Humanities desk
< October 16	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 18 >

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.

October 17

Name of Science Fiction Novel

Many years ago I read a science fiction novel in which people lived in vast tower blocks and spent much of their time in some sort of dream state where they could influence their dreams. Unknown to them, they were actually influencing events on earth. I think the book had the word "Dream" or "Dreamers" in the title. Ring any bells with anybody? Japier 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs)

You might like to narrow it down with anything else you remember, like how old the book was roughly, when you read it, anything else you remember: so far, I suspect there are many stories that fit. But, wildly stab in the dark, it wasn't The Lathe of Heaven, was it? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds a bit more like Wine of the Dreamers to me. but yeah, more information would help. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it - also known as "Planet of the Dreamers". Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always wished John D MacDonald wrote more SciFi. The few he wrote (IMO) were better than most of the Travis McGee books that he's famous for. but such is life... --Ludwigs2 00:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moral relativism

is there any ethical theory etc that would have influenced Germans' judgments regarding their actions during theHolocaust (murdering civilians of their own country who were in good standing), or were they just, simplistically, morally depraved monsters, to a man?

for example, as an American when people talk about war crimes american troops commit against civilians in Iraq, I think they don't realize that there is a moral theory working, that it is good to spread American freedom to dictatorships. was there any "moral theory" working during the Holocaust? 92.224.205.50 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Dehumanization. One way to make atrocities fit into a moral code is to deny the humanity of the victims of the atrocity. If blacks aren't real people, American slavery becomes tolerable. If women aren't real people, mysogyny becomes explanable. If Jews aren't real people, there is no longer the moral quandry of dealing with real people. --Jayron32 01:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Demagogy. If it wouldn't have been for a strong central figure to rally round (whom around to rally?) then there may have been no World War 2. schyler (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Hannah Arendt and Banality of evil - this is a really good explanation of why people do what is evil even when judged by their own ethical system. Ethical systems and moral philosophy is often very far from daily life. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're not using the correct terminology. moral philosophy is an esoteric field that few people pay any attention to. There is a sense in which the core Nazi ideology was built around (a misinterpretation of) the moral philosophies of Neitzche and Heidegger, but that would have had almost no impact on the common soldier or the common citizen. You seem to be reaching more towards the influence of propaganda. In the Nazi case that would have been eugenics type arguments: the people subject to the holocaust were broadly portrayed as less than human, soldiers and citizens were exposed to rhetoric about the ascendency of the german 'race' and its right to expand into and dominate other regions. It's usually neither possible nor necessary to convince a person to do something he/she would normally consider evil; all that's required is to convince him/her that someone more important and significant has made the decision for what must be valid reasons, and most people will comply, even if they have reservations. see Milgram experiment--Ludwigs2 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not like Jews "were in good standing" in Germany before that. They were there, and there were lots of them, but they were always different, never quite fully accepted. Hitler didn't suddenly start picking on Jews for no reason, and German citizens didn't suddenly decide that this was okay. That's how it was for the Jews in Europe for centuries before Hitler. Why the Jews? Well, from the perspective of a random German person in the 1930s...who else was there? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really accurate. The cliche is that the urban middle class German Jews in the 20s and early 30s were "more German than the Germans". A vast proportion were well integrated, or assimilated, in society - for example, witness the number of university professors dismissed after the Nazis came into power. --Dweller (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the title of this section, I thought it was referring to cultural relativism. In English class, we read an excerpt from something that referred to moral relativism as cultural relativism. Evidently, the author did not have a disclaimer like in the cultural relativism article saying the two should not be confused. =P Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cultural relativism is a type of moral relativism, so... --Ludwigs2 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Munich, there have been civilian casualties in Iraq, some instances of which have been more severe and, yes, criminal than others. But there was never any policy to specifically target Iraqi civilians in the way the Nazis specifically, and as a central aspect of policy, targeted Jews and other civilian groups. So, could you try to explain more clearly what comparison you would like to ask about between US military action in Iraq and the Holocaust? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read somewhere that Hitler read Schopenhauer in the trenches of WW1: presumably The World as Will and Representation (echoed by the title Triumph of the Will), although I'm not sure how true that is. Leaders being very willful or "strong" seems to be one of the core values of Nazi beliefs, so it was like institutionalised bullying. I've read that the Nazis would settle leadership disputes in Nazi party branches by just letting the two contenders metaphorically fight it out, like Social Darwinism, where "Might is Right", and the "strongest" would win. Bullies must have victims to demonstrate the bullies powerfullness to their audience. The audience is "us", the victims are "them". The audience feels gratitude and loyalty to the leader/bully for being in the prestigeous and protected "us" group. Jewish people, or their stereotype, fell into the despised "them" group. (Edit: the Survival of the fittest article mentions Herbert Spencer as saying that this social system occurs more in times of war - so a possible motive for Hitler and the Nazis to move in that direction). I wonder if the German culture of drinkiing lots of beer, such as their beer halls and beer gardens turned them into psychos. There must have been a lot of undiagnosed alchoholics around, even though Hitler did not drink. See also Hofbräuhaus#Nazi_history 92.24.191.208 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(rolls eyes) Really, you're blaming the beer gardens for Nazism? Are the economic, racist, social, and political explanations for the rise of Hitler so insufficient that we have to appeal to undiagnosed alcoholism? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Beer Hall Putsch. The Bürgerbräukeller article has an interesting photo showing the one litre beer steins; so they were all sloshed when listening to Hitler. The photo in the Nazi Party article has a one litre beer stein prominently in the foreground. 92.15.20.132 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting it could be a factor amony many others. An alcoholic I once knew did rant just like Hitler, and was a bully using the method described above. Most of my little essay does not mention booze. I'm trying to answer the OP's question, I'm not diagnosing the causes of Naziism as you wrongly suggest. 92.24.191.208 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in learning the moral theory that people like Hitler thought justified them, read Mein Kampf. It's propaganda, it's nuts, but if you think it is truth then all of the Holocaust seems like an unpleasant but necessary outcome to a big problem. If you want to find out what moral system motivates people, you have to read their own professions of why they do what they do. You don't have to agree with it, obviously.

Note that there is a big difference between the moral justifications used by people at the top (who don't have to do the dirty work) and those used at the bottom (the guys with the guns). Recommended reading on the latter point: Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (1992). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one way of describing it might be as the triumph of emotion over reason. Gut feeling. I heard a vicar on the radio this morning saying that people should not think that being in an emotional state entitles them to overrule reason, yet many people seem to think that even now. (Anyone who heard it got the exact quote?) 92.24.191.208 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics? 92.15.20.132 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was wondering if it is possible whether "Nazis" could have felt the same way about what they were doing as, say, US soldiers feel about what "the US" has done in Iraq. But it is not really a moral relativism at play here as the OP suggests, but rather a difference of purpose and method.

We may frown at what the US has done in Iraq, and question its purpose and methods, and hope a bad situation there can get "fixed" as best it can be, or at least made better for all involved;
~~Nazis we kill until they are dead.~~ Nazi Germany we killed until it was dead.

(Nazi Germany, for its part, clearly reciprocated that second feeling but tended to simply not experience the first, which is one way to understand why it can be considered "moral" to have ruthlessly killed it until it was dead the way we did. The relativism is, again, to do with purpose and requires (accurately) seeing a bigger picture.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"as an American when people talk about war crimes american troops commit against civilians in Iraq, I think they don't realize that there is a moral theory working, that it is good to spread American freedom to dictatorships" --I have a moral theory for you: morally, don't be an ignorant jingo who's content when complete strangers who aren't a threat are made to suffer unimaginably by your country while its propaganda machine convinces you that it's all good because of something sold as "spreading freedom" 63.17.71.134 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Will to power of Neitzsche is relevant. Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Nietzsche_and_fascism. Hopefully in Britain we had and have a Will To Fairness. 92.15.29.194 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Theatre gone Awry

Hello there:

I was talking with my friend about ideas for plays where the actors would interact with the crowd, and the crowd would be part of the story. He told me of a situation where there was a play with an all-black cast, seemingly in America, where the cast pretended to be white supremacists in the vein of the KKK, and abused the audience as though they were black victims back in the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. They would even physically attack plants, causing quite an uproar because much of the audience didn't distinguish it as being fictional. When I asked where he had heard of this story, he said that it was either chronicled in a book about/by Pacino or De Niro that he'd read, where either man was in the audience.

Has anyone out there heard of a play like the one described? I'd very much appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.19.66 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a play, but you may want to read up on the Stanford prison experiment. --Jayron32 01:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the Stanford prison experiment after being run through something like the Telephone game to me, too. If that experiment was adapted for the stage at some point, though, that would be interesting to find out! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused for a moment by the reference to "attacking plants" until I realised it was meaning 7 of wikt:plant). :: --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th quick definition of plant here was intended. No Welsh children were attacked. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Heheh, now attacking flowers something of that ilk would actually be quite amusing, and I do agree that a stage production of the Stanford Prison Experiment which involved the audience would be intriguing. Attacking plentyn not so much. I'm not sure how it derives from that though, surely SPE was trying to prove a socio-psychological point, whereas this play seemingly was more about race relations. If no one has heard of it though, I'll have to assume it was just a story. Shame really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.155.125 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it entirely believable that there should have been such a play (and nothing to do with Zimbardo's experiment). Just because nobody here has encountered it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's not clear how you would search for such a thing, though, and interactive theatre is no help. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading about a play called "Insulting the audience," in which the cast broke the "fourth wall" and interacted with the audience, challenging them or insulting them in some way I have forgotten. In one performance described in the article, audience members seized the stage and would not leave, despite appeals from the actors. Edison (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been Offending the Audience by Peter Handke. --Viennese Waltz 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A related topic is Chris Burden, a performance artist who had himself shot as the performance, among other things. I have no account on-hand of the audience reaction. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there was Rhythm 0 by Marina Abramović, in which she allowed audience members to hold a loaded gun to her head, resulting in a fight among the audience. --Viennese Waltz 15:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of communication and identity

Years ago I attended a seminar. The speaker said something about communication (between people) occurring at three levels, the third of which is at the level of one's identity (which I took to mean one's religious or cultural identity, or something like that.) The speaker said that when people perceive a message as an attack on something that defines their identities, they will be offended and become defensive.

I got the impression that there must be some theory of communication on which the speaker based his remark; If so, I want to learn more about it. I'd welcome a brief explanation of it or some reading suggestions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.79.13 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the speaker was inspired by the Organon model, a communication model in which there are three aspects to any message: the speaker, the addressee and whatever it is that is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might relate to Games People Play (book), a pop-psychology book which is based on three levels as described in the Transactional analysis article. Not experimentally verified as far as I am aware. 92.24.191.208 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

list of languages sorted by the number of people in the world currently studying them (not as a Native language)

If we make a list of every language,

 then for each language i:
   For each person in the world j:
      Add one point to that language (i.points) if j is currently studying i, but i is not j's Native language

Then we sort the languages by the number of points, what are the first 20 languages in the list? Approximately how many points does each one have?

Note: if an Italian person is studying Italian, English, French and Spanish, this person would account for one point for English, for French and for Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.239 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm betting English is at no. 1 Rojomoke (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, certainly it is #1, and obviously French, and Spanish are up there too. But that's far from 20. What is the top 20 worldwide (not just North America) and how many points would each language get? 84.153.205.126 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Linguaphone (company) has over 108 years of experince in selling self-study language courses. Their UK website lists their top 5 best sellers are Spanish, Italian, Greek, French and Arabic. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they are presumably targeted at English speakers, and thus onoly part of the picture.

Having said that, I think it would be hard to make the problem precise: what constitutes "studying a language"? --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I sometimes consult the headlines in the Spanish newspapers online. It helps to keep my Spanish up to date. Is that studying a language? If I had signed up to take exams to validate my level of Spanish I would probably log on to Spanish websites more often. Perhaps that might count as studying a language? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your algorithm is wrong, it only counts points for studying your native language.
Sleigh (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. DEFINITELY want to count a language you're "improving"!!! I would love to count 10 languages if an American has read this year a single newspaper each in Spanish, French, Italian, German, Russian, Japanase, Chinese, Hebrew, Polish, and Czech with the partial purpose of improving these languages, or seen a movie in any of these (I guess I'm assuming this American has a rudimentary understanding of all of these languages and can make an improvement by doing these things). I would not count as "studying" staring at a chinese newspaper without having taken a single minute of chinese instruction, though... As for my flawed algorithm, pardon? How is it flawed? You start with English and Mr Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamthefirst. If Mr Aaaa&c is learning English, you add one point to English, if he is not, you do not. Then you move on to the second person and repeat. It's not a particularly efficient algorithm (it goes through Mr. Aaaaa&c 6,700 times, for each of the world's 6,700 languages, but it gets the job done... 92.224.207.25 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See 10 Most Popular Foreign Languages in the U.S. for information about foreign language study, where "j is studying i, but i is not j's native language".—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Italian fluent in Italian studying Latin & Classical Greek counts 0 for Latin count and 0 for Classical Greek count as Latin is the Italian's foreign language so don't count it and same for Classical Greek. Italian which satifies being not the Italian's foreign language counts 0 as it is not being studied. Your algorithm is bugged.
Sleigh (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the case of speakers of any Chinese language. Many of them will be using/improving Mandarin Chinese, but speaking another dialect or language (the choice of term is contentious) that is mutually unintelligible with Mandarin. Some Mandarin native speakers will also be using/improving e.g. Cantonese. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the dialect/language problem is a tricky run. Someone was going to quite the language is a dialect with army I'm sure but the issue is relevant here. For example Malay and Indonesian are somewhat mutual intelligible but different languages. Yet some dialects of Malay are very difficult for someone not familiar with them to understand. As I've said before (hopefully this time I don't get someone asking me what seems to be the same question every month or so), you can't draw a clear line since it's a continuum. In addition, the concept of a native language can sometimes be fairly fussy too. For starters some people may grow to use another language more then the language they learnt at birth (and perhaps still use at home), and may even prefer it. Which one you count as their native language is not something people always agree on. In a similar vein some people know and use two or more languages well enough that they can be consider to have 2 native languages but even presuming your algorithm (which lacked a (s)) accepts that, precisely where to draw the line is obviously not going to be clear. At least you avoided the term 'mother tongue' which is even worse since for some people it means something similar to native language yet for others it usually means of your ethnic group even if you don't know the language at all. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saints excommunicated?

Are there more examples (other than Mary MacKillop) of people who had been excommunicated and later became saints? Staecker (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only person in Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church whose article's title includes "St." is St. George Jackson Mivart, but on closer inspection I discover he was not a saint. He was named "St. George" by his parents, in honour of St George, patron saint of England. I'd bet some of the others were actually saints, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you only count those who were excommunicated and canonized by one and the same church (?) Otherwise Carlos Duarte Costa might be a candidate (excommunicated by Pope Pius XII on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. Later canonized by the independent Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther is commemorated in the Lutheran Calendar of Saints. There might be some Anglican saints that fit the description too. I thought there might be some medieval saints that were excommunicated, like anyone involved in a mendicant order, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Remember also that excommunication was more often than not a political tool against secular people, and that it was usually only temporary. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arialdo, Firmilian, Lucian of Antioch and Engelbert II of Berg were all excommunicated, and are now all venerated by either the Catholic or Greek Orthodox church as saints, though not all have been officially canonized. Antiquary (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]