Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 31

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 31

Both the president and vice president attending the White House Correspondents' Dinner

I was watching some old White House Correspondents' Dinner videos on youtube and noticed that the event is never attended by both the president and vice president in the same year. In some years it's president, and in others, the vice president. Is this actually the case? Has there been a recent case where both of them attended the dinner? Has there been a case where neither of them attended? WinterWall (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

They do try to limit the risk of both being killed together by reducing the number of public appearances featuring both at once. Of course, there are events where both are expected, such as the State of the Union address. In those cases, somebody else in the Presidential line of succession is kept safe, offsite, as the designated survivor. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Similar precautions are taken with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, never, for example travelling together.Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lady Windermere's Fan

So, there's this article about play and it's a good thing that it has recording of the play as well. I want to ask some questions related to it.

1. How can it be considered as comedy ? Yes, there are some lines spoken which I find it to be comedy. But, in which things a listener should know the play is comedy ?
2. What aspects should be in a play to consider it s play?
3. It would be great if there were recordings of the play like this . Are there any?

Learnerktm 07:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never read that play, but according to traditional definitions, a tragedy play generally has several deaths near the end, while most other plays are comedies... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In the theatre it is often the case that "comedy" has a slightly different meaning from other usages. Basically, you know you've seen a comedy if you leave the theatre in a light and happy mood. This doesn't mean that there won't be sad bits in the play, and in a good comedy there will be bits that make you think, but the resolution of the play should be that of a "happy ending", though perhaps not the one that you expect (see, for example, The Merry Wives of Windsor, where the happiness of the protagonist at the end is most decidedly bitter-sweet).

As for recordings of the play, I was able to find a production on YouTube. I was also able to find several other comedies, including several of Shakespeare's - Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Measure for Measure (audio only), and so on. RomanSpa (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

AnonMoos, AnonMoos RomanSpa

The play Lady Windermere's Fan has its recording within the article. If there were more like that, it would have been great.

) Thanks a lot for the info.

Learnerktm 12:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• it's a comedy because it has a happy ending: "Their marriage is restored, but both Lord and Lady Windermere keep their secrets." I'd strongly recommend reading the original and seeing the BBC TV adaptation over watching the tedious re-written Helen Hunt costume-drama adaptation, A Good Woman (film). μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Lady Windermere's fan" is hilarious, in my opinion, and to many of the audiences that saw it when it came out. This isn't some weird, not-that-funny stuff from an ancient age. It's social satire, scandalous pairings, witty banter, dry humour, mistaken identity, and lots of other aspects that are staples of modern comedies too. I guess it might be a little hard to see the humor if you're reading it and not watching it, or if you're rather unfamiliar with the culture of the time. But I find it much easier to laugh at Oscar Wilde than Shakespeare, Oscar's much closer to us (i.e. the present) in terms of shared language and experience.

An Ideal Husband and The Importance of Being Earnest, both by Oscar Wilde, have been released as movies relatively recently, and were similarly well-received as traditional, funny comedies [1] [2]. As for what makes a play a play, see Play_(theatre). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

But please consider tracking down the Michael Redgrave version of The Importance of Being Earnest. It's in brilliant color, directed by Anthony Asquith, and Margaret Rutherford as Miss Prism is peerless. As is Dame Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell. I'm sure it'd be on youtube. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I think you've mixed up Fan with Earnest because the cast you mention is from this film The Importance of Being Earnest (1952 film). Fan doesn't seem to have been adapted as often as OW's other plays see Lady Windermere's Fan#Adaptations. The 1985 BBC version is well done. The 1925 silent version is fascinating Lady Windermere's Fan (1925 film). You might think that "Wilde without words" would be a non-starter but the film does find a way to capture the spirit of the play. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

?? I never mentioned Lady Windermere's Fan, mate. Semantic Mantis mentioned The Importance of Being Earnest and An Ideal Husband, and I responded in relation to the first-mentioned play. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ack, D'oh and a trout slap. My apologies @JackofOz:. I read the header - skimmed the posts and missed who you were responding to. Sloppy error on my part. I am glad you mentioned that version though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I basically agree with SM above but he doesn't mention that An Ideal Husband (1999 film), with Julianne Moore, Minnie Driver, Jeremy Northam, Cate Blanchett and Rupert Everett vastly improves on the original. Again, see any version of Lady Windemere's Fan that is not the Helen Hunt version; it is terribly directed, poorly set, and amounts to a very bad Britploitation movie. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally a tragedy explores the tragic flaws in a character, it isn't necessarily 'bodies all over the floor at the end', but does tend to be. A comedy explores lighter subjects, or explores them in a lighter way, but again it isn't necessarily laugh-out-loud stuff. Lighter subjects include human love (what we would call Romantic comedy, which even today is often smiles, rather than laughs). There aren't that many laughs in Dante's Divine Comedy, The Tempest, does have humour, but that isn't why it is categorised as comedy. It is mainly that our expectation of what a comedy should be has changed, to us it is 'a laugh a minute'. I don't know LWF very well, but endorse much of what Medeis says, AIHusband, is again 'light-hearted', rather than obviously funny. Pincrete (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhist underworld

Special:Random led me to Sanzu River and Keneō. How do these concepts fit into the concept of reincarnation, which I thought was central to all of Buddhism? If you're crossing something like the Styx for the afterlife, it doesn't seem like you're going to be reincarnated. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Could look at Naraka (Buddhism)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Reincarnation and underworlds (or heavens or hells) aren't incompatible. Most forms of Buddhism usually teach that there are heavens and hells, they're just temporary -- at worst, there to zero out one's karma; at best, a safe spot for someone to achieve enlightenment (invariably a heaven, though heavens present the danger of being too enjoyable to accept that existence is ultimately discontentment). Some Greek mystery religions followed a similar train of thought: the river Lethe was what prevented us from remembering past lives.

Laurence Waddell's Buddhism of Tibet (a touch old but mostly good if one ignores about anything west of Pakistan) has a chapter on of Tibetan Buddhist underworlds, and (IIRC) discusses their relationship to earlier Indian Buddhism as well as East Asian Buddhism. Japanese Buddhism had influence from native Shinto, but was otherwise derived from Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian Buddhism. (As for Greek mystery religions, it's been years since I've read it, but I think Harold Willoughby's Pagan Regeneration covers that topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The real idea about reincarnation is that it happens every millisecond in your life, and even to inanimate objects like rocks. This is not the idea most people have - wishing they will be reborn as a happier person, which is the cause of suffering (or one of them). It's just common sense and common physics. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally, Buddhism States that your mind is a never-ending continuum, and it also says that what is born must die. This apparent paradox is understood to mean that your mind is reborn through an infinite number of lives, across many worlds. It is possible to be born in heaven or hell, or the underworld but, because what is born will die, these states are not permanent or eternal, and one will once again be reborn. It is understood that therefore the only way to 'get off the roundabout' of this eternal chain of lives is through liberation by developing an understanding of the way things really are. This is the enlightenment of Buddhists. (20040302 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Except that Gautama Shakyamuni did actually say that however hard he tries, he cannot find a soul or a spirit, or anything permanent in the bodies. The stories about past lives, etc., were added later for people who wanted to avoid reality and try to have something to hope for. In any case, even if you did have a rebirth, it wouldn't matter, because you would have no recollection whatsoever of any previous lives - can you remember what 'you' were doing 100 years ago, whatever that 'you' is, or was? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 07:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to be drawn into a WP:BATTLE here, but these opinions belong to a very small number of Buddhists. Firstly, following rational analysis, nothing can be found, even the keyboard that I'm using to type this. It doesn't mean that it's not really there, but that it's existence is ensconced within those narratives that recognise it. This is the same with the person; as you and I agree that the mind is subject to momentary change, following your own argument there is no reason to ever do anything for your own future - as it's not you, it's a different person.. Secondly, if you read the Pali Sutta canon - the scholar's accepted 'original sermons', you will discover that the majority of these works include mentions of karma, rebirth, past and future lives; were you to argue that this is a 'metaphor' for the momentary continuum of change, you would then have to demonstrate why Sakyamuni chose ONLY THIS ONE metaphor, when everywhere else he used the language of the people, and the simplest possible arguments for his case. Sakyamuni was keen on simile, but there isn't much metaphor. Regarding the argument for memory, the vast majority of the population cannot remember the dreams they had the night before, but there is no doubt that they had those dreams - MRI scans show that dreaming happens to all of us. Regardless, and finally (for I will not be drawn into an argument which, fundamentally, is based upon different convictions, and therefore can never be resolved), as found in statistical analysis, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - to disbelieve in the continuum of mind is to make an undemonstrable assumption; one is better off being open-minded. I will not respond further. (20040302 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

How are patron saints supposed to work in practice?

As far as I know, each town, village, city, and even a person may have or be named after a patron saint. In many Christian communities, these patron saints may be celebrated than an individual's own birthday. Yet, a patron saint may have a specific patronage. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, is the patron saint for academics, because he was primarily an academic. If a community somehow gets St. Thomas Aquinas as a patron saint, then does that mean that the other saints are treated less reverently? Do the other saints serve any purpose at all, even though every saint has its own patronage? If the Virgin Mary is a saint, and she is not the patron saint of a community, then does that mean she would actually receive less reverence than the patron saint? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If a member of your church replaced a busted door on your house while a deacon visited you in the hospital, would you treat one better than the other?

People who are likely to ask for a saint's intercession generally don't use a saint as a catch-all just because they're under a saint's patronage. For example, a teacher probably wouldn't ask Thomas Aquinas for help finding their car keys, but instead Anthony of Padua (patron saint of lost stuff, and so probably couch cushions and laundry drying machines by association). God tends to be the only catch-all for prayer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael is also very versatile, taking calls from warriors and the suffering. He'll raze your village, and then raise it. Maybe the first profiteer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The deacon is most likely going to receive the fancy title of address, while the member of the laity will probably be addressed less formally. The years of training at divinity school, as well as possible practice in the field, should have given the deacon more respect than the Average Guy on the street. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if a person can ask a saint to talk with the other saints in heaven about something. So, even when something falls out of the patronage of a particular saint, another saint - well versed in the subject - can adequately take over. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely, as both you and the saint would by definition be dead. Sorry to wake you up to reality, but that's it. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 05:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's to be hoped that the OP is talking "Catholic theology theory" here, hence the title how is it "supposed" to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That might be how we ended up with camels. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

For "how it's supposed to work", we have an article about the Intercession of saints. The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia has an article as well although it is, as you might expect, much more heavily biased :) There is one about patron saints too. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In what way is the Catholic Encyclopedia biased? It doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, unlike Wikipedia which routinely has articles like IPCC where political bodies are called non-scientific scientific bodies. Such articles are patrolled by partisan firewalls. The Catholic Encyclopedia purports to be and is an accurate reflection of Catholic views at the time of printing. It's neither written by Anglicans nor claims to define Islam. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's true enough. It does what it says on the box, certainly. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Videos of ISIS hostage beheadings

Perhaps someone can shed light on this for me. This question is regarding videos of ISIS hostage beheadings that have become so commonplace recently. How/why is it that these hostages seem so calm and non-combative, I am wondering? I have heard some theories, but I'd like to know if others can shed some light on this "phenomenon". These are some theories that I have heard. (1) The hostage is resigned and knows the situation to be hopeless. Therefore, what can he really do? (2) The hostages have been through many "mock" executions. So, they never really know that this is the "real" execution versus the many other "fake" ones that they had endured. (3) If the hostage is uncooperative, the captors will increase their brutality towards him during the execution. Those are some theories that I have heard. It always seems to "surprise" me that these hostages seem so "calm", almost oblivious. (Are they perhaps drugged/sedated by the captors?) So, I would think (but I am not sure) that one's instinct of survival kicks in, and they would be kicking and screaming. So, does anyone know anything about all this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When they were captured, they probably kicked and screamed in alarm. For a while longer, they resisted. After a bit, they're exhausted. It's called the General Adaptation Syndrome. Fits pretty much any high-stress situation normal people face.

King Goujian of Yue used to convince his prisoners to line up in the front of battle formations and slit their own throats, mainly to freak out the other side long enough to sneak around back. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting read. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're down for something longer, Psychological Operations in Guerrila Warfare is still generally relevant. Much of what guerrilas do overlaps with how they're trained. That's not to say the CIA trained ISIS, just that the concepts still work. Section 3's the most relevant to getting people to accept and repeat your message. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Very often they are already dead, after escape attempts. They are shot, then propped up to look like they are still alive, with obviously fake screaming while they are beheaded, because these people who do this think we are stupid. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen these videos, is there an article about this (I'm agnostic but feel it's disrespectful to view such videos)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, here is the article: ISIL beheading incidents. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Merci. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

When we start seeing videos of ISIS hostage-takers getting beheaded, then we'll be making progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think even Jesus would approve. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Which Jesus would that be? Apparently not the "turn the other cheek" one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course the Jesus that wrote a letter to another Jesus about a third man named Jesus. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean these three?

Don't know about Jesus... but his brother Bob would approve Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing we can do is convince these people to not travel to a very dangerous warzone, for whatever 'humanitarian' reasons they may think they have, and leave the locals to kill each other, as they are already doing. There is plenty of humanitarian work to be done here in God's Own Islands. They may say "But, it's an experience..." Yes, it may be, but not one that you will live to remember. I hope this epidemic of 'making me feel good in the guise of humanitarianism' will end soon, as we are paying taxes just to bring the bodies back, if we can find them. These peoople don't want our help - they want publicity and our money. Why no just shower them with fake dollars, and destroy their economy with hyperinflation - that would work. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 06:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It might have been interesting if Japan had gone again and paid the ransom, only to find that their two citizens had already been killed by their hostage takers - as with the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point. But, here is something that I don't understand. If the ISIS people really wanted the ransom money, why would they kill the hostages beforehand? Do they not realize that the Japan government will give them the ransom money only on the condition that they receive the hostages back alive? What's their thinking on this? Or is the whole "We want ransom money" just some ploy, trick, or theatrics with which they had no intention of complying? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think their real goal is to be seen as a legitimate government that other governments need to negotiate with, eventually leading to a peace agreement which leaves them holding territory. The actual ransom is just an excuse. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Very likely, you are right. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Remember, Bugs just said it "might have been interesting". As far as I've read (I don't read Infowars or The Daily Mail), the Japanese were killed after the deadline passed. At that point, it was about looking tough, but there's no reason to think they didn't want $200 million. Everyone wants $200 million, even if they're not trying to take over the world. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Bugs said that such a situation "might have been interesting". And I was pursuing his line of thought. As interesting as it is, why would ISIS think that such shenanigans would ever fly? That is, expecting the Japanese government to simply fork over $200 million and, at the same time, not expect/demand the hostages being returned alive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What's to say they wouldn't have been returned? That's generally how hostages work. Japan didn't pay. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not following the conversation. I asked why would ISIS expect that Japan would uphold their end of the bargain (i.e., pay ISIS $200 million) if, in fact, ISIS would not return the hostages alive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The line between hypothetical and not got a bit hazy. Sorry. In theory, I can't think of any reason they'd expect that. Or how one person could reasonably be expected to sell for $100 million. But even though the rational part of the mainstream world audience understands that, Japan and Jordan still look weak, dishonest and/or greedy by being forced to say they'll do everything they can.

A less grandiose demand might have netted ISIS thousands of dollars instead of zero, but the sort of media exposure they received through these "Jihadi John" videos alone would cost a "normal" brand at least hundreds of millions of dollars. So it more than pays for the expenses of holding seemingly worthless hostages. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good points. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I was pretty convinced that they do mock executions, and if need be repurpose them as beheading video, based on the case of James Foley. He didn't make any specific statements about the date, and the disconnect between the part where he reads a bland statement and the display of his body allowed for chicanery. I had the feeling that they had him read a dozen different generic explanations for why he was about to be killed in advance, and when someone got trigger happy, thought a rescue mission was on the way, almost let him escape whatever, they decapitated his dead body (which I suspected had been bandaged) and put the two together to make it look like a planned act rather than a loss of control. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If they staged a dozen different videos for a dozen future scenarios, wouldn't that be planning? And wouldn't this plan afford them more control, by letting them retroactively adapt their message? In any case, they overlooked the seemingly longshot scenario where the enemy threatens to prosecute the hostage's family for raising ransom money, and everyone lost. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Today's report is that the Jordanian pilot was probably killed a month ago, and that the ISIS guys never had any intention of freeing him - it was all a ruse. That's what you're dealing with here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Something of a ruse, but also a purely personal "fuck you" to a guy who tried to bomb them. And a scary (compared to beheading) public message to would-be bombers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The point being that they weren't negotiating in good faith. So why should anyone believe any future deals they might talk up? If their goal is to raise money, this approach ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

All sides have proven untrustworthy, so I assume ISIS isn't counting on this as their cash cow. But they don't have much oil to sell anymore (according to the other side, at least), and there aren't a lot of career options for designated terrorists. If they have hostages anyway, may as well see if a government (or family, where legal) wants to roll the dice. The worst that can happen is everyone dies in a rescue attempt that embarasses the rescuers. Best case, someone goes home, and at least some of the ransom money goes toward feeding hungry captives and select innocent citizens. Not enough hoping for the best lately, too much expecting the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)