Humanities desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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 6

Musical taste and recreational drugs

If a song is composed under the influence of recreational drugs, is it likely to be best appreciated by listeners under the influence of the same drugs? Neon Merlin 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Neon Merlin 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people like songs for all sorts of reasons – they like the lyrics, the rhythm, the melody, it means something special to them... liking music is very subjective and can't be simplified like that. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had I never inhaled, likely I'd never have noticed the herbal influence in It's A Beautiful Day; so, at least for an academic sense of 'appreciated', I wouldn't say no. —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any increase in 'appreciation' probably won't be a result of using the same drugs, it will be a result of being in that sub-culture, being part of that movement. If the singer/band and yourself are aligned to a similar sub-culture then it seems likely that their songs will 'speak' to you perhaps more than someone who isn't part of that sub-culture. There'll be a lot more to the sub-culture than simply a recreational drug though, so whilst the drug may be part of that connection I doubt it is a significant part of it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it said that ecstacy accessorized techno so that both its fans and critics alike could endure it. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be on opium to appreciate the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be true that drugs give you the illusion that you can appreciate the art more. Drugs universally hinder neurological function in some fashion; they don't "heighten" your senses, or expose you to "alternate realities". They merely fuck your brain up in ways that make you think that that brain damage IS reality. If that sounds like a good time to you, well, via con dios... But in general, having full unfettered access to all of your senses is probably the best way to appreciate any music or art. I greatly enjoy works of art that were created under heavy drug use (the poetry of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the music of the Greatful Dead, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. etc.) and I have never used heavy drugs myself. A very wise man once said "Drugs doesn't make you more interesting, it just makes you content with being boring..." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of illusion doesn't always apply. Having music sound good is a subjective experience. If some music sounds better to you after (for example) smoking pot, it's meaningless to call that change of perception an illusion. Also, calling drug effects "brain damage" is not accurate. There are a great many drugs in common usage, whether medical or recreational. Most of them do not cause brain damage. Frankly, many of your comments sound like something straight out of some widely inaccurate 1930's anti-drug propaganda. Friday (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% correct. That is why I have always supported full legalization of all drugs. I have personally never used one, but it has never had anything to do with their "harm" or "benefit". It has never personally interested me. I was merely answering the OP showing that it is entirely possible to be 100% personally fulfilled with the exerience of life without using hard drugs. If the OP does not find his life personally fulfilled without hard drugs, he won't find any objection from me to using them. Thankfully, he won't be the first person to use hard drugs, so we have lots of data points on the effect of long-term, continued use of hard drugs in their lives, and thus he can at least make an informed decision over the issue. The question over whether any of his life is likely to be enhanced by the use of these hard drugs is entirely for him to make... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Friday. It's subjective. Plus the OP was asking "is it likely to be best appreciated" so you could easily argue yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.121.208 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most accurate statement would be that "a listener would be a lot more open to liking, and subsequently becoming a big fan of, a particular kind of music while having any positive drug experience". I do have some personal evidence to support what the OP is implying though. I remember realizing how "awesome" Led Zeppelin was while smoking weed. And I have a good friend who hated electronic music but subsequently became a DJ after hearing it on E. NByz (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a mundane level, the "beer goggles" principle seems to apply – the idea that drinking beer makes others around you look attractive... Julia Rossi (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something interesting and vaguely related: the painting Unraveling Boléro by Canadian artist Anne Adams, which is a visual representation of Ravel's Boléro. After she painted this, it became clear that she, like Ravel, suffered from Primary progressive aphasia. New Scientist has an account here, and a paper on the subject can be found here.81.98.32.49 (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Nietzsche on cocaine?

My friend told me about a movie he saw in which Friedrich Nietzsche was shown to have used a good deal of cocaine in his life. I had never heard anything like that before and was wondering if it's true. Evaunit♥666♥ 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shocked. Before the 20th century, the concept of "illegal" drugs was pretty foreign. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a contemporary of Nietzsche, was a famous druggie, for example. And don't forget that originally, Coca Cola really contained cocaine. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jayron, I'm not quite sure how you define 'contemporary' but you might care to note that Coleridge died ten years before Nietzsche was born! :)) Emma Dashwood (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were both older than me ... ;) However, they were both born in an age with a pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards the ingesting of any old substance. The concept that the government could tell you what substances you could and could not take didn't really get going until the Temperance movements of the late 1800's... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine#Popularization has a nice history of its hey-day among intellectuals in the 19th century. Remember that cocaine was very new to Europeans in the mid-19th century, and that its negative sides weren't recognized until after quite some time. It was not made illegal until the 20th century. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suing an abortionist for refusing to perform an abortion

Say hypothetically, an abortionist had a patient seeking an aborting. Upon recognizing her as the president of a "Pro-Life" group. He refuses to perform the abortion on her. Can the patient sue the doctor (in a court of law) for refusing to perform a legal abortion on her? Is it illegal to discriminate against "Pro-Life" people (by refusing abortions)? But surely such a doctor will get full support from the "Pro-Life" people to discriminate against the "Pro-Life" people! 122.107.234.42 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but you'll almost certainly be interested in this article: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this it legal advice, it shouldn't be here. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not a request for legal advice. --Sean 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is so boring and irritating to have the "legal advice" mafia show up every time someone mentions a legal concept. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general a doctor is not obligated to perform a procedure on a patient if they don't want to. I'm not sure if there are exceptions for life-threatening cases. This has come up in the past in the US for other "morality" issues—e.g. should a doctor help save the life of a baby that would die without intervention if it thinks that its life is "unfit to live", as in the case of the Chicago doctor/euthanasia/eugenics advocate Harry Haiselden. (Ooh, a provocative red link on Wikipedia for an interesting historical figure! Jump to it, lads...!) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, doctors are certainly not obliged to perform abortions, however that's intended to protect doctors from having to do something they consider highly immoral. If they are actually a specialist abortionist, that doesn't really apply. You certainly couldn't choose not to perform the procedure based on a protected characteristic like race, but I don't think there are any laws against discriminating against people for their choice of moral values, so the doctor in this example would probably be ok. I would hope that doctors aren't general so petty as to refuse treatment in such a case - I think doctors generally subscribe to the idea that you treat anyone that comes looking for your help regardless of who they are outside of the hospital. And, for completeness, I'll say (although no-one has asked) that confidentiality rules would certainly prevent the doctor from revealing the patient's hypocrisy. --Tango (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. (pretty much) anyone can sue (pretty much) anyone else for (pretty much) any reason. How far it gets in the court system is another matter. ("pretty much" is a weird looking phrase is!) Saintrain (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, can a judge make an award – attorney fees, etc – for "nuisance suit" to the defendant without a trial? Saintrain (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(IANAL or anyone else with expertise in court procedure.) There would probably need to be a hearing on the claim for costs (assuming the loser objects), but I see no need for there to have been a trial on the main claims of the case - if the judge dismisses them as no case to answer, then you can just skip that bit. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research, it seems I have my terminology wrong - such a dismissal would actually happen part way through the trial rather than without a trial. --Tango (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the legal advice thing; I looked up the contributions of the asker after typing that, but didn't want to bother crossing my comment out or something like that (I was in a bit of a hurry.). Cheers! Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ, I suspect any doctor could refuse for that reason and not be subject to any civil penalty. There's a slight chance they may be sanctioned by the medical council or their employer but I doubt it. However the District Health Boards are required to provide abortions to those who meet the criteria, so they will need to find someone to perform the abortion. (see the end) If they can't find someone in NZ they may send you overseas, as I believe has happened before when there were insufficient staff willing to perform fairly late-term abortions for the demand Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval attire

While watching a swashbuckler, I noticed the main characters wearing armor at sea during a boarding. Was this accurate or were people more worried about falling into the water and being dragged down by the weight? And if they did wear armor, what kind (in say the Elizabethan era)? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I'd say the defining factor was cost: if you could afford it, you wore it. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall hearing somewhere that, surprisingly, most sailors "back in the day" couldn't swim. That is, if they fell overboard, they were pretty much out of luck, especially during a fight when it's unlikely others are going to stop to fish them out. Adding armor wouldn't change that much, and certainly saved them much pain against sword injuries, which were probably more likely to happen when boarding a ship than falling overboard would be. -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admirals typically had fancy armor; see the picture at Sebastiano Venier or admiral's armor from Battle of Gibraltar in 1607 [1]. In Loutherbourg's painting of the Spanish Armada [2] there appear to be some men with helmets and armour, but most of the men seem to be wearing nothing more than shirts; but an image of Battle of Lepanto (1571) [3] shows armored Venetians on the right storming unarmored Turks on the left. It probably depended on your rank and the wealth of the navy you served in.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall reading that boarding armor was rigged for easy removal if the boarder went overboard. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military healthcare law change

My step son and his mother were having a discussion about his healthcare situation because he was in the military several years ago and had an injury during this time which ended any career posibilities in the military. Years after he left he realized that his healthcare benifits had been canceled for failure to reply to a letter explaining this. He has moved around to pursue his academic disipline.

His complaint was that there was legislation passed that required him to respond to contact atempts from the military in order for him to keep these benifits. I can find no such legislation that has been enacted that would change this unless it has always been this way.

Where can I go to look for this information or who knows anything about this? Dumboldtruckdriver (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(turning off preformattext in your question) If this is in the United States, check with your local VA office. They provide benefits for veterans and know what the laws and rules are. -- kainaw ™ 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do they mean?

Somebody wrote to me "if the Lord is your shepherd, what does that make you?" what did they mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Shepherd: "A shepherd is a person who tends to, feeds, or guards sheep . . ." So if God is your shepherd, what are you? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lord is my shepherd" is a famous Old Testament quote often said by Christians (and Jews?). The comment makes fun of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes you a sheep. For the non-Christian, this is an uncomfortable idea; that sheep are supposedly mindless and not in control of their own lives. For the Christian, it is about being intentionally obedient to God, to turning your problems over to Him and to agree to let Him manage your life. It's not about being "mindless" as we think of sheep are, but it is about being intentionally, and mindfully obedient. Its an easy concept for the non-believer to make fun of, but it is one of the central, core aspects of being a Christian. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more specific than just being mindless, it's that they blindly follow each other. Calling someone a sheep means they just do what everyone else is doing. --Tango (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that anyone who knows about sheep knows that they don't just follow their shepherd or each other blindly. They are very difficult to keep together and guide. They have a mind of their own. Shepherds in the Middle East in the time of Christ knew each of their sheep by name. Sheep followed their shepherd only, not just anybody who wanted to lead them. They knew who their shepherd was because they recognized his voice and knew that he would lead them to good things (water, grass). Nowadays sheep are guided by sheepdogs and men on horses or four-wheelers, but that is not how it was in Biblical times. Knowing the context, it is very clear that biblical sheep did not follow blindly, they weren't just part of a crowd. They knew their shepherd and he knew them, personally. They followed him based on past experience that he would lead them to good things. That is why, when people call me a sheep in a Christian sense, I feel like saying "Thank you!" Wrad (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the quote also connotes the rather unpalatable idea (pointed out by Christoper Hitchens in a debate) that a sheperd does not keep sheep primarily as loving pets, but rather as commodities to be fleeced and ultimately slaughtered for meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which, again, is more of a modern idea than a biblical one. Interpreting Psalm 23 in the context of its time brings no such connection. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the Middle East still hold to the older "Shepherd tradition". I heard a story about a western man who ran over one of these shepherd's sheep. The shepherd was obviously distraught about it, so the westerner offered through a translator to pay for the man's loss. The man refused. The translator explained that such Shepherd always refuse. The sheep means more to them than the money. They have small flocks and to lose one of them is to lose something that is personally known and deeply cared for. This is not the attitude of someone who merely keeps his sheep for the monetary rewards of slaughter and fleecing. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That seems curious. Do you mean that in ancient times it didn't occur to anyone to consider the purpose of a shepherd? Or that the term had a somewhat different meaning at the time? APL (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays companies own livestock, not people. The "processing" process is very impersonal. How many shepherds do you know that stay up all night throughout the year with their animals, protecting them from predators? Sure, sheep were sheared back then, but the relationship between shepherd and sheep was still much deeper than it is today. Wrad (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, there is no doubt that there were, even in biblical times, both good and bad shepherds. In the context of Psalm 23, though, when it says "The Lord is my shepherd" and then lists all the good things he does for the writer, it is clear that the Lord, to the poet, is a good shepherd, possibly better than even the best shepherd that ever lived. Such a shepherd would not lead his sheep to anything bad (slaughter, for example). The metaphor only serves so far. Wrad (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All we like sheep have gone astray." Isaiah 53:6. So we sheep are definitely independently minded. When Handel set this text to music in the Messiah, he portrayed the will of the sheep with some wonderful melismatic semiquaver runs for the phrase that follows, "We have turned every one to his own way."GBViews (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If sheep were so easy to persuade, there would be little need for a Shepherd, wouldn't there? Wrad (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we, as sheep, ARE easy to lead astray into dangerous places, and the Shepherd is there to make sure we remain where it is safe... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos nothing, I prefer the Pink Floyd take on it: Sheep (song) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That confirms my observations, that sheep are stroppy. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. That's a very different take! Wrad (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven

Does the Jewish faith have a concept of going to Heaven after death, or was this started by Christians (and taken up later by Islam)? If it does, then how does it differ from or resemble the Christian idea of Heaven?

Have you read our articles on heaven and Jewish eschatology? They provide an excellent starting point. — Lomn 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you, Givnan? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what am I?

Hi.

This is more a question of terminology regarding philosophical opinions. I want to know what my opinion is called by describing it.

I do believe in the existence of the physical universe, and that we all are minds that have (real) bodies (existing within this world) with senses that can perceive this physical world and its phenomenons. Now, if I had stopped talking here, it would have been materialism...

BUT: I do not believe that anything in this physical universe (no kind of matter, energy, process, phenomenon, etc) can give rise to our consciousness; our ability to be self-aware; having a feeling of existence. So I DISREGARD from the theory that the workings and design of the human brain (and a limited number of other animals) is so complex that it can give rise to consciousness, and when it dies the feeling of self-awareness disappears.

As you can see, I'm not an idealist either.

That being said, I also completely disregard from religions based on scriptures and their "theories".

In my quest of learning a bit more about this, someone putting a word on this would make things easier.

Thanks, PureRumble (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What you are is a person with a question. Where did the consciousness you believe in come from? If you believe that it could not have arisen naturally from the material universe, something outside the material universe must be the cause - i.e. something 'supernatural' (meaning outside the natural). I guess that makes you a "supernaturalist".

So your next question is, what does that supernatural thing look like? Did it create the material, or does it exist alongside the material? Is it intelligent?

Incidentally, why would you discard scipture based religions? You may not consider the existence of scripture sufficient evidence for the truth of a religion, but it would not be sensible to discard a theory just because someone wrote it down before you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a dualist. See Dualism (philosophy of mind). —Kevin Myers 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dualism is very hard to support philosophically. In modern times it is mostly associated with religion rather than serious academic philosophy. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The duality (pun definitely intended) of religion and philosophy is a recent phenomenon. Historically, they are considered the same field. Superm401 - Talk 04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to all of you! PureRumble (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]