Humanities desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

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.

September 18

ironic beauty

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This has gone on for long enough. Original question was answered sufficiently and there's no need to drag ourselves through the mud. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it ironic that municipalities forbid uncut grass for the sake of protecting beauty but fail to protect people from beautiful plants that are hazardous or poisonous by requiring they be identified by placard or tag onsite? -- Taxa (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. See irony.--Wetman (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not ironic then perhaps contradictory or inconsistent? -- Taxa (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an example or two? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try... in principle municipalities and government are against death, accidental or intentional yet will build a bicycle lane next to parked cars such that a bicyclist can slam into a open car door or be hit by a car upon swerving to avoid hitting an open car door. Converting one lane of on-street parking to a bicycle lane might help fullfill the principle to which government subscribes. Otherwise it may appear the government is contradictory or inconsistent between its own actions and the principles to which it subscribes. -- Taxa (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was hoping for an example involving "beautiful plants that are hazardous or poisonous". Regarding the bike lane, remember that governments operate from compromise, and maybe taking away valuable parking spaces is not considered to be a reasonable option. Admittedly, the scenario you describe (which I suspect you've experienced) has a Laurel-and-Hardy aspect to it which was presumably not intended. Have you tried lobbying for that change you advocate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azella and Oleander are two. While Castor and Rosary Pea are not ornamental they have no antidotes. -- Taxa (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to complain that government bodies can be "contradictory or inconsistent" well then, yeah. Can't please everybody all the time, but they've got to try. For the greater good! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum. It is for answering factual questions with references. Please do not use it as your soapbox. There are plenty of internet forums that would be better suited to your post. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify as a soapbox diatribe one must be advocating something, which I am not. -- Taxa (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although more noble than diatribes, rhetorical speeches as above, are still soapboxing. (Unless it wasn't rhetorical in which case you might have been seeking opinions, another no.no)83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I'm seeking reasons why persons would want to attack a municipality or why people would turn a blind eye to the extent of allowing 9/11. Palestine has been given as the most viable reason along with the creation and marketing of genetically enginered food crops to produce spermacide, herbicide, persticide and plastics all over the world and not just in Afganistan. To determine whether the acts of municiple government might also serve as a cause in selecting a target the next time in absence of reference to such information being contained within an article requires the asking of such questions here. -- Taxa (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at the bakery. What has this got to do with homeowners being required to mow their lawns? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend upon the reason. Requiring someone to mow a lawn to prevent it from being a fire hazard is quite different from requiring someone to mow their lawn for the purpose of beautification. While the first reason might gain compliance without resistance the other may not. A property owner who thinks municiple government is being oppressive might then fail to report that he overheard the renters down the block talking to each other in Arabic and saying how oppressive the municipality was. On the other hand the next attack may take place where no one's complaints about oppression or inconsistency are overheard but it's still good to know where and why they are. -- Taxa (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people are compelled to keep their yards in decent condition, including reasonable lawn-mowing, is to keep the neighborhood from looking run-down. That has to do with property values and such stuff as that. Anyone who buys a house knows that. Anyone who thinks being compelled to mow the lawn is "oppressive" is unlikely to have a job, so their buying a house is also unlikely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forget about the effect of watering restrictions on the beauty of a lawn and the restiction on replacing it with a Zen or biotanical garden. If a municipality handles such restrictions in an unfair or arbitrary way that favors one property owner over another rather than treating everyone on an equal basis then you have a point of rub perhaps sufficient in the minds of some to bring that municipality down. Its one of hundreds of possibe motives why someone or a group of individuals might do something like 9/11. If you are like me you want to know what each one of them might be. -- Taxa (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that the 9/11 perps were concerned about lawns. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guarantee that it will not be included in the reason behind the next 9/11? -- Taxa (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I or any of us here know that? You think we're sitting in on al-Qaeda's monthly meetings? The reason for 9/11 was the same reason as Pearl Harbor - a foreign nation (of sorts) trying to convince us to back off from some part of the world. And as with Pearl Harbor, it didn't work. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum. Do not feed the trolls. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom go away you are the troll. -- Taxa (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You (basebal Bugs) are not facing reality. Next time nuclear weapons will be available for use. Unlike Pearl Harbor or 9/11 when we were too self-righteous to phantom that anything we might have done could have been the cause next time the damage for not being self-correcting will most likely teach us the lesson we have been unwilling and unable to learn. If your failure to look for and find a remedy for any possible cause results in a loved one being vaporized the next time how do you think that is going to make me feel? Its going to make me feel like the reference desk deals in fantasy that is going to get us all killed. -- Taxa (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unintelligent design

While life is claimed to have no intelligent cause do the proponents of this claim, also claim there is no intelligent effect? -- Taxa (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends.218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What 218.25.32.210 is probably trying to say is, what do you mean by "intelligent"? Indeed, how does one define "intelligence"? All of our knowledge of the world comes but of our staring at shadows on the cave wall. Intelligentsium 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the ability to deduce? -- Taxa (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of animals can solve problems, a trait achieved through the trial-and-error of natural selection. For example, the octopus is an exceptionally intelligent creature, especially for something so short-lived. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think unintelligent design is a particularly useful term - opponents of ID generally believe that there was no rational thinking designer (intelligent or otherwise). To answer your question, you'll need to tell us what you mean by "intelligent effect" but have a look at evolution. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent effect is something like a tree falling across a stream to produce a bridge from one side to the other. -- Taxa (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the ability of the intellect, or the mind, to affect physical processes, the jury is very much out on that one. Actually, I think the jury may have sneaked out of its sequestration a long time ago without anyone noticing. The problem of mental causation is a vexing one and continues to occupy philosophers and cognitive scientists. All 3+ positions have their adherents: There is no mental causation of physical events; there is mental causation of physical events; we're asking the wrong question, things are neither "mental" nor "physical", we need to redefine the terms, etc. etc. As to your original question, if I understood it correctly, there are certainly many people who both deny intelligent design and the possibility of mental causation, and I suppose in many cases these things are connected in their minds. --Rallette (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@OP: To avoid any misunderstanding of your question: Can cou give an example of the "intelligent effect" life has had on the universe ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with an atom of hydrogen and oxygen one might say that intelligent effect is the fact that they can come together to form water. -- Taxa (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a space probe a proof of it? Quest09 (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent effect is more the result of unintelligent causes. However, just becasue man is an intelligent cause of a space probe does not mean that a space probe is not an intelligent effect. -- Taxa (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is groping with the idea that the universe is becoming intelligent, as Teilhard de Chardin postulated with his idea of the noosphere. This is also a staple of science fiction: see "Star Maker" by Olaf Stapledon or "Hyperion" by Dan Simmonsfor examples. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, although as time passes the complexity of it all increases to the point where the idea of intelligent effect becomes more recognizable. -- Taxa (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is a little too vague to answer concretely, but if you mean "do people who subscribe to the theory of naturalistic evolution believe that intelligent agency can arise from unintelligent causes," the answer is "yes", that's basically what evolution means to describe (how "dumb" laws of nature can produce apparently well-designed and quite clever creatures). A lot of this is how we define "intelligence", obviously—from a physical standpoint, humans are not much different than rocks. From a philosophical standpoint, they definitely have agency where rocks do not. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your response is more inline with my question. I'm wondering if there is an inconsistency in the minds of the proponents of natural evolution that where there is intelligent effect there can still be unintelligent casue. -- Taxa (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think proponents of natural evolution feel there's any inconsistency there. Explaining how less complicated systems can naturally lead to more complicated systems is central to the theory. Rckrone (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is reasonable to assume that computers will gain in intelligence and capability to the point of outshining us. -- Taxa (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a well-established hypothesis that often goes under the name of "singularity".Rhinoracer (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we build them with that capability. In this instance, human activity is what is driving the complexity of computer systems, not natural selection. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computers are not intelligent. They are simply machines with no awareness of their own existence. Those machines are certainly more complex tools than they were in 1950. But they are no more "intelligent" than a rock is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophically it's not really determined what "intelligence" means in this context, and to what degree "artificial intelligence" needs to develop to until we decide that it is, well, "intelligent". Computers are certainly not there yet, but someday they probably will be. If we a priori define them as unintelligent because of their materialism or determinism (e.g. they are machines and just run algorithms), there's a level at which we end up describing humans as being "unintelligent" as well, unless we start ascribing to unscientific concepts to differentiate ourselves (e.g. a soul). This is, incidentally, a rich area of philosophical inquiry and by no means settled.

If the computers became autonomous and could reproduce, and the various types of computers competed for resources from which to build more computers, which led to the smartest computers out-pacing the dumb ones, which pushed the computers to become smarter, that would be evolution. That scenarios sounds like it's contingent on a robot apocalypse, so I think humans will try to avoid it if possible. Rckrone (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we'd still have to get them to that stage to begin with. They aren't just going to become autonomous without intensive human intervention. If we get them to a stage where they can "evolve" on their own accord, then they can push beyond whatever capability we give them, and hence the technological singularity. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that scientists who deny the existence of, or the need for, a "creator" behind real-world life, posit us as creators. The IP hits it right on the head - that such machines would have to somehow evolve on their own - like DNA strands, viruses, and the like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

musical doctrine of affections

I am interested in the specifics of the doctrine of affections. An excellent Teaching Company class by Robert Greenberg listed many of the keys and a few words describing the affection being portrayed by the piece for each key in the Baroque period. Since I play a lot of Baroque music, I want to know more specifics so I can interpret the composer's intent more knowledgeably. I haven't been able to find anything more specific than those few words from the CD class. I want a bigger picture with more detail. 00:35, 18 September 2009 Ahatch (talk | contribs) (Attribution added by // BL \\ (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Doctrine of the affections is not of much help, as you probably know :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that term. Some years ago I went to a lecture-recital of some Haydn sonatas, presented by Geoffrey Lancaster. He went into considerable detail about how particular keys and certain phrasings and effects were used by Haydn to denote certain moods or states. Not only that, but the audiences of his day would know exactly what he was referring to by his use of those devices; whereas modern audiences no longer have this knowledge but just sit there and think "that's nice". It was an absolute eye-opener, or ear-opener, more appropriately. Unfortunately, I've forgotten virtually everything I heard that night, and I really wish I had a recording or transcript of the lecture, because it was one of the most fascinating evenings I've spent in a long time. It's possible that an approach to Lancaster, an acknowledged expert on Haydn, might produce some results of interest to you. He's contactable through the ANU School of Music (when he's not performing or recording overseas). I've met him through a mutual friend, and he's very approachable and I'm sure he'd be willing to point you in the right direction. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Jack. Geoffrey Lancaster is very approachable on this topic. He loves to help people become more informed about historically informed performance. I audited a class of his last year (one I found out about through a different mutual friend), and it helped me understand not just the music, but the dance (which is more important to me). He's also a very clever man. Steewi (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...towards the treatise of Jean-Philippe Rameau, perhaps? Remember that the circle of twenty-four keys were fully accessible only to strings: the valved trumpet made its heroic debut in E flat. The concert repertory itself helps cement associations, even to create them: if E flat is "heroic", part of the nexus of associations the key carries is Beethoven's "Eroica".

objective measure of whether a company, country, etc. is evil?

Is there an objective way to learn whether a company, like Shell Oil, or a country, like Israel, is "really" (objectively) evil or good?

You'll have to be much more precise about "company", "country", "evil" and "good". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are you serious? How do you suggest I phrase what I obviously have in mind? --92.230.69.119 (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer you need is, No, there is no objective measure of whether one corporation in an extractive industry or one local nation is "evil", for it is difficult enough to ascertain the social effects even of a single public policy, and "evil" applies only to human beings. --Wetman (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil applies to human beings? That's one view. (Which of course illustrates the problem with the question - try to answer it, and you'll get a religious war instead. This is one good reason not to ask too many abstract moral questions. There's probably someone hungry or sick or homeless of hopeless who could use your help while you're philosophizing...) -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind. When you talk about a "company", are you talking about its directors, its employees, its management, its shareholders, its products, its clients or all of the above? Does "evil" refer to something that's bad for the environment, bad for humanity, illegal, immoral or something else entirely.

So if you're asking whether there is an objective way to learn whether any of the employees of a company have done anything illegal, the answer is probably "yes" but I don't think that's what you want. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really do need an objective measure of evil or good first. The you could apply it to the company (group of individuals) and the consequences of their actions.

However before you can do that you need to decide whether or not moral objectivism ie that it is possible to be truly objective about moral concepts is a valid concept (in any or one of its forms); a problem occurs here unless you can show your opinion on that to be objective and not subjective.

To be honest it's impossible to do at 100% certainty, all that can be obtained it seems is a personal certainty of any subjective views held. 83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, it all depends on your benchmark. Transparency International monitors commercial and political corruption and publishes a Corruption Perceptions Index and a Bribe Payers Index. Global Integrity does a similar job and publishes an annual Global Integrity Report. Amnesty International monitors human rights and publihses an annual report, as does Human Rights Watch. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your answers I feel pretty confident that Israel could do anything it wanted and I would not consider it evil as a consequence. All of these reports out in the news recently bashing Israel are from people who have different sympathies from mine, that's all. 85.181.146.254 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forget which one, but a prominent Russian author posited that stupidity equals evil. So, what's the stupidest country or company you can think of? One that's stayed in business for a while, or you wouldn't know that it exists. Hence evil does not exist. Vranak (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil" is a moral term, thus not quantifiable by objective scientific measurement. So the answers that you are likely to receive will be based on the respondant's personal judgment.

While numerous related items (Life Expectancy, Percentage of Population as Political Prisoners, Average Personal Income, Availability of Affordable Education, Housing, and Medical Care, Whether US 1st Amendment Rights are In Place and Honored, &c) may be statistically measured, determining what constitutes evil still remains a personal judgment call.

Keeping this short to avoid being accused of soapboxing, I would suggest that the first test is whether the government deliberately kills (or does nothing to prevent the killing of) its own citizens. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is one example. Reducing citizenship levels to allow the slaughter of law-abiding populations (as in Nazi Germany) is only different from the former as a public-relations ploy for the international community of nations that are willing to keep quiet and make no objection. Again, this last paragraph is merely my opinion and not objective proof. B00P (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selmer Bringsjord has been working on defining and computerizing evil.[1] 70.90.174.101 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define evil. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, be aware that the provocative stuff in this thread was largely raised by now-indef'd users who were, well, trying to provoke. "Evil" is subjective. But you can have individual and corporate "ethics", which are based on a sense of what good vs. evil are, within the framework of laws defining what "good" and let's say "not good" behaviors are. Ethical companies have codes of conduct, which define for all employees, what ethical behavior is expected from them vs. what is not considered ethical. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying terms

What is the term that describes someone who insults/ridicules another person? The insulter does so because s/he secretly has the same issues that s/he is insulting with. Also, what are some arguments that I can use in which someone who had a troubled life but they are still on the right path? For instance, Abraham Lincoln had a lot of failures before be became President of the US. I want to explain to someone that although things in my life are great at the moment, it doesn't mean that I am on the wrong path to success/happiness/whatever. thanks --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology in that department may have to be imagistic, because it crosses more than one line. I wouldn't be afraid of mixed metaphors if I were you. You might want to say something like, "My kite is flying at half mast but it doesn't mean my ship hasn't come in." Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Psychological projection Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the first person a hypocrite. "Do as I say, not as I do" type of thing. Or at the very least, inconsistent.Livewireo (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seraching for the reference of a Buddha quote

Does anyone knows where the famous Buddha quote "It's your mind that creates this world" is from? What is the source? A sutra? A teaching? Which? THANKS! 190.192.176.6 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The world is led by mind
And drawn by mind.
All phenomena are controlled
By one phenomenon, mind.

SN 1.39.10-11.—eric 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like anti-knowledge to me. Vranak (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Matrix saying: "There is no spoon." If you want to bend a spoon, you only have to bend your mind.--Quest09 (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concurred. It is empty sophistry. Vranak (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like block transfer computation to me. Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question asked, answer given; why the additional critical commentary? Pfly (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the mind. Anyway disillusionment will set you free. Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in multiple places because it's central to Buddhism. Probably the most famous is the very beginning of the Dhammapada, which goes, in the translation by Thomas Byrom:

We are what we think.

All that we are arises with our thoughts.

With our thoughts we make the world.

It has nothing to do with "bending spoons with your mind" -- it's about perception. You suffer, in life, because of the way that you perceive things. See also the Four Noble Truths. Antandrus (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that notion before, but it implies that if someone is suffering, somehow it's their own fault rather than someone else's. So the Jews who were led to the gas chambers were only suffering because of their "perception"??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, and I wouldn't mind if an expert on Buddhism responded. As I understand it, if you do your meditative work, internalize the ephemeral nature of life, and cease from all craving (as indicated by the second of the Four Noble Truths) -- such as the craving to go on living and experiencing the suffering which the First of the Four Truths tells us all of life is -- even in extreme circumstances you would cease to suffer (although of course you still experience bodily pain). Never having been led to a gas chamber, I cannot speak from direct experience, but I suspect Thich Nhat Hanh or one of the living Buddhist writers would say something similar. It's probably much easier to practice in daily life, for example in training yourself not to get angry when someone undoes your edits on Wikipedia. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, it only implies that suffering is the sufferer's "fault" if one accepts notions of "fault" and "blame". Many would not. I wouldn't assume them in such a discussion anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can take stuff like that too literally. I also would like to hear a Buddhist's take on this, but my very shallow understanding of it is close to: "yes". Gandhi was a Hindu, of course, not a Buddhist, but his recommendation to the British during WWII was, "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them..." (from wikiquote). That strikes me as being a very Buddhist kind of thing to say. Remember, these are folks that believe in reincarnation: you're going to die not once once but possibly hundreds of times times over until you learn to live properly so it's not worth too much to worry about your physical body one way or another. You're going to get another, remember? Your suffering is not important because existence is suffering; it's how you deal with it that determines your eventual fate. From an outsider's perspective (atheist), the real difference between that kind of tack and that of most Christians is that the Eastern religions have simply taken things to the logical conclusion. If a Christian really believed in heaven, shouldn't they welcome an honest death in the same way? Matt Deres (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another key Buddhist notion--more key than "mind makes the world"--is "no self", see Anatta. It's not "your" mind that creates the world. It's not "someone else's" suffering. Pfly (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh Hashana Shofar

Is the shofar being played tonight on Rosh Hashana services, even though it falls on Shabbat? Will it be played tomorrow? Thanks, 166.137.133.40 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/Yes. B00P (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny yes/yes, they seem contradictory. I thought it should be played on the second day of Rosh Hashana in that circumstance? Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why it should seem contradictory. It's a two-day holiday; whatever's done the first day is also done on the second, and vice-versa. B00P (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I see what you mean. Well there's an article shofar and it says it shouldn't be played on the Shabbat. They might forget themselves and take it outside and you can't risk doing that on the Shabbat. That doesn't stop playing it the next day though. Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are crazies in every belief-system. Does anyone worry that the guy blowing the shofar will forget himself, strip off all his clothes, and perform in the nude? B00P (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Orthodox congregations, the shofar is not played on Shabbat. Some Reform synagogues do play the shofar on Shabbat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Sabbath it is forbidden to carry any object in an "unenclosed area". However, on a Festival, such as Rosh Hashanah, when it occurs on a weekday, this is permitted. The Rabbis were concerned that since a Shofar blower might not be proficient, he would take the Shofar and carry it on the Sabbath via an "unenclosed area" to a person who was proficient in Shofar blowing, in order to consult with him. For this reason, due to the great sanctity of the Sabbath, the Rabbis made a decree that when Rosh Hashanah occurs on the Sabbath, the Shofar would not be blown.(Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 29b). Simonschaim (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A guiding principles of Reform Judaism is the autonomy of the individual. A Reform Jew maintains his or her right to decide whether to subscribe to any particular belief or to any particular practice -- they therefor do not consider themselves subject to any rabbinical precept. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said "tonight". The shofar is not blown at night on Rosh Hashanah in orthodox congregations, and I don't believe it's blown at night in most non orthodox ones either, but, as said above, there's bound to be exceptions. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]