Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3

What did John do?

I'm really confused about what John the Bapt[ist]/[izer] was doing. The relevant WP pages talk about his influence more than his practices. He baptised people, and... what else? Do we have any idea what his 'church' looked like? Temerarius (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John the Baptist's work is described in the Gospels and the book of Acts. I don't recall that he had a church, just that he was at a river doing baptisms. But the more religiously astute here might be able to tell you more. However, your best bet would be to read for yourself the full references in those books of the Bible. Then you'll know as much as anyone else does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think expert comparative reading could glean more than non expert reading of gospels. Our article has one para from Josephus for example. Anyone? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Josephus entry adds some opinions to the mix, but doesn't answer the OP's question. Nor does any of the comparative analysis in the article, which appears to be mostly about establishing who John the Baptist was. The basic question seems to be, do the Gospels reveal anything about how John operated, beyond hanging around the river and waiting for people to come by and get baptized? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an area within which current readers can surmise: non-sadducee alignment; particular interest in water cleanness; division between temple and body cleanness; absence for centrality of temple discourse within the previous prophecy discourse; potential millennialism. There's a load here whether you're part of the fandom or not, and whether you view particular texts as canon, fanon, or fan-universe or not. In particular John didn't have a "church" in any post-council-of-jerusalem christian understanding but did make untainted water baths amenable to (at least) John's dipping central. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a reference interview. Where have you looked so far, besides the Wikipedia articles (and which ones, besides John the Baptist)? What do you know about him? If you're strictly seeking clarification about the content in the Wikipedia article, a good answer will be different from a good answer to another kind of question. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John was a prophet. He was from a miraculous birth. According to Luke 1:36, his mother was too old to conceive, but was six months pregnant with John when Jesus was conceived. According to Luke 3:2, John heard God while he was in the wilderness. He then went around preaching baptism and repentance (Luke 3:3). The importance here is that a prophet was required to lead the way for Jesus, as foretold by old prophecy (Isaiah 40:3). In the end, the purpose of mentioning John the Baptist is that Jesus had to be preceded by a prophet who heard the word of God in the wilderness. Otherwise, he would not be accepted as the Lord. Similar, seemingly pointless, events are detailed as well, such as Jesus riding a donkey when he enters Jerusalem, which was foretold in Zechariah 9:9. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although according to John Ch. 1, v. 21 John the Baptist denied that he was a prophet:

'They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."'

(v. 22) 'Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"'

(v. 23) John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"'

However, this still agrees with User:209's comments above. Clarity is not always a strong point of the Gospels. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between "a prophet" and "the prophet". John was asked if he was "the prophet", clearly a specific prophet, generally understood to be a reference to Moses' prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15 (note that even the translation you cited capitalizes the word Prophet to indicate this). - Lindert (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to go into broader context about the Roman rulers. Apparently Herodias divorced Herod II to marry Herod Antipas The Herod II article quotes Josephus as saying that this divorce of a living husband and remarriage was taken to be contrary to the law of [some country]; John the Baptist was apparently one of the critics. The notion that people would care what he thought perhaps should give some insight into his relative importance -- though censorship-minded rulers sometimes elevate very obscure individuals to fame! Yet the article says Antipater (son of Herod the Great), the firstborn of these three sons, also criticized the marriage, so one wouldn't expect that point of view to have been too uncommon... Wnt (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes humans unique and different from all other animals?

According to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons elephants have more neurons in their whole nervous system than humans while long-finned whales have more neurons in their cerebral cortex. If they're smarter than humans does that mean there's nothing that makes humans unique and different from all other animals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDoe30001 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says the number of neurons determines intelligence. Science has long since accepted that humans are a type of animal. Also, as this article explains, there's not just one standard of intelligence but various kinds of intelligence. Some animals are much better are a variety of tests than we are, but none of them appear to have the specific combination of complex communication, tool use, and metacognition that we have. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant and whale also have much bigger bodies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's final statement (buried in a question) is correct. There is actually nothing that makes humans unique and different from all other animals. That's just an ego trip (self-belief is useful), and a belief foisted on people by various religions. It's worth looking at the work of Frans De Waal on this matter. (He was named as one of Time Magazine's 100 World’s Most Influential People Today.) For almost every attribute humans have that they think they are good at, it's possible to find an animal much better at that particular thing. We've just been lucky that our particular combination works fairly well most of the time. Given that evolution is not finished, and humans have been around for only a small fraction of the time it has been going on, odds are something more successful will turn up one day. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that there's likewise nothing that makes elephants unique and different from all other animals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants are really good at the things it's useful for elephants to be good at. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's much better to look at encephalization quotient than raw numbers of neurons. Second, there are simply NOT any non-human animals who are "much better at" the main defining features of human language than humans are. Look at the Charles F. Hockett article to see some of what is involved... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Humans are good at human language. But are they any good at the languages other creatures use? HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the Charles F. Hockett article? Other animals certainly have communications systems, but fall short of what would normally be called "language" according to any full definition. If animal communications systems basically only refer to the immediate here and now (predator alarm calls, declarations of emotional status, and commands), without ability to talk of the past or future or to explore hypotheticals, then such systems do not remotely approach human language. AnonMoos (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to prove that animal communications systems basically only refer to the immediate here and now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't have to do it myself, since it's already been done by scholars referred to directly or indirectly in the Displacement (linguistics) article (connected to the Charles F. Hockett article, no surprise). A small number of animal communications systems have limited ability for "displacement" for one particular thing (most notably the "dances" of bees). None has remotely human abilities... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are humans very good at using dance to tell others where good stuff is. A few specialists maybe, but most of us are crap. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is unfortunately absurd and useless in that form. Human language allows one human to tell another where a food patch is located in far more detail than bees ever do -- and also allows many other types of "displacement" communication which bees are totally incapable of. The fact that we use digital "duality of patterning" instead of limited analog dances is precisely one of the reasons why human language is so much more powerful in its communicative capacity than anything done by bees. I find your pose of uninformed and indiscriminate relativism to be rather tiresome and tedious at this point. AnonMoos (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I respect your thoughts too. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do any non-human animal species make plans for the future? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many species store food. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can they play chess? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A) Why would thy want/need to. B) This has devolved into a debate which is NOT what a ref desk is for. MarnetteD|Talk 03:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

God: "I have made Mankind." Angels: "You fucked up a perfectly good monkey is what you did. Look at it. It's got anxiety. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, humans are the only animals to be documented as having debates about what makes them unique from other animals. Indeed, as far as I can tell, it is the defining characteristic of humans that makes them unique from every other animal.--Jayron 32 04:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every animal is unique from other species in one way or another. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I point out from the top of this reference desk page: "The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources."Please see WP:Reference desk/Guidelines. This is not an internet forum for people to argue their personal opinions in. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All species have something that makes them unique and different from all other species; otherwise they wouldn't be different species. This type of question often confuses "different" with "better", to which the answer is "humans have nothing which makes them inherently better than all other species" 89.225.227.82 (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... humans invented Wikipedia 😋 Blueboar (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

89.225.227.82 -- "Better" is a term of moral judgement, and endless collected facts of zoology couldn't establish that one species is "better" than another, because that's simply not what science does (i.e. "the gap between is and ought"). However, to answer the original question in the title of this subsection, humans have a communication system which in several respects thoroughly surpasses in capabilities any known animal communication system, and we've taken advantage of this (and our tool-making and tool-using skills) to thoroughly reshape the environment to meet our wants and needs. AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you write here is of course correct: there is at least one thing that makes humans unique. My point is that there is nothing special or the least bit surprising about that - there is at least one thing that makes each and every species unique. 89.225.227.82 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who, besides you, says there's nothing special or the least bit surprising about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very much the dictionary definition of "different". So I guess I'm going to cite "OED" on that one. 37.174.142.138 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to spell that out here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to comfort your phenomenological position you are of course welcome to do so. You're likely to find yourself doing so alone, however; the rest of us moved on from that sort of rhetoric years ago 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:99A6:251C:390:619A (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try that again, this time in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, it's all just a matter of degree. There is Tool use by animals, but animals can't create something remotely similar to a PC or a cell phone. There are cases of some basic animal self-awareness, but hardly any animal wonders about his existence as a species or their place in the cosmos. There are social animals, but none have a society as complex as the human civilization. There is Animal communication, but no animal can write Macbeth or Don Quixote (except perhaps an infinite number of monkeys with infinite typewriters during an infinite amount of time). Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer to all of that is that neither a PC nor Macbeth would be of any use to most non-human animals. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USB or not USB? That is the question. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly Macbeth -- it's the fact that chimpanzees and gorillas intensively trained for years as part of ape-human communication experiments still lack a basic understanding of language syntax which most human three-year-olds are able to master. For that matter, a basic pre-requisite for any ape-human communication experiments is that the apes have to be taught a form of communication which lacks the duality of patterning basic to human languages. In any case, humans have done pretty well with language (as far as populating the globe goes), while chimpanzees and gorillas have remained confined to tropical Africa for millions of years... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, humans do language well. But some would argue that their efforts in populating the globe have not been all a bed of roses. Especially not for the other animals. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... I don’t hear any of the other animals complaining. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our wanton plundering of natural resources certainly makes us unique and different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a PC and Macbeth are not really useful for us either: they do not help us to get food, protect ourselves from predators, survive from other threats, reproduce or other basic natural actions. They are part of our civilization, which is basically our group of actions not directly related to the "survive & perpetuate the species" natural mandate. Perhaps that may be a distinctive human trait, but I don't know which Wikipedia article would talk about this to confirm it of fix it (I also thought until some hours ago that we were the only animals capable to use tools, but now I stand corrected). However, I have once read somewhere that if a human is left in the wild from an early age to survive for himself, he would eventually behave like an animal, and not like people do when raised in a civilized enviorement. Cambalachero (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"MacBeth" probably helped Shakespeare and various actors and theater workers to be able to purchase food around 1606, and so contributed to their survival. Similarly, if someone uses a personal computer to make money or learn about severe weather conditions, it could help contribute to their survival. Humans can have a very elaborate culture which is different between different human groups, but the downside to this is that it takes years for a child to learn the culture of their group... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article that may be of interest: How Would We Know If Intelligent Life Existed on Earth Before Humans?. The documentary The World Without Us proves that, if the human race vanished from the planet, the remains of our civilization would last for very little, and in just a couple thousand years it would be almost impossible to discover that the human civilization even existed at all. Cambalachero (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very skeptical of this claim. Potsherds are durable, high melting point "rocks" that ought to show up as fossils or "conglomerate (geology)" even many millions of years later. However eroded, I think they would still erode to brightly colored pebbles with some unusual properties that I'd expect would get geologists' attention even under a microscope. And almost any civilization with fire and a need to store stuff should have invented pots. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A future technological civilization should be able to tell the existence of the current technological civilization from the abundance and distribution of deposits of metals, fossil fuels, and radioactive ores. It would take many millions of years of continental subduction and ocean-floor spreading to start to get rid of that evidence... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[admittedly, this is way too much speculation, but...] Well, yes, if you find the Statue of Liberty poking up somewhere, that would be a clue. ;) Even if the metal would really largely oxidize to powder and wash away, even if the concrete wore apart from acid and the bricks and glass were washed away and pounded to sand in the surf, the sewer lines running under the harbor would be damn hard to hide from a geologist able to search the future surface of the land. I mean, they have to come out somewhere, and they ought to leak colored metal ions for a very long time.

But presuming an earthly origin, any lost land-based civilization probably should pass through a phase of pottery, so I'd think it would be a more reliable indicator. Fires in caves, used to find ancient human species, would be even more ancient, hence more reliable, but might be prone to be written off; besides, another species might have the good sense not to go in caves. I suppose you might miss one that is deeply afraid of fire and can't stand the smell of it -- humans seem to have had ancestors in areas like the Okavango Delta that have annual wildfires that would deliver precooked meat to those that could adapt to stand the smell and clever and nimble enough to avoid the flames. A civilization not preadapted to fire might discover it only at a much later stage of development, and wouldn't be building smelters. Even so, they ought to leave some nifty flint arrowheads in rock layers where they don't belong! Unless they're also totally nonviolent, but what about art objects, beads carved from shells? Well, maybe you have a civilization of birds that just chirp about higher math problems and never actually do anything with the knowledge -- that I can't rule out in the past, and I'm not sure I can rule it out outside the window now. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny anomalies in radioactive isotope distributions led to the discover of the Oklo Natural nuclear fission reactor after 1.7 billion years, and human activities could presumably have greater effects. For example, it's said that 1/3rd of accessible Earth crustal copper is in use, 1/3 is in landfills and junkyards, and 1/3 is still in the ground. If humans were to soon die off, evidence of this unnatural distribution would probably remain for a long time, even after there were no longer any real recognizable copper artefacts... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes humans unique and different from all other animals is asking questions like this.PiCo (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neaa dit dit waaaaah click click eeeaah? ;-) No I don't believe whales ask questions like this. But I bet we are missing an awful lot of what is actually happening. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]