Humanities desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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.

April 13

John Galt=ubermensch?

Did Rand view John Galt as a nietschean Superman? How did she view nietsches philosophy?107.77.231.68 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis: is our resident Rand expert. I haven't heard much from her lately, but if anyone knows, she'd be the one to direct you to information. --Jayron 32 02:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Medeis last edited on March 4. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there had been a lack of petty drama and squabbles around here lately. Now I know why. --Viennese Waltz 06:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesn't directly answer your question, the Randian hero article might be of interest. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:3 (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about Paul Ryan? Would Rand consider him aRandian hero and/or would nietsche think of him as a Nietschean Superman? He did get to Congress at 28 and became speaker of House very young.107.77.231.68 (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do supermen resign? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One did. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Rand was once an admirer of Nietzsche, by the time she wrote Atlas Shrugged she claimed her only philosophical influence was Aristotle so she herself would not have considered him an Übermensch. While Rand would have rejected the characterization, John Galt does fit the broad outline of an Übermensch as someone who creates a new system of values out of the moral vacuum created by the death of God.

Paul Ryan, while naming Ayn Rand as an influence, is far from a doctrinaire Objectivist. For one thing, he's a practicing Catholic while she was an outspoken atheist. Rand's heroes are iconoclasts who defy popular opinion and conventional wisdom. They're opposed to compromise, bureaucrats, and politicians. Paul Ryan does not qualify. D Monack (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe throwing in classical antiquity

I've just checked and I'm glad that someone's added a little flesh to the list of shoe-throwing incidents page on WP. The list only goes back to 2008, and I'd like to add one from farther back. Refer to ammianus marcellinus' Roman History, XIX-X-10.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_History/Book_XIX

I'm working w/o a mouse right now, so it's hard to copy and paste the passage.

If anyone could help me, what year was this? The book doesn't place things easily within certain years. I'm real curious about if shoe throwing back then has anything in common with the practice in the current day. Thank you!

2601:1C1:8100:900:B962:F71D:5C87:E892 (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is curious, the passage reads:

But when they saw the emperor on his high mound preparing a mild harangue, and about to address them as men who would prove obedient in future, one of them, seized with a sudden fury, hurled his shoe at the tribune, and cried out, "Marha, Marha!" which in their language is a signal of war; and a disorderly mob following him, suddenly raised their barbaric standard, and with fierce howls rushed upon the emperor himself.

This is Book XIX section XI (not X) paragraph 10.

If you look back to the start of Book XIX, you see this summary of section XI:

The Limigantes of Sarmatia, under pretence of suing for peace, attack Constantius, who is deceived by their trick; but are driven back with heavy loss.

The Wikipedia article on the Limigantes has a section Conflict with Rome, which reads as follows (with footnotes referring to Ammianus):

In AD 357, the Roman emperor Constantius II (ruled 337-361) faced a large force of Limigantes, who had successfully rebelled against their Iazyges overlords and then launched a pacification of Roman occupied territory on the South bank of the Danube. The Sarmatians entered the empire near the confluence of the rivers Danube and Tisza, pacifying the province of Moesia Superior (roughly mod. Serbia). After this, the remaining Limigantes surrendered and were assigned lands to settle in beyond the imperial border, but which were apparently under Roman control (possibly seized from the "free Sarmatians" separately defeated earlier in the same year).

In 358, the Limigantes broke the terms of their treaty with Constantius and raided outside the territory assigned to them the previous year.

The Roman army adopted the Sarmatian Draco formation for their cohorts.

So presumably the Constantius in question is Constantius II and the year is either 357 or 358, whichever seems to make sense in view of the other events described by Ammianus. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The year was 359 according to The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History (p. 160) by Peter Heather. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is any use, but there's a shoe-throwing incident in ancient Greek legend related by Plutarch here. The list of shoe-throwing incidents already cites Psalm 108 ("over Edom will I cast out my shoe"), so perhaps this could be mentioned alongside it. --Antiquary (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a 6th-century instance of boot-throwing here. --Antiquary (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, Constantius was involved in another shoe-related incident. He had ordered that his cousin and co-regent, Constantius Gallus, should be executed but then rescinded the order in a fit of remorse. He only found out that the message had not got through in time when a retainer called Apodemius "threw [Gallus's] shoes down at Constantius' feet as if they were the spoils of a fallen Parthian king". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One hundred guineas for James Cook

The WP-article tells me that "For its part the Royal Society agreed that Cook would receive a one hundred guinea gratuity in addition to his Naval pay." This was in 1766, and if possible, I'd like some context. What could he buy with it? What was his regular pay? What would it be in todays money? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This website purports to convert any historical currency into modern buying power; there are formulas economists have worked out to do that and I'm sure this is what they do here. According to that program, 100 guineas in 1766 is equivalent to $26,680.41 in terms of buying power. This page lists pay grades for Royal Navy officers during the Napoleonic Wars; it's a bit late for Cook, but not outrageously so and would give you a ballpark figure. That page is numerated in pound sterling, though you can convert that pay into modern dollars using the same utility I put at the beginning to get some sort of comparable. --Jayron 32 12:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This thesis (p. 131) gives monthly naval pay in 1736: "Captain of a 1st rate £28.0.0; Captain of a 2nd rate £22.8.0; Captains of rates between 3rd and 6th rates, £18.12.5 - £8.8.0". There were allowances for servants, depending on the size of the ship. Assuming that Cook was on the top rate, 100 guineas (£105) would be a little over four months pay.

A History of the English Agricultural Labourer (p. 124) gives a table of prices for common commodities in about 1750; a pair of men's shoes, 5 shillings (25p in modern decimal notation) and butter, 6d per lb (2½p). Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currency, Coinage and the Cost of Living gives an easy overview of how British currency worked and the changing cost of living in the the 17th to 19th centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk at its finest, many thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP, Cook was "lieutenant" at the time, but of course he was also "Captain". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy pay grades would have been by rank and not job, I believe. He was accorded the honor of "Captain" by being the highest ranking officer on the ship, but if his nominal rank was "Lieutenant", then he would have been payed Lieutenant pay. --Jayron 32 12:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there were separate pay grades for captains according to the rate of a warship, then it wasn't entirely by rank. However, I see no reason to think that lieutenant's pay isn't the right answer for the Endeavour, which was not a warship. --69.159.62.113 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought. So, £7 per the thesis. If so, more than a years pay. Seems deserved, I hope he got it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fine

If a person is convicted and is fined X amount of money, but is immediately pardoned, then I'm assuming that the fine no longer has to be paid, since the pardon absolves the conviction altogether. (Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

But what if a person is convicted, fined, pays that fine, but is pardoned years later? Does the government pay back the fine?

I'm interested in both the general case for common law jurisdictions and the US federal courts in particular. Mũeller (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of law, you are entitled to the return of money paid due to overturned convictions, according to the Supreme Court. From Nelson v. Colorado (2016), "When a criminal conviction is invalidated by a reviewing court and no retrial will occur, is the State obliged to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant upon, and as a consequence of, the conviction? Our answer is yes." But that case was regarding convictions overturned by a court. In some states this was already specified by legislative action. This memo, which is interesting reading, notes that it has never been addressed by a court exactly what is supposed to happen to fines and other financial penalties after a presidential pardon, but concludes that precedent would allow the pardoned individual to recover any of his assets still held by the state. However, he may not be able to recover any of his assets that have already left the hands of the state, perhaps as restitution to victims. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]