Humanities desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31

Saying grace (for Mormons)

Once upon a time, I attended a Mormon student party. Before the meal, they said grace. I just forgot what they said exactly. And no, it's not the ones on Wikipedia either. Wikipedia apparently skipped Mormons. At least I know they did not make the sign of the cross. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking us what form of grace the Mormons say? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sign of the cross would be more of a Catholic thing. But are you sure there's any specific or set mealtime prayer? "For what we are about to receive, we are truly thankful, Lord," could be said by most any Christian, or even the lighter-toned "Good bread, good meat, good Lord, let's eat!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the sign of the cross would be more of a traditional Christian practice, but who's counting.... 86.163.209.18 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what a Mormon website says about it:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Bug's link says, there are no fixed Latter Day Saint prayers over food or any fixed personal prayers. We believe that prayers are a way to talk to a loving heavenly father and should express your personal needs and your feelings of gratitude. The only common elements in a prayer are opening by addressing god, expressing thanks, expressing needs that we have and closing in the name of Jesus. We don't make the sign of the cross since that's not one of our traditions and the cross plays a smaller role in our theology.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we normally just call it "the blessing on the food," or in a mealtime context, just "the blessing" as in, "Would you please say the blessing?" or even just "Would you please bless the food?" rather than "saying grace." (Not that we have a problem with the expression-- we're just not in the habit of using it.) Latter-day Saints (Mormons) don't make the sign of the cross (except perhaps, in curiosity, to imitate those that do). Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient prayers in Odyssey

How did ancient people from, say, the Ancient Greek times pray to the gods? How did they know which god they wanted to pray to, how long, and how often they wanted to pray to that specific god? What if one god becomes extremely jealous that a worshipper devotes so much time and energy on one god but not the other and attacks the village or something? How exactly did Odysseus pray? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prayers were always "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". The formula outlined in Reading Greek by JACT is that you start with a reminder to the god of all the sacrifices you have made, appeal to their sense of pity, sacrifice something, and ask for good weather, calm seas, etc. IBE (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to note that in many places in Classical Greece, monotheism and monolatry were illegal. You showed your piety by giving appropriate honour and respect to several gods - at the very least, the god of the place you were at, and the god relevant to the thing you were doing. You may also be interested in the Homeric Hymns. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about "illegal" (I wonder how many people in 5th-century B.C. Greece even really knew what monotheism was). Rather, practices of acknowledging the gods were a common part of public civic rituals and private hospitality rituals, and someone who refused to participate in such customs was seen as shockingly misanthropic (anti-social and ungrateful), and sometimes as quasi-treasonous if refusal to participate in civic rituals was interpreted as refusing to recognize the obligations which bound him as a citizen of his community. AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was paraphrasing, from memory, a dimly remembered source which I rather think must have been the early part of Karen Armstrong's A History of God. I don't mean that there was a law code, and that it specifically mentioned monotheism, but rather - as you say - that a failure to show due honour to the gods was socially and culturally unacceptable, and might result in exile or ostracism. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of thread that makes me remember how sad/angry I am that Caprica was cancelled.... --Trovatore (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

AnonMoos mentions that they may not have been aware of monotheism - the big question is what awareness did they have of Jews? To the Romans, they were indeed strange - an unusual band of people who paid no attention to the local gods, and were thus ostracised to a degree (I don't know to what degree, I'm merely trying to understate my knowledge). If the Greeks knew about them, I'd be curious to know their reaction. The Hellenic world stretched pretty far by the time of Alexander - someone must have come across Jews, if not by the time of Plato, surely around the time of Aristotle/ Alexander etc. IBE (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the 5th-century B.C. above, and Greeks were not really fully aware of Jews until later, during the Hellenistic period (after Alexander's conquests). At that time, some admired Jews as followers of an elevated "philosophy" and as people who largely kept to a strict code of morality, while others viewed Jews as "haters of humanity" and "atheists" because they refused to participate in many common rituals which helped to bind Greek societies together. Probably the majority regarded Jews as being overburdened with strict (and often rather arbitrary) religious scruples which prevented them from fully integrating into non-Jewish society. AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you mentioned 5th-C, although I had overlooked it by the time I added my post. Still, it relates to the OP's question, so thanks for the update. Do you know of an earliest documented point of contact between the Greeks and the Jews? You state they were "not really fully aware of the Jews" - is there evidence of some vague awareness, or any meaningful cultural contact? IBE (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before Alexander's conquests, the Jews were rather inconspicuous as far as the Greeks were concerned, since Judea ("Yahud") did not have a shoreline, and Jews were not prominent as long-distance traders. The Jewish diaspora was mainly in Persian-ruled areas away from coastlines. Some Greek mercenaries in Egypt would have encountered the Jews of Elephantine (who were by no means strictly monotheistic). If Herodotus referred to Jews at all, he called them "Syrians of Palestine" (which was rather sloppy terminology, since the Jews lived inland, while the term Palestine/Philistia properly referred to the southern coastal plain at that time); and all he knew about them was that they practiced circumcision. I don't think there was any real intellectual interchange until the Hellenistic period. According to Josephus, the first Greek writer to write about Jews in any detail and with any significant degree of understanding was Hecateus of Abdera.... AnonMoos (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverites and the U.S. Democratic Party

Why did the Silverites (those in favor of a silver standard--as opposed to a gold standard) take over the United States Democratic Party in 1896 instead of the United States Republican Party? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Free silver explains the Republican party position on the issue. --Jayron32 13:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gold vs. gold-plus-silver dispute was ultimately about whether debtor-friendly or creditor-friendly monetary policies should be pursued, and the fact that during much of the 19th-century, gold currencies had undergone a long-term deflationary trend, sporadically checked by major gold finds. The Republican party as it existed in 1896 was hardly likely to take the debtor-friendly side... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the GOP was too pro-business back in the 1890s for them to ever be taken over by the Silverites? Futurist110 (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to phrase it that way. The leading Republican party organizer and money-man in 1896 was Mark Hanna... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... there were Silver Republicans in the West, especially. But you have to remember that silver had its hold mostly in the rural population. In the South, the (white) rural folk were going to be Democrats, and they would not have changed to the Republican party for anything due to Lincoln and also the Republican party in the South was dominated by blacks. So it was either take over the Dems or start a third party, of which there were already too many in 1896. Besides, they were very angry at President Cleveland for supporting gold, so they were more inclined to take over than look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epitaph

I would like to know if there is an epitaph starting with "I am not here". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.43.223 (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Futurist110 (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a long shot, as I'm not certain I understand the question, but are you perhaps thinking of Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep? OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that one too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

121.203.43.223 -- If there's no body, then it's a "cenotaph", not a burial... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Who mentioned burials? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that if a tombstone inscription begins "I am not here", then it's likely a cenotaph... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I can just imagine inventor Valdemar Poulsen's tombstone reading, "I'm not in at the moment, but if you leave me a message ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the idea is that whether or not the person's mortal remains are entombed in the spot in question, the person themself is not there. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the explanation. In fact, although we say that so-and-so was buried someplace, it's the body that's buried, not the "person". The tombstones are monuments, in memory of the deceased. The deceased person is not there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm here at last ... did I miss anything? IBE (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of something Garrison Keillor once said: "They say such nice things about you at funerals; it's a shame I'm going to miss mine by a few days." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyway AnoMoos, the distinction you're trying to make is not between cenotaphs and burials, but between cenotaphs and gravestones / tombstones / headstones. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories

you have been warned about WP:BLP before--don't make baseless suggestions of criminal intent

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

Couldn't there be one regarding [criminal speculation removed]?. I mean, there are so many senseless conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 14:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the real world version of WP:BEANS. I can come up with whatever crazy-ass conspiracy theory I feel like. I see no reason to entertain the possible existence of a conspiracy theory that no-one has actually been shown to believe in. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, help

Can anybody help me? How can I contact Theodore Olson, former husband of Barbara Olson. I'm making an essay for the University about the September 11 attacks and would like to interview him. Kotjap (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you can google an answer to that yourself given that he is a high profile lawyer, and it doesn't seem quite appropriate to be giving out people's personal addresses etc on here. ---- _nonsense ferret 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Least of all to someone who has, half an hour previous, accused that person's ex-spouse of involvement in exceedingly serious criminal activity. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least comprehend this?

I took this at the middle part of the essay, any way what can you say? I posted it here since it is related to humanities.

Every man has the interest of self-preservation and the security of property. In a nature where every person is solitary, no one can assure the preservation of himself and his belongings. Thus, it is a must that he would agree with other men in limiting their greed, in such manner that all of their desires can be satisfied. Because, if anyone can kill a person just to satisfy his needs all of us cannot assure our self-preservation. An agreement among us is a must. It is possible that some men may tolerate pain greater than others, but because every person has his limits he would also feel pain at some point. To lessen the possibility of this, he should agree with other men by forging a society where each of us can live peacefully. This society demands the "universalization of moral ideas". Thus, you still have to agree with my terms so that we can form a society even if you have a higher tolerance to pain. Of course, the stronger man would conform to the majority because his endurance has its limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly sure that the reference desk is an appropriate place to ask for opinions about the school essay you have written - I assume you are also the poster from [2]. ---- _nonsense ferret 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'll note - assuming you're the same person who asked for help with something like this recently - is that as well as being quite poorly argued and rambling, your work is written in a very old-fashioned way. Few would now begin a paragraph with "Every man..." unless they wished to say something about the state of men as distinct from women, rather than humans as distinct from animals. And please, please, never use the expression 'you (still) have to agree with my terms', in this or any other context. Nobody is compelled to agree to your terms. It's just not true, and it comes across as unspeakably arrogant, and very poor philosophical argumentation. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with these sorts of questions - in practice, they come up occasionally, and don't lead to the silly arguments and long-winded posts of religious/ theological questions. However, you got a good answer in the other place you posted, although everyone is a little blunt. You are repeating ideas that more or less restate a weaker version of the categorical imperative of Kant, in not so many words, nor perhaps so few. Your basic argument is clear enough, but doesn't add substance to the idea, which every educated person is familiar with. Your prose definitely needs work, but is not unreadable. IBE (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my best attempt at interpreting this: Every man wants to protect himself and his property. Since everyone is alone nowadays, one can't be guaranteed that his welfare/life and his property will be protected. Thus people should be less greedy so that they will have less things to possibly lose. Everyone should be satisfied with what they have in order to avoid killing other people for their property. We must agree what belongs to whom, since even the strongest and toughest men/people have their limits when it comes to pain, suffering, and losing things. We must agree to a universal morality in order to have a better society where we can all live peacefully and happily. Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There. How was that? Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's paragraph is strikingly similar to social contract theory. I definitely don't see how it's at all similar to the categorical imperative, or any of Kant's other ideas. Alex claims that "you have to agree with my terms" is arrogant. I agree that it's poor writing, but morality is, almost by definition, prescriptive. In other words, I can impose my morals upon you if those morals are correct, whether you like it or not. A principle which isn't prescriptive is not morality; it's a mere preference. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I agree with your assessment of Alex's claim regarding arrogance. It doesn't come out at all arrogant in context - it is not a pure assertion, but part of an argument. I think social contract theory sounds closer than the categorical imperative. The link to the categorical imperative is simply that the OP is using the "do unto others" logic to argue for underlying universal maxims, that must form the basis for our actions. In this case, it is limited to fear of murder/ warfare, but "universalisation of moral ideas" is still hitting a deeper nerve than mere social contract theory, which could be limited to just behaviour. I would still agree that your assessment is better, because the OP's claim lacks any statement that you must act on the basis of a maxim that you think should be universal. The argument instead is a bit softer - it talks more of pragmatism. In summary, the pragmatic reasoning looks like social contract theory; the elevation to "universalisation" looks like a first blush at a categorical imperative, but not much more. The article social contract theory has a section on John Rawls which claims his Theory of Justice is a form of social contract theory with a Kantian flavour - I am merely guessing, but I suspect this is a reference to the categorical imperative. The two are not exactly dissimilar, I think. The OP might be interested in Rawls - his book is often quoted, and still significant. IBE (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]