Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 17

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.

June 17

Greece or Rome

Which civilization contribute more stuff to the modern world? Was it Greece or Rome? I know that Pythagorean Theorem was contributed by Pythagoras, a Greek mathematician. Is there more from Greece or Rome? Please answer this question. Does the Wikipedia have a article about contributions? And this is not homework.

How do you guage contributions? Would things like the Parthenon count since it is still (mostly) standing? Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As asked this is basically unanswerable. What does "stuff" mean? The Roman Empire contributed greatly to pre-modern Europe, but the rediscovery of ancient Greek writings (mainly thanks to Islamic and Jewish copies) goes hand-in-hand with the origin of the modern era. It's a toss up. Pfly 05:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(from a regular at the maths desk) The Pythagorean theorem was known (and well understood) to the babylonians, at least a thousand years before Pythagoras lived. Or didn't live, since his non-existence is (I'm told) a perfectly reasonable scholarly position. Greece did give us science at and maths, though. Algebraist 10:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-existence is a bit strong, but you're right that little can reliably be ascribed to Pythagoras himself. In any case, if we're going to recognize the Greeks in this domain, it should be for the introduction of rigorous standards of proof. Anyone who has read Euclid will know that there was nothing remotely of the kind in Mesopotamia or Egypt. Wareh 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Very roughly speaking, the Greeks were better at science and the Romans better at technology (especially when it was war-related). But the Romans also borrowed a lot from the Greeks (and improved on it), but not vice versa (afaik). Especially in terms of adding new knowledge, my bet is on the Greeks. DirkvdM 11:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 13#Civilizations, question 9.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My bet is on the Romans, as the spectrum of Greek civilization, and the Hellenistic era was so HUGE, that most historians and academics fixate only on the [Age of Pericles] (the "Golden Age of Athens) which only lasted 100 years. The Glory of Greece is ONLY Athens? Sparta is used for contrast, but few historians claim it to be the apex of Greece. What about the dozens of other city-states? The truth of the matter is, when Ancient Greece is mentioned in any context, nine times o ut of ten the author is mentioned Age of Pericles, and let us not forget how it died: plague, war and execution of Socrates.

Roman accomplishments include their great longevity from Republic to Empire to Breaking, roughly 12 centuries. Archictecture, modern government, war, multicultural influence, agriculture, roads, water transport, influence and effectiveness of law and common rights, etc. etc. It is my belief that most modern governments are not Greek in basis or influence, but rather most like Rome. Zidel333 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of asking in terms of Greece or Rome, it would be better (though still unanswerable!) to compare Hellenistic civilization with Ancient Rome, with Greco-Roman lost in the middle. After all, Rome is just a city, and Greece a small peninsula. I don't think those are what is meant by "which civilization". While we're at it, does the Hellenistic "Greek" eastern half of the Roman Empire count for the Greek or the Roman civilization? Pfly 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What is the Roman civilisation? Of course there is a pure Roman background to it, but it assembled other cultures (including gods, with christianity possibly the most influential adoption). Romans were a bit like the Borg - "resistance is futile and you will be assimilated". Except that the assimilation worked the other way around as well. Same with the EU. The EU10 may have had the idea that they 'assimilated' the eastern European countries, but of course that worked the other way around as well, which is causing some unrest ("The Polish are coming!"). DirkvdM 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health ... what have the Romans ever done for us?" [1] Gandalf61 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Romans didn't invent all that (or any of that). But given their '1000 year rule', it would have been surprising if they didn't have some impact on them. Like I said, they borrowed and improved on things, but they didn't invent all that much (maybe I'm overstating this). DirkvdM 07:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

In Thackery's novel Vanity Fair there is a reference to Sir Pitt Crawley's 'blood-red hand.' I can't make any sense of this. Does anyone know what it means? Gordon Nash 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

see: Red Hand of Ulster.—eric 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Sir Pitt is a Baronet of the order created by James I in May 1611, to help finance the raising of fresh troops for the army in Ulster. All such baronets were allowed to display the Red Hand of Ulster on their coat of arms, either on a canton or an escutcheon. Clio the Muse 22:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Red Hand of Ulster, as used in the flag of the province of Ulster, is a right hand, while the red hand that baronets are allowed to display is a left hand.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the difference between "king" and "not-king?" Heraldry might document it, but left and right mean a lot in it. Utgard Loki 13:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Baronet article claims it was somehow a mistake, but it is unclear as to whether that claim is supported by references or not, there are many problems with the citations in that article.—eric 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Identification of photography on wall in Israel

Dear Sir/Madam,

I found this while browsing the pictures of the official Orphaned Land myspace. Can anyone identify the individual pictured on the left, who seems like someone notorious in Israel ? Matt714

Thanks in advance.

It looks like Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the late Rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch. I wouldn't say he's "notorious" unless you're an opponent of that group. -- Mwalcoff 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The doctrine of Mishichism, teaching that Menachem Mendel Schneerson will be the Messiah who will lead the Jewish people to redemption, is quite controversial among Hasidic Jews, and Orthodox Jews in general.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer Mwalcoff, and Lambiam as well for the additional information. Sorry for the use of the word "notorious", I erroneously thought it was a positive word. Famous would of been a better suited word. Matt714

It can be used neutrally, but rarely is. Still, I'd rather be called notorious than infamous, which is definitely negative. —Tamfang 09:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Joke: Chabad-Lubavitch: The modern religion most similar to Judaism. Gzuckier 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

William James

Hello, this is the first time I have visited the reference desk. My question: are there any articles on WP specifically titled or about any of James's writings themselves, such as for instance the lecture series from 1906-1907, published under the title, I seem to remember, Pragmatism? Thanks for any assistance, I have tried search in Wp and Google, so I will keep on looking anyway in the mean-time. —Newbyguesses - Talk 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the pages on William James himself and the more general page on Pragmatism, there are pages on some of James' published work, including Principles of Psychology, Will to Believe Doctrine, The Varieties of Religious Experience and Essays in Radical Empiricism. None of these, I have to say, are of a very high order. Clio the Muse 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that valuable list of articles. This reading will be useful to me. I have to hand a 2000 edition which includes the full text of James' eight lectures (Pragmatism and Other Writings, Penguin Classic) and access to further Library material on James. I will be looking through bibliographies and such, maybe that is a way for me to go about adding worthwhile material, to improve any article that shows signs of distress. Though I am not contemplating major work, nor initiating new articles at the present time, that would be a future project needing more preparation. Thanks again – Newbyguesses - Talk 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am always pleased to help. You may like to note, on the assumption that you do not already know this, that The Varieties of Religious Experience is also available in Penguin Classics. Some of the other James' texts are published in Dover and Bison editions. However, the one that may be of most interest to you is A Pluralistic Universe, based on his Oxford University lectures of 1908 and 1909. It was in these he developed his arguments against absolute idealism and intellectualism in philosophy: the world is not a 'uni-verse' but a 'multi-verse'. Marvellous stuff! Clio the Muse 05:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, if all you want are the words of James, Varieties has been published in thrift editions. I'm not sure, but I think there is a Dover Thrift (least expensive quality book you can get). I know that Barnes & Noble (ugh) has an inexpensive edition. The problem with any of these, and particularly the last, is that the apparatus varies from weak to useless. Dover is commendable precisely because they have good editors. B&N is catch as catch can and varies from moderately good to not good at all (their Histories of Herodotus is weak, and their Metamorphoses is actually wretched, as they appeared to take a school boy translation with some of the least helpful emendations ever). Utgard Loki 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)