Humanities desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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.

October 25

Hop on - Hop off cruising

This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

IMHO, one of the strange things about cruising is that the ships sail around the world and the options to sail with them are limited to predetermined voyages. Apparently, you're supposed to pick a voyage ("A two week amazing adventure in the Mediterranean", "87 days around Africa") and fly to first port, and fly back from the last one. I can imagine that it would make things a lot harder for cruiselines, yet again there must be a lot of people like me, just wanting to get the most relaxed way possible to get from A to B. After much googling, I can't even find a site that shows all itineraries of all cruiseships (while there are not that many), let alone allowing me to book a trip that would just get me from A to B. I would have gone to a conference in Malaga if I could just book a trip like "normal" people would book a flight. There must be millions of grandparents who want to see their grandchildren but simply won't fly. Even if just 1% hates flying but wouldn't mind sailing, and just half of them would be willing to spend quite a lot of money, there is such a huge demand that really needs attention. Joepnl (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caliphate after Ottomans

With recent events bombarding headlines, I got to thinking: after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Caliphate, why did no other Muslim nation step in to replace the Caliphate? Why did it take 60 years for a new group to claim one? 74.15.21.220 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the Ottomans conquered Egypt and overthrew the Mamluks in 1517, they disposed of the last lingering ceremonial remnants of the Abbasid caliphate, but the Ottoman rulers did not seriously claim to be caliphs themselves until much later. According to mainstream traditional Sunni legal interpretations, a claim to be caliph is not too credible unless that person rules over most Muslims, or has the allegiance (Bay'ah) of those who rule over most Muslims. AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did it? Are you sure? Did no one during that time proclaim themselves caliph? How do you know? A guy can proclaim himself caliph to ten followers. The hard thing is not to proclaim yourself Caliph but to be accepted as one. Take a look at Caliphate and you'll notice that even while there was a more or less accepted Caliph for Sunni Islam (the Ottoman ruler) there were here and there parallel caliphs. Now if you're asking why there hasn't been in (more like) 90 years a Caliph recognized by a majority of Sunni the answer is "There still isn't one" because the ISIS so called caliphate for all the noise it is making is far from being recognized by a majority of Sunni. Bear in mind that the issue of the caliphate has always been the number one divisive issue in the history of Islam. After Ali's death the issue of who will be Caliph revolved around one test: force. The legitimacy was acquired through force, force was not acquired through legitimacy. The Ummayi became the recognized caliphate because they beat Ali, they did not beat Ali because they had somehow a better claim of legitimacy. The Abbasi became caliphs because they managed to massacre the Ummayi and again the world of Sunni Islam accepted them because they had prevailed on the battlefield. Even the passage of the caliphate from the Abbasi to the Ottoman ruler was a joke from the strict point of view of legitimacy. But the Ottoman ruler was accepted as Caliph because they were the strongest power in Sunni Islam, and had conquered Egypt after beating the Mamluk, who were the protectors of the Abbasi of Cairo who continued the Abbasi line and the caliphate after the Abbasi Caliph of Baghdad was executed by Hulagu. ISIS is putting the cart before the horse. By so doing they're only doing what tens of would be caliphs have done in the history of Islam. ISIS does not constitute a real change from the situation as it has existed since 1924. Contact Basemetal here 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First European to set foot on modern-day USA

Dear Reference Desk-ers,

I have long been bemused at the fame of Christopher Columbus, given (amongst other things) he never set foot on mainland America - instead making 4 trips to the Caribbean. I recently discovered, however, that the Viking landings on America were actually on Greenland. According to our articles, they made some trips further west to either Canada of north-east USA - but we can't say for sure they ever touched USA soil. My question is, do we know when the first European definitely set foot on ground we now call the USA? Or has that been lost to history? 109.147.76.151 (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article European colonization of the Americas suggests that it may have been John Cabot. Columbus, however, did land in Puerto Rico, which is technically US soil. So it depends how technical you want to get.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Cabot's exact landing location is unknown. If he landed further north (in present-day Canada) instead of in Maine, then it possibly was anonymous Portuguese explorers during missions to map the coast.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then again if you believe in the Solutrean hypothesis, the first European to set foot on what is now the USA did so 22,000 years ago.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 12:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, but by no means proven, that the Norse settlement at Vinland may have been further south than Newfoundland, or that traders from Vinland may have sailed and traded further south. See, for example, Maine penny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned only with the contiguous United States (i.e., if you don't count Puerto Rico), probably the earliest known and confirmed modern European explorer was Juan Ponce de León; see Exploration of North America. As Spanish Florida mentions, there may have been earlier Portuguese and Spaniards to set foot on the mainland, and of course it's possible that the Norse sailed as far south as New England. John M Baker (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks all, there is loads of interesting stuff there - and a variety of answers depending on what I count (incidentally, you are right that I don't count Puerto Rico, but I hadn't thought about that before). So the first definite is Juan Leon, but there were almost certainly earlier ones we just can't quite confirm. Will do more reading. 109.147.76.151 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decades ago there was a book called They All Discovered America, which discussed a number of possible voyages from Europe to the new world. Brendan the Bold, for example. I don't recall the specifics, and some of it may have been debunked since then. But it was an interesting read. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some stuff to peruse at pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. It's all unsubstantiated though. Matt Deres (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the Vikings did make it to North American proper, and not just to Greenland. But their only known settlement was on Newfoundland, and while it's very likely they landed on Labrador, and possible they visited Nova Scotia, we have no reliable way of knowing if they got further south than that. My reading of the relevant sagas is that they might have sailed as far as the Lower New York Bay before turning back, but I don't have a clue if that's right, and certainly not whether they made landfall. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw a documentary saying that Europeans sailed to North America during the last Ice Age. There is considerable evidence that the arrow heads and flint tools were of European origin, as they are very similar to ones used in Europe, and very different from the local arrow heads and flint tools brought from Siberia. I don't have the link, but I'm sure it's possible to find it on YouTube. Also, mitochondrial DNA evidence also suggests that Europeans interbred with native Americans thousands of years ago. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "Solutrean hypothesis", linked above. Like most fringe hypotheses about early contacts, it has a few tantalizing pieces to it, but is largely unsupported and unaccepted. Unfortunately, the mere fact that there's a video "documentary" on it almost certainly means it's bunk. We live in weird times - all the best fiction writers label their stuff "the truth" while the facts sit on a dusty bookshelf. Matt Deres (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much formal logic and mathematics would you have to study if you focused on continental philosophy?

Based on what I’ve read, and I hope I got it right, continental philosophy is a loose term for the different schools of thought that resist the influence of the analytic tradition. Critical theory, for example, which is also known as anti-positivism in the social sciences, argues for a more qualitative and pragmatic research methodology.

I wonder if I would have a better chance of avoiding mathematics if I would concentrate on a less mainstream school of thought.Casio nuts (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you study the philosophy of Jorge Borges, not only can you avoid mathematics, but mathematics will cease to exist as reality succombs to the hronar encroachment.

In actuality, if you stick to classical, continental European "rational" philosophy, you'll be stuck with a very benign form of mathematics. If you study great philosophers of the 20th century, you'll find that many of them are very mathematical: Bertrand Russell is widely acknowledged as a philosopher, even though he was a mathematician.

Don't avoid mathematics: mathematics is, at its core, structured thought-process. The only alternative is unstructured thought, which can only lead you into the really esoteric, dada-esque philosophies of the 20th century. Ex falso, quod giblets, and all that.

Nimur (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a question from a student about to attend university. You'd do well to contact, or, better speak with the undergraduate advisor or department head and ask what math and logic courses are required at that school. For example, my undergrad university only required Logic 201 (with no prerequisite) for majors and there was no specific requirement of any math in the philosophy major itself, although all undergraduate students of any major were required to take at least a certain level of algebra to graduate. In my case, since I intended to double major in biology, I took AP calculus in high school, and tested out of all math requirements except calculus 202. So I had to take only one math and one logic class to graduate with the double major. It's unlikely that will apply to you if you are only pursuing a philosophy major. But there's no general rule, and no way we can predict your intentions. Bottom line? Inquire at the school you are considering attending. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven and Hell: Judaism

Hello peeps,

I typed in 'Hell in Judaism' it provides 'She'ol' and 'Gehenna'. Is Gehenna Hell? - I'm confused. I read articles a long time ago what stated [guessing] Judaism and Christanity Hell/Hell names are similar or so?

I typed 'Heaven in Judaism', the article does not satisfy my needs. It differs from the kabbalistic Jewish tradition.

I need all in on (kind of) 'Heaven and Hell in Judaism' articles. If there is nothing available such as mentioned, can anybody provide me the links please so that I can study.

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sheol is for good souls and bad. They don't quite "live" there as people, the way they do in Christian Heaven and Hell. I can't quite tell what Gehenna is, but seems to be a place on Earth (for what that's worth). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A name, came from a place where they burnt trash, including corpse InedibleHulk. Apparently Christians adopted the name or something, well, a lot from Jewish religion... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict)Sheol is the abode of all the dead, including the righteous as well as the unrighteous. It's parallel to the Greek Hades (which is how it was usually translated). Gehenna is where the unrighteous are punished or destroyed at some point (either the day of judgement or upon death). It's more in line with most western conceptions of hell, and was sometimes translated using the Greek Tartarus.

This really only covers up til the second temple period. The medieval period brought a fair amount of diversity, including precarnation and reincarnation, though those views are not necessarily

What I understand of modern views, the typical view is that "heaven" is closeness to God and "hell" distance from God. Non-Jews who don't screw up with the Seven Laws of Noah (especially righteous gentiles) generally don't have too much to worry about. I couldn't begin to speak about standards for Jews, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I have not yet got to Tartarus and Hades yet, I’ll get to the ‘greeky’ part soon, good to know that they exist; thanks for mentioning them. Accomplished the ‘reincarnation’ article Ian.thomson, ‘preincarnation’ is not done yet. Regarding reincarnation, does it occur before judgement day or after? Logic stating, can occur in both times. Judgement day doesn’t mean the end of the Earth’s/Yellow Sun’s time, it also means what is stated in eschatology, i.e., when world gets corrupted, new messenger/prophet arrive, re-establish rules and regulations and so on. -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The lover of life's not a sinner, the ending is just a beginner. The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreaming. And on and on and on. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

What, so irrelevant! You do come up with some funny stuff sometimes. Thank you and Ian for keeping Wikipedia interesting! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, but it wasn't totally irrelevant. That song's lyrics are rather poignant, at least compared to Belinda Carlisle's. AZLyrics.com is apparently blacklisted, so I just linked the Wiki page. Check them out if you haven't, or listen to the song (one can't transcribe how great the riffs are.) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discourage Russell: the latter half (especially the last third) is great; the "beginner" feels too much like Ronnie James Dio. Contact Basemetal here 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean because it's strange English, think of it like beginner course, not the beginning of another life. Remember, Dio's primarily a teacher, and has the Disciples to prove it. If you're talking about the song, yeah, it builds nicely. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell.mo -- The text of the Hebrew Bible does not clearly state any doctrine of afterlife punishments or rewards, and some scholars have claimed that the appearance of such doctrines in Judaism of the Hellenistic and Roman periods is ultimately due to Persian influence. The Sadducees, who controlled the Jerusalem temple until the first Jewish revolt, opposed such ideas... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gehenna is the closest to the concept of Christian "Hell" but has many differences. Sheol is closer to Greek "Hades" and is a much older concept in Judaism. Keep in mind that the concept of "Hell" differs within Judaism according to the period of Judaism and the kind of Judaism (Rabbinical or Karaite). Here are some WP links to get you started:

As to "Heaven" there isn't really such a thing in Judaism that I've ever heard of. In colloquial modern Hebrew "Heaven" or "Paradise" is called "Gan Eden" (when referring to the Christian concept), that is simply the Garden of Eden from where Adam and Eve were thrown out because they disobeyed God (you can watch a reenactment of the original sin here). Other than that I don't know of a place especially designed for the righteous to dwell in until the advent of the world to come. The righteous have a share in the world to come and that's their reward.

Maybe we can consider that in Judaism "Heaven" is simply what the earth will be after the coming of the Messiah. A "Garden of Eden" but on the scale of the whole earth. The earth and all of its ecology will also look very different: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:6-9)

One important difference with the Christian afterlife is that "the righteous of the nations [i.e. righteous non-Jews] have a share in the world to come" as the saying goes, that is will also be brought back to life when the Messiah comes. I don't know precisely what happens with the righteous non-Christians in Christianity but I believe their fate is more problematic but maybe not hopeless if God so decides. I was also told by a Muslim fellow that Islam was more like Judaism than Christianity in that respect but I couldn't find any confirmation of that anywhere in WP.

The links above should be a start. Obviously the subject is complex. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this topic but not completely ignorant either. I just thought I'd look around WP a bit and see if I could find some links. I do hope they help.

Contact Basemetal here 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Good points Basemetal,

Firstly, I'm on 'pay bite as you go' price plan, I can't really watch videos and so on.

Secondly, in Abrahamic religions, they talk about two types of heavens, one after arrival of the 'messiah/judgement day' and one after the 'end of the world/judgement day'. View above what I mentioned to Ian regarding ‘reincarnation’. What you mentioned after the list of articles, sounds to me like the 'messiah/judgement day' concept.

Thirdly, the similarities between Islam and Judaism, the only think I can guess is the number of Gates/place of heavens (7). The concept/feature of each is different... View/click section 5.2 from the contents of Heaven article. Section 3 and 5 from the contents of Jannah article. Hope you get the idea.

Note that what mentioned in Kabbalah Jewish mysticism is similar to ‘Shamayim’.

(Russell.mo (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Russell.mo, some information about death is in Genesis 2:17; 3:4; 42:38; Job 14:13; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Ezekiel 18:4, 20. Hebrew text is at the top of the the center column. You can click on the word "Lexicon" above, in order to see the Hebrew words explained.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC) and 15:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC) and 16:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wave length

-- (Russell.mo (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 October 25

Contents