Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 22

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.

September 22

Unknown Painting

What is the name of the painting on the cover of this book [1]?

Thanks in advance, 220.245.45.84 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is by Francisco de Goya, and is called "The Letter" or "The Young Women." It's at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Lille, France. --Cam (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 220.245.45.84 (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which philosopher has made the biggest personal difference to contemporary life?

a) For all time, b) active since 1800? For many philosophers, if they had not existed someone else would have come up with the same ideas, by analogy with the invention of the telephone or flying machine which had several people in various countries working on similar ideas. 78.144.255.50 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All philosophy is a confirmation of, rejection of, or some other kind of response to Aristotle! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha and others, far more than anyone else. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The philosopher who has made the most difference to people who don't ever read philosophy, such as myself or the questioner, is b) Karl Marx.--Wetman (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the definition of a philosopher? If you need post 1800, then perhaps Karl Marx since his ideas were the basis for the spread of communism throughout a good chunk of the world population during the 20th Century. Of course, it is not really feasible to quantify the impact a philosopher would have made, so take any answer with a few buckets of salt. Googlemeister (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions like this are ridiculous -- it's like asking which cranial bone is the most important. If any one was missing, terrible things would/could occur, most of them probably leading to eventual death. There can be no philosopher, nor US president, nor any one of anything, really, that is the most or best. There can be a group, and that group may be small, but any one without the others probably wouldn't have lead to anything worth speaking about. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think things would have been just fine if Karl Marx had ended up as a miscarriage. And although I mentioned Jesus and Muhammad, Moses and Abraham figure into it also. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please make note of the fact that this is a reference desk, and it is intended for asking questions which can be answered with a 'referral'. It is not intended as a place of discussion, and ideally all answers should be a bluelink with an explanation of why the link is relevant. It is certainly not intended for questions that are not only unanswerable by wikipedians, but that are completely unanswerable altogether. Following this I implore other wikipedians not to encourage misuse of the reference desk by responding to such non-questions with the discussion or debate that the OP seeks. But in keeping with my own advice to leave a bluelink, if you wish to pursue this question, you may find the company of this venue stimulating. Elocute (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yogi Berra? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Yogi learned at the feet of the master, Casey Stengel. Regardless, I doubt there's any more profound statement in all of philosophy than, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know -- I don't think questions like this are that bad. Problems occur when people ask questions that are likely to lead to arguments. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of wide-spread influence still evident today, here’s my list:

17th century: Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza

18th century: Adam Smith, Kant, Hume

19th century: Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche

20th century: Lenin, Mao, Keynes

And, any question that sparks thinking is, in my opinion, a good question. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well unfortunately for you and anyone whose opinions on the use of the ref desk differ from those laid out by the guidlines you will find that this is not the place for such discussion. There is a greater than plentiful supply of places on the internet where you are able to hold such discussions, but here is not meant to be one of them. Elocute (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well since the original question is essentially unanswerable, what's the solution? Delete an unanswerable question as soon as it's posted? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience more time is wasted and love is lost by debating whether questions are appropriate than just answering them. I think one can, in fact, give educated and helpful opinions to questions like this, even if there is no "right" answer. I think DOR (HK)'s list is pretty good, and would give someone interested in "relevant philosophers" a great place to start reading and thinking. It's of note that with the exception of Mao, we're talking only about the Western world here. That's not necessarily a problem—Western philosophy is pretty influential to our modern world—but it's worth just keeping an eye out for the systemic bias here (I am sure people in Africa, the Middle East, and in Asia would have a few other names to put on that list in regards to whose philosophy ends up governing their lives). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the unanswerability of this question has left an incredibly biased answer to be accepted. THis is why we should not respond to questions asking for opinion, as it leads to disagreement, and ultimately, the no-one any the wiser. The answers given (with exception to your brief mention that the rest of the world does exist) have all been very western-centric and have a disproportionate number of english speakers, and have all been oddly modern (I don't think many would exclude Socrates or Aristotle from such a list). However there is no need to respond to requests for opinion, and very little discussion is recquired to identify such questions. Elocute (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There may have been some book, academic paper, or intelligent webpage published which tries to identify or rank the greatest philosophers, in which case the answer could be to refer them to that. The OP is not to know if such a book etc does or does not exist. 92.24.119.215 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Budda is the greatest of all, since he introduced altruism. Culture could so easily have gone the other way, with unrestrained power and selfishness being seen as the best thing, like some of the nastier cultures depicted in Star Trek. Jesus learnt ideas from Buddism I once read. 89.242.104.32 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Buddha was known in the middle east in 30 A.D.??? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See Buddhism and Christianity. A Buddhist statue was found in Denmark dating from around 900AD also. 92.24.119.215 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of The Man from Earth? I'm fairly sure it's mostly fictional. TastyCakes (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 78.144.255.50 needs to look into two separate issues. First, read about how ideas originate, are transmitted, and are influential (see articles such as history of ideas, evolution of an idea, meme and conceptual history) to get an idea about how difficult or impossible it's going to be to trace the origin or influence of any single philosophical idea.

Second, read about the earliest philosophers you can (while understanding that philosophy certainly predated written records; our article on History of philosophy says All cultures — be they prehistoric, ancient, medieval, or modern; Eastern, Western, religious or secular — have had their own unique schools of philosophy). So far the earliest thinker mentioned here is Buddha; here is a list of philosophies that predate him (in roughly chronological order according to the dates given in those articles): pre-modern African philosophy, Ptahhotep, Hindu philosophy, Rishi, Iranian philosophy, Babylonian philosophy, Chinese philosophy, Hundred Schools of Thought.

I think you will find that many concepts that are widespread today are found in all the earliest philosophers and philosophies and undoubtably predated them. In addition, the earliest philosophers are not identified in the historical record as individuals. That's why I agree with Elocute that you've asked an unanswerable question, but hope these references will either help you understand why, or to find your own candidate. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have un-"archived" this. There's no reason to lock it up all special and say people can't add to it. Just treat it like a normal thread and it'll be archived automatically in a few days like everything else. I don't see any problems here or any arguments or any soap-boxing. So just let it be. The responses have all been perfectly civil and pretty well thought-out. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The names on Ted Honderich's list (Oxford Companion to Philosophy, OUP, 1995, p. vii) are Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant and Nietzsche. However, that's just in terms of their contribution to _philosophy_, not "contemporary life". The audience of In Our Time voted for Marx as the most important philosopher, and it's very arguable that he should be on the list as well. An addition I'd make personally is Al-Ghazali, as important a figure in Islamic philosophy as Aquinas is in Christian philosophy. Tevildo (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

JFK and the Légion d’honneur

Did JFK ever receive this award? He is not listed as having received it anywhere in Wikipedia, and Google brings nothing up. I'm working on a book that suggest he received the award and I'd like to be sure one way or the other. Ericoides (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, one Robert Foster Kennedy was awarded it. That's not the same RFK who was JFK's brother. Also, JFK's sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver got it, as did Jackie Kennedy's sister. But JFK himself? I see no evidence for it. There's no mention of it @ either his page or Légion d'honneur. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jack. I wonder if there are any extra-Wiki sources that might confirm his non-receipt... Ericoides (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking, then doubting the answer is querulous, and, you may imagine, tiresome for the volunteers here. If you are actually working on a book, you already know how to research recipients of the Legion d'Honneur. And no doubt the French Consul General will be glad to help you. --Wetman (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would let Jack speak for himself. I would doubt that he took offence. You will notice that I thanked him, and you will also notice that in my original post I stated that I had checked within Wikipedia. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take any offence. But trying to prove definitively that something didn't happen is usually difficult if not impossible. You'd have to find a complete, official and authoritative list of all recipients to prove that JFK wasn't listed; I can't imagine an author would go to the trouble of mentioning that he didn't get it, unless it were in the context of naming the U.S. presidents who did get it. Afaik, only Eisenhower got the L d'h, and that was before he became president, for his wartime efforts as a military commander. You could scan List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, but I could not guarantee it's complete. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...and you'll find the Consulat générale de France at www.consulfrance-newyork.org/.--Wetman (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the info. Ericoides (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

querelle de la rose

Does anyone know of any e-text version, translated into English, of Christine de Pisan's Querelle de la rose?64.179.37.3 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely...I don't think there is even a published translation. (I'm not even sure if there is a published French edition.) No one has paid much attention to that work, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I spent a few hours looking for one and found nothing. Which seems a shame - this is one of the seminal (so to speak) documents of feminism. Some of her other works are readily available. It appears there are some translations available in recent hardcopy anthologies. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The OP's wording seems to imply that Christine wrote a work titled Querelle de la rose, which is not the case. She did participate in an epistolary and literary debate that has come to be known as "the querelle de la rose", an English translation of which can be found in Baird, Joseph L., and John R. Kane, ed. and trans., The Querelle de la Rose: Letters and Documents, North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures 199 (Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Dept. of Romance Languages, 1978). A translation (I don't recall whether it's the same one or a new one) can also be found in this book, a limited preview—that is, one with great chunks missing—of which is available in Google Books; but I too am not seeing any full version of Christine's contributions to the debate online. Deor (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool, I didn't know if there was a translation in Baird and Kane (I was hoping someone would have "A Translation" in the title). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is very useful; thanks. The Baird and Kane version routinely appears in anthologies of literary criticism, but a text that challenged the most popular work of its day should at least be in Gutenberg or Bartleby, eh? Dukesnyder1027 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good project for Wikisource. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

possilbe to put back two-term limit rule

Is it possible for country like Uganda to bring the two term rule back. I'm confuse on which side decides a law, judicial, I thought it is up to voters to see like Yoweri Museveni should stay, and it is also up to incoming one, whom is next elect if qualify enough. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible. Articles 259 to 263 of the constitution set out the circumstances under which the constitution may be amended. Depending on which section of the constitution is being changed, the requirements are that it may be changed by parliament if:

• supported at the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all members of Parliament
• supported at the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all members of Parliament and it has been referred to a decision of the people and approved by them in a referendum.
• supported at the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all members of Parliament and it has been ratified by at least two-thirds of the members of the district council in each of at least two-thirds of all the districts of Uganda. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mamadou Tandja

Do Mamadou Tandja have any kids and child or no. Just him and his wife. They never mention about his family on the article. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC describes him as having "two wives and is the father of many children." --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)