Humanities desk
< October 19	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 21 >

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 20

history of the lily as a symbol

I am wondering if the lily was present at all in Islamic history as a symbol and if so, how was it used?Nbpm (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this google search: lily silent "ten tongues".—eric 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in fleur-de-lis or trefoil. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chosen quotation

In the novel The Chosen by Chaim Potok, at the end of book 3 chapter 14, the last paragraph says "That evening after my last class, I went to the school library and looked fo Rav Gershenson's mane in the Hebrew and English catalogues. His name wasn't listed anywhere. It was then that I understood why my father was not teaching in this school." This line come after Reuven told Gershenson how he explained a difficult Talmud passage using literary reconstruction. I never understood what this paragraph meant, could someone please explain it to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuven's father is unconventional, a scholar applying modern techniques such as literary criticism to the Talmud. The novel contrasts the conventional father with a modern-minded son, and a modern father with an orthodox son, so I take it Gershonen is in the same category as Reuven's father, a radical thinker. Don't have it handy and read too long ago, but from the article The Chosen (Chaim Potok) this: "David Malter, Reuven's father. Talmudic scholar, teacher, Zionist. Considered a heretic by fundamentalist Hasidim." Julia Rossi (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure George Orwell question

Hi - does anyone know if Eric Blair/George Orwell had pet dogs or cats as a boy?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At google books[1] on page 46 of Coming Up for Air, "For instance, it was only when I was nearly four that I suddenly realized that we owned a dog. Nailer, his name was, an old white English terrier..." but no cats. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, JR, but of course Coming Up for Air is a novel, not a work of autobiography. Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I just realised that. Oops. Any chance it was based on personal experience? Somewhere he says he had a typical childhood, whatever that is. The novel has a bullfinch, cats, mice and more. Yours vaguely, JR 09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there were a family dog and guinea pig during his time at St. Cyprians. Agathocleous, T. (2000). George Orwell: Battling Big Brother. p. 11. OCLC 43434842.—eric 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are some personal experiences in Coming Up for Air, but the lives of George Bowling and Eric Blair could hardly be more different! Strawless (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are great. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of a girl

I have a question that I don't really expect to be answered, because I don't have many details, but...

I remember seeing a painting once and I'm trying to figure out what it was/who it was by. It was a painting of a girl (perhaps even just titled "Girl" or something like that, but I'm not sure), fairly close-up, and her head was turned away from the viewer, so that all you could see of her, essentially, was her hair -- no facial features. In addition, the painting was extremely photo-realistic, to the extent of maybe even trying to fool you into thinking it was a photograph at first glance. The one other thing I am (almost entirely) sure of is that the painter was German.

Unfortunately, searching google images for "girl," "painting," and anything to do with "photo" seems to turn up two things: The Girl with a Pearl Earring, and soft-core porn. Any ideas would be appreciated. :) zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the painting of which you speak, but you might want to have a look at the works of Gerhard Richter to see if it's one of those. He is German and often paints in a photo-realistic style. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's probably Richter's Betty. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you. zafiroblue05 | Talk 13:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VAT

I am a trying to find out a few things about VAT to help me in my business

If i send a VAT invoice to a customer, do I need to include my VAT number? Also should my customers have to ask expressely for a copy, or so I have to provide them with it automatically?

thank you

ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.142.166 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean Value added tax in this context, Wikipedia volunteers cannot offer legal advice of this sort. If you want to know more about the VAT in general, click the blue article link. Otherwise, it would probably be best if you contacted someone in the revenue department of the city/state/county/nation where you live. Those people will be more likely able to answer your questions or to direct you to someone who can. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in the UK, you need to know that VAT is collected and administered by HM Revenue and Customs. They have lots of helpful information on their web site, including a page on How to issue a valid VAT sales invoice, which says:

"If you are a seller registered for VAT you must give a buyer who is registered for VAT a VAT invoice for any standard-rated or reduced-rated items sold. If you are a retailer, you do not need to issue a VAT invoice or receipt unless asked to do so by the buyer. A VAT registered supplier may be fined if they do not issue a VAT invoice when asked to do so by a VAT registered buyer."

But if you are unsure about anything to do with VAT, you really need to contact HMRC or your accountant as soon as possible. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grounding/justification for human rights

What are some of the arguments that have been advanced to support a system of universal inalienable rights? Kant used our shared rationality but a few "heated debates" about human rights have made me realise I don't know much about other thinkers' grounding for believing in universal human rights. A few pointers in the right directions would be very much appreciated. Thanks. 86.146.97.112 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kant is probably the one of best known philosopher to deal with this topic, but certainly not the only one. There's the judeo-christian belief that since every person is made in the image of God, we share a common set of rights that includes basic respect for other people. The golden rule appears many places in the bible, and is as basic a premise for universal human rights as I can find. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argeued for the existance of an implicit social contract, that is since people have voluntarily formed a society, there's an implied agreement therein to respect as universal certain conditions that make said society function. One could argue that as a basis for universal human rights. If you need more information on this topic, you could see our articles on Human rights, on History of human rights, and on Natural law and Natural rights. Hope that helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many religious Americans believe inalienable rights come from God. The Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed by their Creator" with inalienable rights. People with this view get upset when they run across arguments which seem to argue that the government, and not God, gives rights. They say, "if government can give rights, it can take them away as well." They see it as almost the same as not having them, as, if it can be taken away, it is not inalienable. Wrad (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and its not just the religious. The idea of a "right" is that it is different from a "privilege". A privilege is conditional; it can be taken away or removed if conditions are not met. By its very nature, a "right" exists outside of such confines; thus while a Government may "recognize" rights, it may not "give" them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This creates a dynamic in which a person has a right to rebel against a government which does not recognize human rights, since those rights are given by a higher power. It was an important part of the US Declaration of Independence's argument. Wrad (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it isn't that rights are "given" which assumes a causal arguements. Many arguements exist which do not resort to any such deductions. A case can be made that natural rights exist because humans exist; they aren't given by anything or anybody. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but the specific argument used by Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed" with rights by their "creator", clearly indicating that its writers considered human rights as something given by God. I'm not saying it's the only way to look at things. I am saying that it is the way the DoI communicates it. (Very American-centric of me, I know). Wrad (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read metaphorically, that's equivalent to "by their nature have". —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Inalienability" does not mean that a right cannot be denied; it means that it cannot be transferred to another (Latin aliēnum 'of another'). If I sell you this chair, I alienate to you my property rights in it, which you can then enjoy exactly as I have up to now. But I cannot sell you my life or my liberties; I can lose either, but no one thereby has twice as much life or freedom than before. The historic significance of this concept has to do with the functioning of the State. It may be argued that by transferring some of your alienable rights to itself, e.g. by taxation or eminent domain, the State makes better use of them than you could; but such an argument cannot apply to what is inalienable. —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that rights are a solution to the problem How do we organize relations among individuals with differing goals, to maximize their overall wellbeing?. Seeking their source is like seeking the source of the numbers. —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What numbers? Wrad (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of number. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a similar problem. Some would say they came from necessity, others from God, others from aliens... Wrad (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) One advantage of the Declaration's phrasing and logic is that rights specifically do not come from governments. In fact, men establish governments to secure their rights; the governments derive their power from the consent of the governed; if the government fails to do its job, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it." Many in our time aren't too concerned with divine origin of these rights; the same outcome obtains if human rights arise from the state of being human. Many of the American founders were believers of a sort, though. (And there's an echo of the declaration of Arbroath (1323) in which Scottish lords explain to the Pope that they made Robert the Bruce king specifically to guarantee their liberties, and that he he didn't do that, they'd get rid of him and find someone who would (Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King). --- OtherDave (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary peers

How many hereditary peers sit in the House of Commons? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Sir Robert Smith, 3rd Baronet. A baronetcy is a hereditary title, although technically not a peerage (and I don't think it entitled one to sit in the House of Lords prior to the reforms). Having gone through MPs elected in the UK general election, 2005, no-one else is listed with a hereditary title and I would expect them to be if they had one (Dr., Sir, the Rev, etc. are all included). None of the people listed at the bottom as having won by-elections are listed with a title, either. So, I think the answer to your question is "none". (But, since the reform of the House of Lords, I don't think there is anything stopping them from standing.) --Tango (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, baronets did not sit in the Lords. There have been peers in the Commons before; those of the peerage of Ireland were never excluded. I have the hazy impression that at least one hereditary peer (not of Ireland) was elected in the last Parliament. —Tamfang (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Peerage Act 1963: "In 2001, John Sinclair, 3rd Viscount Thurso, became the first British hereditary peer to be elected to the Commons and take his seat. Later that year, Douglas Hogg inherited the peerage his father, Quintin Hogg, had disclaimed but did not have to disclaim it himself to continue sitting in the House of Commons. In 2004, Michael Ancram became Marquess of Lothian on the death of his father and was also able to continue sitting as MP." It appears that all three of these still sit. I don't know if the article is complete. Loren Rosen (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of "Rt Hon"s listed at http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm. Does that mean they're from titled families? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can (barons, viscounts and earls get it; marquesses and dukes get a different honorific), but it more likely means they're members of the Privy Council. An individual can of course be in both categories. See The Right Honourable. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenbound?

Is there a common opinion or official fiat it Christianity (or Islam, Judaism or any other religion with a concept of heaven or hell) on what happens to the believers of rival faiths after they die? Would they go ti in heaven or hell or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Buddhism, every religion I've studied (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism...) believes that all others will go to hell. Even in religions, different sects believe all other sects will go to hell. Further, many religions believe that faithful for other religions are enemies that must be stopped by any means possible, hence the endless religious based wars ever since someone came up with the concept of God. -- kainaw ™ 22:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's always the case. For example, in Catholicism, I'm pretty sure that if one never heard "the good news" - if one never had the opportunity to be saved by Christ because, say, they lived in the New World before 1492, they'd still go to heaven. But someone more knowledgeable than me should answer this. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a catch that I didn't mention. Most religious sects believe that those who had no chance to be part of the religion, due to not being told about it or being a child, will go to heaven. Some have different parts of "heaven" just for this case. That brings up the discussion of "what is Heaven"? Different religions have different precise definitions of it. So, again, I was being overly general in my previous answer. -- kainaw ™ 23:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you still are, Kainaw. There's also the concept of the age of reason; a person from the undiscovered island of Mungabunga who'd reached that age and spent their life killing and raping, but knowing in their own hearts it was in some way "wrong", would have as little chance of getting to heaven as anyone else. But his brother who spent his life doing good works and spreading love and peace would have a very good chance. At least, that's what I was taught. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See anonymous Christian. Wikiant (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Righteous among the Nations and Virtuous pagan. --Dr Dima (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about Hinduism. It doesn't say that those of other faiths will go to hell, in fact most Hindus don't believe in the concept of a permanent hell in the Christian/Islamic sense, though people may be reincarnated in hellish places or circumstances. I think you are also wrong about Judaism. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Hell in Christian beliefs. Kainaw presents an extreme view. Some of the mainstream Christian denominations are very cautious not to claim that persons who are not members will go to hell. Few are like Rev. Fred Phelps. Edison (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The human race has been around for rougly 100,000 years. What about all the people who died before these religions were invented? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's explicitly stated in the Christian Bible that those who have not heard about Jesus will be judged by a different standard - i.e. they won't be condemned just because they never found out about him. A letter of Paul - sorry I can't remember the reference offhand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder what was meant by 'studied' when you said "every religion I've studied (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism...)", Kainaw. Or had you just been having a bad day? 79.66.33.140 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholics believe in Purgatory. Mormons baptise dead folks into their church to give them a chance of joining their heaven. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Calvinism is concerned, God has already decided who will go to Heaven. You are saved by His grace, and not by just hearing about God. In other words, if he has decided you are saved, he will send you this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.5.221 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]