem of free-will, see Theodicy, and further free will theodicy. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius, as it contains a thorough treatment of you posed question. --Shaggorama (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely because I know you are going to do something doesn't mean you don't have the choice to do it. Just because God knows what choices we will make does not mean that we aren't the ones making those choices. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I know that my roommates are going to drink milk straight out of the jug, but to say I'm forcing them to do it merely by knowing it would be absolutely absurd. Wrad (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really KNOW that they will drink out of the jug (ie, "dwelling outside of time" you know all events past and future which are before you like the pages of a book) or do you just BELIEVE that they will drink out of the jug, based on passed experience. After all, for all you know the milk could spoil before they drink it, or some more civilised individual with a glass will get to the milk before you. Duomillia (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am reminded of the question of the individual, who is LOCKED in a room, can't leave even if he wants to, but that's okay because he likes it in the room and doesn't want to leave. Does he remain in the room of his own free will?

Yes, absolutely yes. He has intentionally chosen to be there. The fact that he could not have made any other choice is beside the point. Prisoners, including POWs, fare much better when they stop railing against their fate and actively choose to be imprisoned. Viktor Frankl talks about this at length in Man's Search for Meaning. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but it makes my valve act up. --Sean 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the original post might be expressed as this: If God knows everything that I am going to do already, what happens if I decide to do something else? (I think the answer is, then God would know that you were going to do something else!) Duomillia (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I really don't see how knowing something will happen in any way forces it to happen. Wrad (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of being forced to do something might be like this: "God, an unfailable omniscient being, knows that you are going to watch a movie on Tuesday. If you decide to stay home and play cards with your friends on Tuesday, then God was wrong when he thought you were going to go to the pictures. Since an unfailable, omniscient being can't be wrong, (by definition) then it is not possible for you to do anything other that what God knows you are going to do. Duomillia (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning, but it's backwards, isn't it? If you decide to stay home, God knows what you decided/will decide, so what God knows about your movements on Tuesday is that you are staying home. WikiJedits (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's very backwards. I really can't understand why it would confuse anybody unless they were trying really hard to be confused, but I guess that's what some philosophers like to do. Wrad (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like saying, "Jimmy is omniscient when it comes to basic addition. When adding numbers 1 through 9, he always gets the right answer. Obviously this isn't because he actually knows the answers. It is because he forces those answers to be right every time he takes a math test. There can't possibly be any other explanation."

Why can't God just know things because he knows them? Why does he have to know things because he controls them? It's just ridiculous to me. Wrad (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning goes that God is both all-seeing and all-powerful; so if He knows an event is going to happen, and he takes no intervention in stopping it from happening, it means the same thing than if he directly caused it to happen. God already knows whether you will go to heaven or hell before you die; and as such, because he does nothing to stop you from going to hell, even though it is fully within his power to do so, he has decided that you will go to hell. Since God has a full vision of the entire Universe from the moment of creation, if you go to hell, its because God decided he wanted you there from before you were born; if He didn't He would have done something to prevent it... Not that I personally agree with this view of God, but there it is... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a little more sense. However, if God respects free will, then he has to allow people to make the choices that send them to hell. I personally believe that God doesn't just let people go to hell any more than Satan lets people go to heaven. Both of them do everything they can to get people to make the choice on their end. But God won't force anyone to make a choice. He will let them go wherever they choose. Again, though, since he does all he can without destroying free will, it is simplistic to say he just sits there and lets it happen. Wrad (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kant is interesting on this, too, with a sort of non-determinism from a human point of view coexisting with determinism from a divine point of view. Since we never experience a divine point of view, that sort of determinism does not affect our subjective experience. (Someone else might paraphrase him better, I'm summarizing things I read 30-odd years ago.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3]Here's a link to a similar question (the last one), except God is replaced with Fred. --Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 01:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this saying mean

"How thin can I spread myself before I'm no longer 'there'?" What does this mean please do answer this as soon as possible.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Sharath1 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an idiom in English (and maybe other languages) to "spread oneself thin." "I'm spread too thin" means, "I am doing too many things at once, and so I am spending not enough time and effort on any one of them." The analogy is to take a small bit of butter and try to apply it to a very big piece of bread. Spread it too thin and no piece of the bread will have enough butter to taste, or something like that.

So this is particular phrase is just playing on the idea of literally spreading oneself very very thinly (in the above sense) to the point at which you cease to exist in any meaningful form. If you spread a pat of butter exactly evenly over the roof of a house, it would be spread so thin as to be impossible to see or detect. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sirat al-Mustaqim/Sirat al-Jahim/As-Sirāt - is it in the Quran?

Hello Ref Deskers. I'm looking for the original source (or other good source) for the concept of Sirat al-Mustaqim, the "straight path" traversed by the souls of the dead in Islam. I am trying to check the Ency. Mythica statement about the white horse. Our article on Sirat al-Mustaqim is not helpful - it refers the reader to the Salah article for references, and that article simply links back without a reference. As-Sirāt is also reference-free. I've tried some "searchable Quran" sites without any luck. Do any of you have thoughts about better places to look, or better search terms, or better google-fu? (Google is giving me nothing but blogs.) Thanks! WikiJedits (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the first Sura of Quran: Alfatiha, 6. Moslems recite it in daily prayers and many other occasions. Ehdina-as sirat-al mustaqim: Keep us on the right path. For a good searchable Quran with translation, see: [4]. Good Luck. --Omidinist (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once read somewhere that it was possibly partly influenced by the Zoroastrian concept of the Chinvat bridge crossed by souls, found to be thin as a razor by the souls of the unjust. In any case, the Arabic word Sirat itself ultimately comes from the Latin word strata "paved" (also the source of English "street"). Don't know anything about a white horse. AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The sira article has an Arabic etymology...but there are other loanwords that are given Arabic patterns so that would still make sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "sirat" which appears in the Sirah Rasul Allah article has the Arabic spelling سيرة so that the "t" is the feminine construct-state consonant, while the Sirat in the Qur'an is صراط (with "emphatic" t). In terms of grammatical root-consonants or quasi-root-consonants, the two words have very little in common other than both containing "r". AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! It has the emphatic S too. I didn't notice that before. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was a Spanish princess called "of Austria?

Why was Anne of Austria called Anne of Austria when she was a princess of Spain? Shouldn't she be Anne of Spain? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively meaning "of the House of Hapsburg". - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, both of her parents were Habsburgs. I guess the reason for her being called Anne of Austria may be that she was an Archduchess of Austria, but if she was one by virtue of creation, then presumably her maternal uncle, Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor (1578–1637), is the one who saw to it. Xn4 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not by creation, but by direct male-line descent: Anne of Austria --> Maximilian II --> Ferdinand I --> Philip von Habsburg --> Maximilian I, etc. - Nunh-huh 01:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But I still don't understand why it was like that; are there any specific reason for this? Was "Austria" regarded as a name? I have not heard of any other cases than hers. Are there any other examples of this, perhaps within her family? Was any other Spanish Princesses or princes named "of Austria" in the 17th century? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her sisters does not seem to have been called that: Maria Anna of Spain and Margaret Theresa of Spain. Why is this? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Houses, especially successful/long-lasting ones, often absorb a multiplicity of titles and styles and there are a myriad of rules and non-rules for their application. Hence, the heir to the crown of Britain is styled "Prince of Wales" but his brothers are an Earl and a Duke (Wessex and York) of areas of England, although the former is named for an area that doesn't really exist in the modern idiom. Confused yet? Try this, Charles is also Duke of Cornwall, which shows some greater consistency (ie it's English), but their sister is styled "the Princess Royal". Go figure. And as for the Duke of Edinburgh... Best of all, I love the way that in Manchester, the Queen is frequently styled The Duke of Lancaster. [sic] --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just look at how many people claimed the title King of Jerusalem even though the Kingdom of Jerusalem stopped existing in 1291. Likewise, the English Kings included "King of France" in their litany of titles until George III dropped it in 1801, despite the fact that no English/British monarch had any legitimate claim as King of France since the end of the Hundred Years War in 1453! Indeed, ironically when George III dropped the title, there was no French Monarchy, it having been abolished a decade earlier in the French Revolution! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, d'Autriche ("of Austria") was her surname. This is obscured because, IMO, some modern monarchists don't acknowledge that royalty have surnames. But in Latin countries, especially though not exclusively, they did and do, and these are used in addition to rather than in lieu of titles. Why then not "Anne of Habsburg" since that is the name of her dynasty? Simply because by the time she was born, the dynasty's heir had risen above his family's Swiss countship of Habsburg and become better known as the Archduke of Austria -- for exactly the same reason that although the Valois and Bourbon kings of France descended directly from Hugh Capet, their cadet branches of the dynasty gradually became known by distinguishing territorial titles. In this case, the French didn't re-christen Anne, they simply kept the surname which she brought with her from Spain, where it resulted from her patrilineal descent from Archduke Philip the Fair of Austria, consort of Queen regnant Joanna the Mad of Spain. The House of Habsburg inherited Spain through that marriage, and retained it until the death of Carlos II. FactStraight (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]