Humanities desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

French Revolutionaries

Similar to the American Revolutionary terms "Patriot, Whig, etc., what were the French Revolutionaries called (perhaps naming themselves or being named by the Monarchists)? Thanks! 174.93.61.139 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sans-culottes, Jacobins, Montagnards, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the amusement of generations of schoolboys Sans-culottes literally translates as "without underpants" (it really means "without fine breeches"). See also our articles Jacobin and Montagnard. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern translation could be "lacking capri pants". What I found most amusing is that the extra and most solemn days in the French Revolutionary calendar were named the "Sansculottides" (or "Pantsless days" to semi-mistranslate

)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...taking "Casual Friday" to a whole new — though not necessarily higher — level. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more complete list can be found in Category:Groups of the French Revolution. The Girondins would be enragéd to be omitted. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do Encyclopædia Britannica verify their contents?

Do they have a system similar to that of Wikipedia?--Inspector (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their first line of defense is that they hire knowledgeable people to write the articles. I'm sure that they have guidelines and residual safeguards, but the elaborate Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms etc. would be needless... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they also need to have people who know what are the "knowledgeable people" in all kinds of sbujects from dung beetle to skyscrapers?--Inspector (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have some of their own problems, but they do not have most of Wikipedia's particular problems which arise from the "anyone-can-edit" nature of this site. Is that so hard to understand? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Encyclopedia Britannica#Personnel and management. Come back if you have any questions regarding what is written there. Please carefully note the specific date of the criticism noted in that section, and the specific names of some of the contributors of Britannica articles in the most recent print edition. --Jayron32 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as an editor for Britannica, I would add that editors are chosen in part for their academic background and are assigned to cover subject areas related to that background. Furthermore, any writing by editors is subject to review by senior editors, who may ask editors to list sources. Nothing gets into Britannica without fairly thorough review, though of course errors still find their way in. Marco polo (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Hungary, I saw something odd. 'Encyclopedia Britannica' means 'British Encyclopedia', but the Hungarian version was called 'Britannica Hungarica' which just means 'British Hungarian'. I assume they take 'Britannica' as the brand name, as it is very often referred to as that in English. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drat those Hungarian Phrase Books. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean some specific subjects (such as dung beetle) would be written less specifically?--Inspector (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Britannica probably also has a much narrower scope. I doubt very much that they have articles about every episode of Star Trek or lengthy discussions of porn stars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, back in 2001 when she was just making her debut in the entertainment world, I recall Britannica's editor-in-chief citing Britney Spears as an example of the sort of person who was not worthy of a Britannica article. In other words, they set the bar for notability much higher. I notice that they now do have an article on her. I'm not sure when she crossed the threshold. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or when they lowered the bar. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Honey Boo-Boo shows up, you can figure they've rubbishized the proverbial bar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Humanism and Communism

What is the difference between secular humanism and communism? Republicanism (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our articles on the subjects? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is not a political philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...nor is it necessarily an economic philosophy. --99.227.0.168 (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communism and Socialism

What is the difference between communism and socialism?

Republicanism (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our articles on the subjects? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While both are '-isms', one is based on the community, and the other on society. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the speaker. In formal discourse, communism often is an economical system where (all) property is held "in common", while socialism is an economic system where the means of production are owned by society (usually represented by the state). In US political parlance, both essentially mean "anything I dont like to the left of me". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Frank Zappa once said, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communism refers to classless and stateless social order. Socialism is not necessarily stateless.
In a communist society, the medium of exchange called money is abolished. In socialism, money may not be abolished. --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism does not necessarily mean an economic system where all the means of production are owned by society, or even a large fraction. See the Socialist International for a list of parties that consider themselves socialist. As far as I know (and I only know about a small minority of the parties on that list), they are social democratic parties that advocate for what's more commonly known as the welfare state. Ideally, the economic system should be predominantly capitalist, but have high tax rates, lots of regulations, high welfare payments, good workers' rights, and good public service. --99.227.0.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there are no absolute definitions of any of these terms. Both 'socialism' and 'communism' can refer to political ideologies as well as a certain type of society. The definitions of the term changes over time and place. Generally speaking, communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. The modern communist movement emerged out of a split in the socialist movement at the time of World War I, when those who accepted far-reaching compromises with the capitalist order would retain the identity of Social Democrats (reformist socialism) and those who opted for reaffirming their internationalist commitment (Lenin and others) would chose to identify themselves as communists. --Soman (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God and the Devil

Are God and the Devil opposites?

Republicanism (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on your religion. In some, yes, while in others they are two manifestations of the same god. StuRat (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are at odds, but not opposite. For one, their ability is not equal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Republicanism -- Positing good and evil divinities as equal and opposite is what is known as "dualism" or "Manicheanism". It has been followed in certain variants or offshoots of Zoroastrianism, but has been rejected in the accepted mainstream interpretations of the "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good, clear, answer. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within the realm of the Abrahamic religions, God is all-powerful and cannot be defeated by anything, least of all his own creations - which include Satan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this leaves the problem of evil. That is, if God is all-powerful, then he could defeat the Devil. Thus, if he let's the Devil continue to exist, then God is himself partially evil for permitting this. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And He will, eventually, if you buy in to the book of Revelation. As to whether God is evil or not, I'll defer to Woody Allen in Love and Death: "I don't think God is evil. I think the worst you can say about Him is that He's an underachiever." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree with the quote, but yes He will eventually destroy Satan. He delays because He requires the world to know both sin and the Love of God, for the world to know that sin is destructive, and that the Love of God is desireble. How do you know that you want light, when you've never been in darkness. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do hard core Christians use such weird language? HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason doctors say "acute in age" instead of "sharp and early". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible uses a lot of metaphores and parables. It is an effective style, conveying an accurate understanding. Why reinvent the wheel? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it's effective? And it's quite the opposite of accurate. By talking about anything but the precise topic at hand, it allows for multiple and extremely diverse interpretations, one of Christianity's biggest problems because it allows every bigot out there to say it endorses his position. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is by no means limited to Christians. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So very true. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only interpretations that are internally in harmony everywhere within Scripture are correct. If a snowflake represents 'cold' in one place, it cannot represent 'heat' in another, unless it is specifically stated to represent heat in the other place. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again. We're not talking about snowflakes. You've gone right off-topic now. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Plasmic Physics has yet again confused trying to help people with trying to proselytise them, and is essentially lying and misleading them as a result. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not you who posted "Why do hard core Christians use such weird language?" That is what I answered. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer was in the form of unclear language, which is useless. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can indicate which part was unclear? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God is a creator and Devil is God's creation. But it's not science it's a belief. roscoe_x (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to make the distinction: God created Lucifer, Lucifer chose to become Satan/Devil. He was not always asociated with evil. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read up on predestination and determinism. There's conflicting doctrine as to whether Satan had a choice in the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't subscribe to the theories of predestination and determinism. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same social class or different?

If a lower middle-class family lives in an upper middle-class suburban neighborhood based on land and assets inheritance from the former generation, would this lower middle-class family count as "lower middle-class" or "upper middle-class"? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "count"? People don't get membership cards. Or if they do, mine must have gotten lost in the mail. --Trovatore (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is circular. Class is an arbitrary distinction at best, subject to whatever definition you happen to be using. You submit the presupposition that the family is "lower middle-class" by the definition you are using so they would be considered "lower middle-class"... 72.128.82.131 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me make this clearer. If a family makes money that would be typical of a lower middle-class family but lives in a neighborhood with members who earn money that is significantly higher and have higher education, then would this family be considered a part of the upper class simply by living in an upper middle class neighborhood? Another scenario would a group of teens who earn a part-time salary that would be comparable to someone working full-time burger-flipping; however, this group of teens are still dependent on their affluent parents' income and may use their own income as spending money. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This rather depends on where you live. In the US, social class is almost exclusively determined by your wealth/income, while in Europe, there are other factors that go into class, like family name, titles, relationship to royalty, etc. StuRat (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true. In America, we like to pretend that a) social class is purely a function of cash-on-hand and income and b) that anyone could enter any class with enough hard work and gumption. Neither is particularly true. The U.S. regularly ranks well below many other western democracies in terms of socio-economic mobility (i.e. in other countries it is easier to move up in social and economic class than the U.S.) and the U.S. has class distinctions that aren't necessarily economic. Concepts like the Nouveau riche and Old money make it clear that you don't get on the Social Register just because you hit the lottery. Social class in the United States is a pretty good read. --Jayron32 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nobody would ever mistake Donald Trump for somebody with class. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I suspect the "class" you're talking about is more a marketing concept than a political one. No doubt one more versed in dialectical materialism will be along to clear it up, but if you have to work for a living you're working class: if you employ people to work for you you're middle class (but only if you don't work yourself): if you have a title you inherited you're upper class. They're basic distinctions, but work quite well. Or, if you're not a member of the 1%, you're a member of the 99%. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any country or society in the world which uses your definitions, Tammy? Because I can't think of one. It sounds like a handy system for some society that I've never met, but it doesn't describe how any class system I've met actually works. 86.129.14.69 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy has described the traditional conception of class in England. I don't know whether that conception still holds true in England; I had thought that, for example, bankers who work in the City of London for their £2 million annual salary would be considered middle class even though they work for a living. In fact, I thought that a wide range of highly educated and/or compensated professionals and managers were considered middle class in England despite working for a living, but I am not English and could be wrong. Tammy's description would never have been accurate for the United States, where the archetype of a member of the middle class was the small family farmer who owned his own farm and therefore operated a small business. In the United States, skilled manual workers with incomes sufficient to afford home ownership are also typically considered middle class (though usually lower middle class). What is described in England as middle class roughly equates to "upper middle class" in the United States.

But to answer the original question, I don't think place of residence is usually a decisive factor in assigning a person to a class. So if a household's level of education and income put them in the lower middle class, it doesn't matter that their neighbors are upper middle class. Marco polo (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an erstwhile "professional" myself, it seems to me that we like to consider ourselves as belonging to a higher class than we actually are. Many accountants, stockbrokers, doctors and teachers like to consider themselves as being "middle class" but, if you have to work for a living, you are a wage slave and therefore working class. Only if you don't have to work for a living are you of any class except working class. (I'm taking the viewpoint there of, for example, CPGB amongst others.) --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accountants, doctors, and teachers all can have assistants working for them. Their assistants, I think, would be working class, but the white-collar grad-school graduates themselves would be middle class. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned Paul Fussel's wonderful Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations from Britain:

Having your own employees is certainly not an essential factor of being middle-class.
Having your own staff, that you manage but do not employ yourself, is much commoner among the middle classes, but not universal or definitive.
Being middle class is not defined by any one thing, but rather by a number of factors. I don't want to assign points or rankings to each of the following, but to be middle class, you'd generally need more than one of them: a grammar-school or private-school education; a member of your household who is in, or who reasonably expects to be promoted into, a managerial position in a white-collar job; the freehold or long lease of a property with at least three bedrooms, with or without mortgage; a motor-car or an annual railway season ticket; a degree from a university founded before 1980; a single-honours degree; a large enough disposable income that you could, if you wished, spend a week or more each year at a hotel in a country other than your own.
Being upper class precludes being middle-class, so if any of the following apply to you, you may not be middle-class any more: a public school (eg top fee-paying school) education; not needing a good degree because your career comes from family connections; owning a business employing more than 20 people; owning a house of five or more bedrooms, or three or more reception rooms, outright; having an hereditary title or life peerage; being the head of, or on the board of, a central government body; being able to take a month's foreign holiday, or more than two weeks' active holiday (skiing, diving, etc); owning more cars than there are people in your household who can drive; not using a railway season ticket because you can always afford to pay on the day.
The American definition of 'middle class' seems to be broader on both sides than the British: people who run small businesses would not necessarily be middle-class in the UK, because they could be working-class. Conversely, people who make the equivalent of a quarter of a million dollars a year (which President Obama seems to think are well within the middle class) would probably be upper class here. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow Brit, I'm very surprised at your criteria for being upper class. To me, 'upper class' means that you (or a close relative) have a title, or are in line to inherit one. Having a lot of money or a big house only gets you as far as upper middle class. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't meet all your criteria for middle class but hooray, I meet criteria for upper class! It's complicated. I like Tammy's criteria, with the stipulation that if you earn a salary but your income from stock options, investments and other non-earned sources is greater than your salary or could be, then you are out of the broadly defined proletariat. But let's not focus on these divisions. The 1% know who they are. The rest of us whether we are middle class, working class or the non-class of non-workers (Andre Gorz, q.v., have nothing to lose but our chains, and a world to win. A world to save, too. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there are different methods for determining class. Taking myself as an example, from a Marxian perspective I am clearly working class because I depend almost entirely on my own labor for my livelihood and do not own my means of production. In conventional American terms, which define class by income and social status, however, based on my income and education, I am upper middle class (though maybe just barely in terms of income). Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more observation: In the United States, at least, I think that the line between middle and upper class varies regionally somewhat, and this has a lot to do with the wide variations in property values. In parts of California and the Northeast, you really need a household income of $80,000 or more a year to afford a house with three bedrooms. In these areas, that kind of household income is unremarkable and modestly middle class. (Three bedrooms are not very many from an American perspective.) In these areas, I think a household with an income of $250,000 would, as Obama suggests, be considered upper middle class. Doctors or lawyers have that kind of income in these areas, where average salaries are considerably higher than some other parts of the United States. However, in other parts of the United States, such as parts of the South and the Midwest, a household income of $250,000 would put you in the top 1% of households in your region, and you would probably be perceived as upper class. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the Heinrichs in the Reuss family

Did the male members of the House of Reuss refer to their father, brothers, uncles, male cousins, children and etc by Heinrich follow by their numerals or were pet names used like in the Russian Imperial family? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House of Schwarzburg

Beside the House of Schwarzburg, what other German noble family praticed the same system of ordinal as the House of Reuss in which all males are numbered by order of birth? Also what is the reason for this system of numbering? The House of Reuss call all their sons Heinrich to commerate Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor but why does the House of Schwarzburg number their Heinrich and Gunther regardless of who reign or not.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name for that effect: personality test alredy biased by the person's self-assessment?

Is there a name for the effect that a person taking a personality test is already biased by her own self-assessment, and thus chooses her answers by thinking which one might best fit her self-assessed personality? So a completely "impartial" test would need to have only "inconspicuous" questions that give not hint about to which "solution" they would be added? (like "What's your favorite colour?")
I was wondering about this while looking at this test about narcissism, whose answers already clearly indicate to which personality type they belong... -- megA (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only has one question: "Are you a narcissist ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

...repeated over and over again, yes. This is something like a psychological Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the test changes the test subject... -- megA (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I took a test to see which Star Trek character I am ... I only had to take the test 4 times to get Kirk." - The Big Bang Theory - StuRat (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know the name for it, but it's the same as some "researchers" on the payroll of one side or another on some issue, who then manipulate the data to reach whichever conclusion they have been paid to reach. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the spoiler warning

Since this is a question about spoiler warnings, I could ask this at the Entertainment reference desk, but I would want to have more relevant answers. Basically, I'm surprised how the origins of the spoiler warning, one of the most ubiquitous contributions of the Internet, are rather obscure. From my readings on the topic, as well as my previous questions here on spoiler warnings, I know that the term "spoiler" in its current sense was more or less coined by the National Lampoon magazine, but it appears that the exact origins of the spoiler warning (in its modern/internet sense) are a mystery. It is known that it was popularized by Usenet, but it appears that the exact time period it was popularized, as well as the first use of the concept, are unknown. But why? With a concept that is practically a major part of internet etiquette, I'm surprised that there are relatively few articles online about the spoiler warning itself rather than articles using it. I know that the concept of not spoiling plots is as old as media itself, but the spoiler warning itself is a modern invention; in fact, according to my question last month, spoiler warnings appear to be uncommon outside of English media. So my question is: why are its origins obscure? Many memes have traceable origins, as well as other internet quirks, so why not the spoiler warning, knowing how extremely common it is? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting google books to work, National Lampoon may claim an early usage in 1971, but here's a clear use of the exact phrase with the current meaning apparently 11 years earlier: Chemistry & Atomic Structure (1960).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to submit that to the OED - they've currently got nothing earlier than the National Lampoon usage, and they always welcome antedatings. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that. Searching for a different phrase from that same snippet suggests the 1960 date is likely wrong (I wondered what it had to do with Chemistry and Atomic Structure!) and it's actually from 1985. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that National Lampoon article really did coin that term. Ironically, the Lampoon article in question did not have a spoiler warning. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like they came up with a word to cover a long-standing practice - namely, that discussions of plotlines seldom gave away the endings, except for long-established literature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People are always coming up with new words to cover long-standing practices. "Spoiler warning" has earned its place, but verbs like "to transition" and "to workshop" are still worthless rubbish. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reject or discard something could be to "rubbishize" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack should read the article Productivity (linguistics) and come back with any questions he has. --Jayron32 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have no questions. We just like making pontifical statements and issuing ex cathedra diktats. You may kiss our ring before you leave us to our further meditations. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Conversion (linguistics) is also worthwhile, as it includes the practice of 'verbing': the conversion of a noun (or adjective) into a verb. In the immortal worlds of Calvin and Hobbes, "Verbing weirds language." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Nietzsche quote

Nietzsche said, "The earth has a skin, and this skin has diseases. One of those diseases is called “man." What did he mean by this statement? Is it from antihumanist and nihilist point of view? --PlanetEditor (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of James Lovelock's Gaia theory. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or V'ger talking about "carbon-based organisms infesting Enterprise". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.S. Lewis discusses it in The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength... AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the views of Nietzsche on nihilism was more complicated (some would say muddled) than what can be surmised from just one of his sayings. According to Nihilism#Nietzsche, his nihilism seems to have had various meanings, perhaps according to how the mood struck him? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Saddhiyama notes, Nietzsche might mean different things depending on the point he is trying to make in context. This quote comes from the chapter of Also Sprach Zarathustra entitled "Great Events." ("'Freedom' you all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in 'great events,' when there is much roaring and smoke about them. And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events- are not our noisiest, but our still hours. Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, does the world revolve; inaudibly it revolves.") This particular text is the one that is most intensely Nietzsche being Nietzsche - the work is written and structured the way a scripture or religious text would be, full of metaphor and shaded meanings that require a ludicrous amount of time and effort to fully unpack. So, to the quote in question: despite the immediate face value of the words, I doubt whether Nietzsche is writing this from a similar attitude to Agent Smith ("Human beings are a disease, and we are the cure," cf. V'ger quote given by Bugs above). Rather, this is most likely a hyperbolic way of saying that contrary to almost all human mythology, the world was not created on our behalf, for our benefit, for us to live in and exploit as the darlings of creation. In this context it is one of several statements pointing to Zarathustra's (and Nietzsche's) central thesis that, in a badly oversimplified nutshell, all values must be torn down and replaced with new ones if people are to evolve/grow/realize their potential/become more & better than human. Compare some lines later: "Church?" answered I, "that is a kind of state, and indeed the most mendacious. ...For it seeks by all means to be the most important creature on earth, the state; and people think it so." ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fire-dog said it, according to Nietzsche's Nachlass (see here). Karl Jaspers explains it here. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. was an inveterate punster - everything he said shouldn't be taken literally. From Duncan Large's introduction to the Oxford edition of Twilight of the Idols (ISBN 0192831380): "the exuberance and inventiveness of Nietzsche's philosophical mind are matched by a penchant for puns, parodies, neologisms, and other linguistic play." That can cause problems for a reader forced to rely on a translation. Read the translator's notes. Zoonoses (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]